Opt-out forms for organ 'robbery'

last SG · 2007-02-11T22:34:26+00:00

go read HOTA.. btw, this is an administrative asswipe in the hospital being an.. asswipe.. i know it's hard for people not to, but try not to politicise it?

fymk SG

You want proper reasons from me? I already listed some of them before and stupidissmart accused me of influencing others. So just for the sake of his reference , you asked the question and I answered out in the open. These are the answers ranked according to importance.

First, to prepare for transplantation you need to keep the body alive for a while sometimes to the moment of removal. I have moral and religious objections to that aspect of transplantation. There are cases of botched organ transplant donors who were just taken off the ventilator so that they will DIE and donate their organs to someone else. even though they were given a variable rate of survival. I found it extremely distasteful and disgusting which comes down to reason number 2. Look at this link for further details: http://www.wf-f.org/02-3-OrganDonation.html

Second, I have a general mistrust of the government and the health structures. The mistrust is great enough from my personal experience.

Third , it is my firm belief should I ever choose to be a cadaveric donor - I would be willing to overwrite reason no. 1 for my relatives who will have preference over those on the list when it comes to my organs if they are on the list . Less chance of organ rejection and they know it is from me and will treat it with respect.

Fourth , I have seen how rejected organs are treated . Let me put it this way in case someone accuses me of discouraging people from donating again. My organs work well for me and they are a part of me now since I am alive. I would like my organs to be treated with respect and I would like to buried with me if they are rejected from the recipient's body. However this will never happen.

Those are my reasons for not donating. Might not be valid enough for you but it is valid enough for me.

Below is what someone has written so poignantly about the same aspects I am commenting on which you deem such a humanitarian insult. Of course , I am not a very eloquent person.

" Organ donation has become a kind of sacred cow - in our society today no one is supposed to criticize any aspect of it lest lives be lost. But as in any other issue involving ethical principles, we must be sure that a desired good end does not justify any and every means of accomplishing that end."

First an auto opt in ....next time don't be surprised if the policy changes to below given the perchant of policymakers for only listening to scholars.

That is why I am strongly support rights in this matter.

"We propose that individuals who desire to donate their organs and who are either neurologically devastated or imminently dying should be allowed to donate their organs, without first being declared dead". - Robert D. Truog, MD, FCCM;Walter M. Robinson, MD, MPH, Critical Care Medicine.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Are you choosing to eat only one portion of your meal and leave the rest untouched? Are you content to work to the amount you deem fit while avoiding looking at the duty sheet on the wall to see what really needs to be done?

Unfortunately it seems you have only acquainted yourself with but one side of the issue, this is quite evident from the fact the links you provided are but to support your own view without truly accounting for any counter arguments. More surprisingly, you even let OM (of all people!) debunk one of them. Does this go to show that you do not do proper research and are but wanting/trying to believe what you want to believe. Unfortunately there are plenty of immediate answers to your doubts and fears but it seems that you have not even started to look into them, given that even OM could stop one of your arguments.

But your failings to present an honest case aside have you actually gone on to fully explore your questions about organ donation? Or are you content to sit on a bunch of reasons that you feel boosters your case sufficiently, some of which have proven false.

It is no surprise our governmental scheme on organ donation inspires no confidence, however you have come to mistake the theory of the thing with the very way it is often abused and applied. This is no surprise considering you often invoke rights without knowing the theory of rights in the first place. Which often begs the question if you know nothing of your rights, what gives you the rights to assert them in the first place? But I digress.

Back to the issue- it is indeed unfortunate you have chosen as you did for the simple reason the system is flawed. You cannot seriously think that your opting out is any form of a remedy, answer or protest to either the question of unethical governmental policies or the very real question of organ failure. In regards your actions are but a measure of self-preservation- in which regards you do not need to justify your actions for everyone understands it as an animal instinct. But then it means theres really no need for you to discuss anything in here for indeed you never had a stance to begin with.

But for the sake of an argument, lets assume you actually have a stance you intend to justify (which you have by and so far failed to even put up a proper indication of that). The question is this: despite all the unethical governmental policies and clout what is the appropriate thing to do? After weighting all the options it is still a rather inexorable conclusion that the right thing to do would still be to help those suffering from organ failure when our lives are more or so over, as opposed to trying to thwart a flawed policy. Doctors still treat criminals even through they know these people are a danger to society.

The question is this? How does one deal with the unethical aspects of this issue then? Certainly not by your studious avoidance of it by exercising this thing called choice. I am all for changing the flawed policies, making people more involved, rooting out the dark practices in this life-saving trade and what have you not however as and when we do our value judgements, at the end of the day one realizes there is still more then enough justification to be an organ donor in Singapore.

Just because there is exploitation and abuse does not preclude the validity and need of a certain thing. In the same way, has anyone decided to censor you considering how you have been indeed abusing your freedom of speech?

At the end of the say, you have demonstrated quite clearly by your words: Whatever justifications that make you see post-mortem organ donation as disgusting due to its darker abuses and what have you not are but a convenient strap-on to your key ideology of often irrational post-mortem self-preservation. It is proven quite clearly your lack of disgust and dismissive attitude at the needless deaths in our society as an issue of flippant choice. Do you really need anybody to declare such a stance hypocritical? The very fact that you sought to defend yourself from the term even before I bothered to raise it shows that it is rather clear to everyone and yourself.

Your lack of ability to see both sides of the issue is what truly kills your position in here, not your lack of eloquence (which can be overcome with good reason) or strong reason (which can be overcome with honesty). You obsesses so much over the warts and flaws and rush headlong into defending your rights that you do not mind contradicting yourself to do it ironically destroying whatever reason you had in the first place. As I said if you do not care for the consequences of your actions, what right did you have to them in the first place? If you do not truly see all the alternatives what true choice have your ever made?

If your reason seem justified to you, it can only be from denial of a most studious kind the kind that encourages this thing called survival of the fittest. Is it any surprise your actions not only do not change the policy, but instead draw out the excesses in it? I said it before: its like trying to find the best way to put out a house on fire without saving the most important things first.

If you havent noticed we are already de-facto in that state.

But what allowed us to get to such a state? Precisely mentalities such as yours- those who chose to go along with their half-justifications and faulty logics to insist on a particular course of action and define it as approved because it is right. Is not this the kind of mentality that allowed such a culture of governance to arise in the first place?

Those are my reasons for not donating. Might not be valid enough for you but it is valid enough for me.

Which once again proves your rather huge error in judgement when realizing facts. In things like this there are no valid for you or valid for me reasons, simply either valid or invalid reasons. Even if I was not here to contradict you (or even be aware of your stance), it would have no bearing on the validity of your reasons. As in quantum physics as they might say, you collapse your own wave function.

Truth will be truth and I am not surprised you are experiencing cognitive dissonance because your valid reasons become invalid to yourself when you try to weight them against other things. If I am here or not hardly has any bearing to the fact that you have rather failed to provide a sufficient answer to the questions raised against you.

I am not really here to tear you down or what all I can say is that for the sake of many people for whom this is life and death do educate yourself on this topic properly before making huge opinions and you will realize it is not anymore a guilt trip then a person pointing out a rather real and unpleasant consequence of your stance cannot avoid bringing some discomfort to you. Truly you have proven yourself to be the emotional one here, perhaps its time you see beyond that.

stupidissmart SG

Actually initially I wanna give it a rest but your latest reply seems to be targeted on me as a person. Since u desire an answer from me so much, here it goes

I can beak down all our recent arguments into the same old points

1) Free speech

NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY say u cannot have free speech. And u practise your free speech by saying watever u like. But U have to be responsible for wat u say. Free speech doesn't means u can wildly accuse anything and expect no one to hold wat u say as accoutable. In america where there r free speech, politician still have to be careful of wat they say because people r gonna held u accountable for the things u said. Nobody is charging u or arresting u for making statements. U get your free speech. But people r forming their opinion of u by the things u say and their impact. If u have been careless about your speech, don't blame it on the notion of free speech

2) Discouraging organ donation

U claim u have not discourage organ donation, but on many aspect especially in the earlier pages, u did discourage donation. There r many replies which u give tat discourage people from organ donation. U claim making statements such as doctors harvesting organs before u die, or do not want to tilt nature balance, tat life after getting a organ is still terrible and many others statement. Now how on earth can u say u never discourage people from donating organs ? U r stating your point, and your points discourage people from donating organs. If tis is not discouraging people from donating organs, then wat is discouraging people from donating organs ?

3) Name calling

The exchange goes both ways. I have admitted I am lazy and do not filled out the form at my inconvenience. I have also stated tat there r many people who r like me as well. But tis is a point which u conveniently forget and never reply to it. About the point of heartless, it is plainly because watching a person die without lifting a finger to help, and encouraging people not to help, is heartless. It takes 2 hands to clap. U yourself r guilty of making others go through "guilt trip" by constantly repeating the fact tat I am lazy and heartless etc.

4) Religious issue

I have already clearly stated tat the chances of misrepresentation for a religious person is very low. I have also stated tat the world cannot cater to all the very low chances of things tat happened, such as the molest case. We r not living in the ideal world and we have to make a stand to protect the majority of society. In tis case, many people could have saved versus the very low possibility tat a miscommunication occured. And your scenario of accidental donating of person is ridiculously low. Do u want me to state how low it is again ?

5) Rights of choice

Nobody force u to donate your organs. U can choose not to donate all u want. But then u go beyond your rights and start a campaign tat suggest organs donations is causing yourself danger, then we should be suspicious of the gov and opt out, and doctors harvesting your organs before your time, of tilting balance lopsided, of not eliminating the weaker people in society etc.

Now tis is not about your personal rights anymore, it becomes a debate on whether should people donate their organs to the pros and cons of an auto opt in system. U just say tat people should deliberately choose auto opt out, but when they told u the numbers is not enough, more population simply don't care for the issue and don't mind donating, it is for the general good of the socity, your points become repeated and u simply state we should adopt an auto opt out system. Your points tat religious people mistakenly donate their organs have already been countered in (4). Wat other points do u have ?

6) Education

It is already shown in the MOH website tat certain measures have been taken to ensure people know about the HOTA. There is a website on it, he send a note to every address, they print the newspaper twice yearly in all 4 official languages, they have the necessary forms etc at the public hospital, they inform PR and newly joined citizen, they teach the children during moral education, the head of religion is informed of its decision and it spend 1/2 year trying to inform the public of HOTA. It is easy for u to say tat it is not enough, they should do more etc. But wat exactly is enough ? They can spend millions every and print the newspaper everyday and u will still say it is not enough. Which part of the population do not know about HOTA after these measures have been taken ?

Lastly about the reply on Keneshi, please read wat he is replying to foomee88

Nothing 2 said cauz my c is 2 big 4 yr mouth!!!!

Com'on man. Tis is plain vulgarities. Do u blame him for replying the reply he gave ?

Kenashi SG

do u really care about being in one piece or buried in the same place after u r dead? is it about religon that say that if yr body r not in one piece, u won't find peace in yr afterlife??
the same thing can be said about u then, ppl can also say that u got this mental block which cannot make u more generous??? just follow some ppl's thinking who want to keep their body to themselves??
everyone got their own way of thinking, we ain't sheep???
if u choose to do what u want with yr body, no one can said u r right or wrong.

Kenashi SG

Originally posted by fymk:

What a piece of crappy argument that violates the right of a person to consent to the use of his body.

As much as I empathise with those on the waiting list , I cannot help but think as a human being once alive , I might get treated like some machinery to be automatically taken apart if I had not opted out for the so call superior right to life.

You forget a person had to die to get there. Grieving families may well block doctors from harvesting the organs and that will not help anything. [b] If the person signed a consent prior to death , the families will respect wishes of the dead .

You show lack of respect for the grieving people the person left behind. You show lack of respect for the dead person who was once a breathing living human being. That really makes it all wrong. [/b]

i have seen relatives who block harvesting of organs even when the deceased signed the consent form. they can said that the deceased don't know what he is doing n delay the process until the organs are unusable.
think of it this way, a part of yr relative is still living on this earth, in the recipient's body.

Kenashi SG

i can't see a lack of proper education get u Laughing
furthermore i don't have a god n i ain't a god

Kenashi SG

Originally posted by fymk:

The above comment comes from a forumner who also have the same argument of non-donors being selfish and automatic opt in suppporter .

And you fellas want to question my humanity or alleged heartlessness ? I find that absolutely laughable.

Well, it is kind of interesting to know although he claims to support lives through organ donorship , he also tends to curse a person with such ridiculous severity just because that person is in direct conflict with him on certain aspects of the thread.

As for those who strongly said that I am heartless because I argue on the premise of supporting individual rights first: if you cannot be bothered opting in prior to the scheme citing lack of time while knowing the real issues at heart, who are you to call me heartless or imply that I am inhumane in the first place?

[b] You are just no better than what you make me out to be. Citing lack of time or cannot be bothered signing up is not a justification of your so called self righteous humanitarian cause towards an automatic opt in system to gain organ donations.

All you can see is the 'waste of organs' . Among all reasons, I also refused to be treated like a piece of machinery to be cannibalised through the opt in system - I would have much prefered it if I was treated with some respect to what I might have done with my body by giving me some knowledge and benefit of organ donation, then the coin could probably have flipped the other way - do you have an issue with my view on that?

I don't mind a voluntary opt in system where the organ status is stated on your IC or driver's licence. Singapore is well placed to do that with all our NRIC cards or driver licence cards.

At least I got my own reasons as nonsensical as it sounds to some of you but it is quite valid to me. At least I have discussed it with my family and bothered to sign out of the system rather than to run my family through the painful task of deciding last minute in my sudden demise of what to do with me.

At least for sure, I know I am no hypocrite. [/b]

yeah n u r a very selective looker.
u only see what u want to see.
any reasonable person who seen what i am replying to, can't really fault me.
i find it laughable that u called us a hypocrite when u sound like a bigger fraud than us combined. u still so sure, u ain't a hypocrite Rolling Eyes

fymk SG

Truth will be truth and I am not surprised you are experiencing cognitive dissonance because your valid reasons become invalid to yourself when you try to weight them against other things. If I am here or not hardly has any bearing to the fact that you have rather failed to provide a sufficient answer to the questions raised against you.

I am not really here to tear you down or what all I can say is that for the sake of many people for whom this is life and death do educate yourself on this topic properly before making huge opinions and you will realize it is not anymore a guilt trip then a person pointing out a rather real and unpleasant consequence of your stance cannot avoid bringing some discomfort to you. Truly you have proven yourself to be the emotional one here, perhaps its time you see beyond that.
[/b]

Not really. You are just plainly dismissing the other side of the argument on organ donations lightly and taking the convenient and patronising moral high ground with me. Emotional argument - that is what you are using too as much as you like to think otherwise.

Let me point out that NONE of you have ACTUALLY tried to rebuff about harvesting organs from functioning bodies except for one who seems to think that accidents happen and " too bad " if it happens , and one absolutely absurd allegation that I am USING it to discourage people. How the heck do they keep organs from deteriorating - ask yourself this. That is why I prefer to have people KNOW the FULL disclosure of how transplants are ran and then make the decision themselves.

Informed consent applies both ways to the living and the dead . The dead person should never be seen as a source of organs . That is my moral belief that the dead person used to be a living human being with loved ones . Doctors take full consent of surgeries and the risks involved - I am sure OM will be well aware of the Bollam Test when it comes down to informed consent. Likewise I want people to have the full disclosure of what happens when they harvest organs from them other than the usual practice of explaining that "your body will be treated with utmost respect". I am for informed consent. Like it or not.

There are some people who seen the positive side of things at work . I am one of the unfortunate ones who seen the negative side of things at work which influences me. The only exception I will make is for my family to receive my organs if they are unfortunate to be on the list because love of a parent /a sibling conquers even religion.

I never ever took up organ donationship because of my reasons . Either you can choose to respect them or you can blatantly go on your crusade about how selfish people are or inhumane if they do not donate their organs.

I opted out the moment the HOTA came on. And there is not only me out there with such a thought - there are plenty in the world. If I am half hearted , I would not bother. If I am convinced, I will do it. Right now I am opted out. So I am not that confused after all .

Kenashi SG

well, first of all, the harvesting of organs is from the deceased.
u r worried about they harvesting yr organs when u r alive???
that's just like u worrying that the sky is going to fall n the government didn't do anything about it.
what is there to rebuff??
there are always some black sheep somewhere in this world, someone who will break the rules or laws, that doesn't meant that everyone is going to do it.
u don't like the system, u can opt out. that's it.

fymk SG

Once the body is dead - the organs deteriorate rapidly - full shutdown so actually no you cannot say it is in death that they remove it . The body is then supported artificially or so it is claimed while they search for a proper recipient. Let me see - do they actually take the organs out while measuring the blood pressure and heartbeat of the donor? It is easy to find surgical procedures and processes on live patients but it is very difficult to find the organ harvesting procedure out in the open.

So can someone kindly educate me if I am wrong?

I am sure that MOH's the standard method of determining death is brain death . In the old days ,it was confirmed through ceased brain and cardiac functions . But in donor days, cessation of cardiac function means degeneration of organs - aka poor quality organs, so they pick brain death.

I would like to point out as well that none of us has ever crossed that barrier and returned to tell which is the right method of declaring a death. So I would not want to be at the end of the scalpel if it is not correct.

Yes I opted out. But I would like to see MOH and the doctors give full disclosure to their unsuspecting donors of what the transplant procedure entails . That is a principle I always have - informed consent to be taken in every single procedure. If you cannot agree with that but choose to argue with me on the moral high ground then really that's too bad - yes you backed a winner of saving lives but you are in fact apathic.

gLc SG

Firstly, I dont see why they should take our organs out for the benefit of others, call me selfish, whatever. How many people, esp the older generations actually heard of this auto opt in thing, dont we have rights to our own body?

In actual fact, imho, I sincerely dont think the gov has done enough to educate the people on how this whole system works. As you said, if i want to choose what I want to do with my body, who are they to take it out without the actual consent. There are cases whereby after a few years where the "victim" is declared brain dead, the "victim" just wakes up suddenly, with no brain/body defects. What if one day, your wife is so called declared brain-dead and they wanna remove her organs, then maybe only until then you'll get what im saying. Im entitled to my opinion as well.

fymk SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

6) Education

It is already shown in the MOH website tat certain measures have been taken to ensure people know about the HOTA. There is a website on it, he send a note to every address, they print the newspaper twice yearly in all 4 official languages, they have the necessary forms etc at the public hospital, they inform PR and newly joined citizen, they teach the children during moral education, the head of religion is informed of its decision and it spend 1/2 year trying to inform the public of HOTA. It is easy for u to say tat it is not enough, they should do more etc. But wat exactly is enough ? They can spend millions every and print the newspaper everyday and u will still say it is not enough. Which part of the population do not know about HOTA after these measures have been taken ?

I cannot be bothered about your other points because I think you are just running around in circles with me on that. However I gladly take you up on this one.

First of all : Education doesn't only mean that you get told that you are saving lives or the picture of the nurse carrying the life saving organ to a hospital .

Prior authorisation from the Transplant Ethics Committees (TEC) is required before a living donor organ transplant can proceed. The TEC would have to be satisfied that two major professional and ethical concerns are adequately addressed. First, the donor thoroughly understands the nature and consequence of the medical procedures and has given his or her full informed consent.

The above pertains to living donors. I cannot see why they should not apply the first premise to potential cadaveric donors and their families.

The donor's body will always be treated with the greatest respect by the transplant team. Any incisions that are made during the removal of organs will be carefully stitched up after the procedure. In the case of cornea donation, an artificial lens will be inserted after the cornea is removed, to cover up the defect.

Absolutely unacceptable for education.

The seven clinical criteria for determining irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain are as follows:

1. the pupils are fixed and non-reactive to strong light
2. there is no corneal reflex;
3. there is no spontaneous motor response to painful stimulus, excluding spinal reflexes,
4. there is no oculeocephalic reflex;
5. there is no gag reflex or reflex response to tracheobronchial stimulation;
6. there is no vestibule-ocular response on instillation of 50 cubic centimetres of ice-cold water into each ear; and
7. there is no spontaneous respiration even with carbon dioxide tension at 50 millimetres or more or mercury.
These tests are to assess whether there is any response to various physical stimuli such as light, touch and pain. Brain death can only be certified if all seven clinical criteria are met.

Unacceptable but oh wait . There are sedatives which can overcome a criteria like that . There are freak cases which do not comply with the criteria. More to come about supplementary tests.

The supplementary tests are to complement the clinical tests. They are not a substitute for the clinical criteria. If six of the seven clinical tests can be performed, the criteria for these six tests must be fully met, that is 6 upon 6, before the doctor proceeds to carry out an ancillary test.

Still unacceptable. They are just a complement not a confirmation even though there could be brain waves going on. I would assume ( due to my lack of education in this area) that brain death can still be declared .

All in all unacceptable when it is a life involved. And like I said - no one has ever returned from the afterlife to tell us whether that method of declaring death is correct. There are however some who returned from the afterlife who saw the great white light when they were actually pronounced as dead. So I think I rather trust the latter than the former.

I am sure that there are a lot of individuals who would be interested in details of how organs are harvested from a presumably dead person. Body kept alive on ventilator or not? Heartbeat and blood pressure measured after death prior to organ removal or not? Anaesthetics used in procurement or paralysing agents ( yes those are used in harvesting) ? If there is a need for paralysing agents - why? If anaesthetics - why?

Those are valid questions and they deserve to get some real answers. Come on!

Ito_^ SG

oei. new year still want to argue. Laughing

Kenashi SG

too bad u live in singapore, they r the government, they will act on it, law by law.
at least this time, u got the option of opt out rather than the HDB blunder
so u going to hang on to a person who is declared brain dead until u see her rot and start decomposing then u will finally admit that she is dead huh??
if u can't even believe the doctor who sworn an oath to help every patient, i don't really know who u can believe anymore???

Kenashi SG

we got too much time on our hands Laughing

Kenashi SG

when did i said that u r wrong in yr own opinion???
no one can said that he is right or wrong since we r all humans
u r just being defensive on what u think is right.

oxford mushroom SG

Originally posted by fymk:
Informed consent applies both ways to the living and the dead . The dead person should never be seen as a source of organs . That is my moral belief that the dead person used to be a living human being with loved ones . Doctors take full consent of surgeries and the risks involved - I am sure OM will be well aware of the Bollam Test when it comes down to informed consent. Likewise I want people to have the full disclosure of what happens when they harvest organs from them other than the usual practice of explaining that "your body will be treated with utmost respect". I am for informed consent. Like it or not.

Since you mentioned me, I will have to respond. For those who are not acquainted, the Bolam test arises from a 1957 case 'Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee', in which Bolam sustained a fracture following electroconvulsive therapy. Mr Bolam claimed that the doctors were negligent in not giving him a muscle relaxant and he had not been warned of this possible side effect of treatment. The court ruling forms the standard for determining dereliction of duty in the tort of negligence.

Put simply, the standard of care expected is that of an ordinary workman who professes an ordinary level of skill. With regard to consent, one might consider if a side effect is of such minute significance that it does not have to be revealed eg. is it necessary to reveal to a patient that an operation carries a 1 in a million chance of a particular adverse effect? If other surgeons who perform the same operation do not reveal that minute level of risk routinely, the defendant can invoke the bolam test to argue that his practice is acceptable.

In the present issue, I am not sure why fymk has raised the issue of consent. We have legislation that facilitates an opt out system of consent. If you do not consent to have your organs donated in the event that you become brain dead, you can register your objection and opt out. If you do nothing, the law makes it legal to assume that you have consented.

The law therefore makes it unnecessary to invoke the bolam test in any dispute about consent for organ donation. It is unnecessary for the doctors to obtain consent from the next of kin with regard to a brain dead victim. All it requires is to check the register of those who have opted out.

As for your statement that 'the dead person should never be seen as a source of organs', your view may well be a minority opinion. According to you then, there will not be any cadaveric transplants and thousands of patients with organ failures are doomed to die along with those who are already dead.

I agree with informed consent but i maintain that the law does not necessarily take it away, provided there is adequate dissemination of information. I do agree that Singaporeans should be aware of the law and its implications, something the recent case in SGH has highlighted. However, the law itself is fine.

oxford mushroom SG

We die in bits and pieces, not all at once. If deprived of oxygen for 3 minutes, the brain becomes damaged irreversibly and dies very quickly. However, other organs can survive longer. If the brain is severely damaged as a result of a stroke or physical insult such as head injury, parts of the brain may shut down and die but the heart and lungs can continue to function, keeping the other organs alive.

The brain is a complex organ with many parts. The part of the brain that maintains vital functions such as the heart and lungs are in the brain stem. So if the brain stem dies, the heart and lungs will stop eventually, but there is a period during which the brain stem is dead but the heart/lungs are still working. This is the window for cadaveric transplant.

The organs are harvested quickly and perfused with cold University of Winsconsin (UW) solution. As long as the transplant is done quickly after the blood supply is cut off, there is a good chance of success.

Because the brain stem is dead, there is no hope of recovery. The person can be deemed to be dead and soon the traditional signs of death, such as the cessation of heart beat, will come about. Whilst the heart and lungs are still functioning, however, the other organs are kept alive. With modern medicine, we can continue to ventilate the lungs mechanically and keep the other organs alive until such time when the heart stops beating. This is the small window of opportunity during which we can harvest the organs for transplantation.

All the major religions of the world have accepted the concept of brain death and the good of cadaveric transplants. Obviously there may be others who believe otherwise. Those who object to it can opt out in Singapore, whilst the majority who do not are allowed to help others have a second lease of life.

fymk SG

Like I said , the information is not adequate. But thank you for your answer about the transplant procedure. I am the minority who has actually seen something that terrifies me about organ transplant .

Informed consent should let people know about what they expect about how they might look after death and what happens when they donate their organs if they wish to know. All I ever get is " you will be treated with respect and dignity" PERIOD.

Do they use anaesthetics or paralytic agents in removal then? Full disclosure of what drugs they use to paralyse the body if the "reflexes" aka "convulsions" play up . If they do feel that it is not acceptable , they can fully withdraw from opting in or they can request that their body gets an adequate amount of anaesthesia to treat their dead body with the same respect of a live body If they feel that the information is adequate - then they can continue opting in.

Brain death is a concept which major religions might accept but not everyone. I am also the minority who refuses to believe in death or that the soul has fully left the body (I do believe in afterlife) until all vital functions has finally ceased.

fymk SG

Maybe you should really check up on what I say - I didn't say I want the person rotting. Check cardiac death and check brain death.

What's wrong with having a brain and cardiac death to declare a person dead? Some religions do believe that as long as the heart is still beating and the blood still flows - the person is alive regardless of a brain function. It has a spiritual meaning to them.

It only results in poorer quality organs but nevertheless organs.

LOL as for the last statement , I worked in hospitals . I seen major fuckups so don't ever try and even question me on this one again. Doctors are only humans who can make mistakes . Medical science is only at the tip of the iceberg . Science does not equate other spiritual beliefs and science does not have answers for everything.

« Previous Page Next Page »