Organ donation after death: thoughts and experiences?

I’d probably take a slightly more flexible approach to this one.

There are always transplant waiting lists, right? And those lists are ranked using some kind of point system—basically a quantitative scale. Let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that the maximum number of points you can rack up on the list is 100.

Okay, so here's the thing: even if someone says they don't want to donate their organs, they could still technically be on that list. But, because of a signed Non-denialism agreement regarding their own organs, they get hit with 80 negative points.

You haven't actually denied them any rights—they're still on the list—but as for the fact that they'll never actually reach the top? Well, I mean, who's to blame for that...

But honestly, I completely get where the Jehovah's Witnesses are coming from. They won't donate blood, they won't receive it, they won't give organs, and they won't take them (though if we're talking about minors, well, if I were running the government, I'd definitely stick my nose in there).

Jose Miller3 said:But I am 100% behind the stance taken by Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't want blood, they won't accept it, and they won't take organs either—though if we're talking about minors, well, if I were running the government, I’d definitely step in there.

Not to mention they foot the bill for their own care.
I remember reading about a woman who just gave birth at a hospital—I think it was an ExxonMobil-funded facility—who refused a transfusion. From what I recall, the medical costs ended up being massive. According to the news, the maternity ward had to cover those expenses for an entire month! All that could have been settled with one simple transfusion.
If people make these choices, they should happily pick up the tab instead of draining our public healthcare system. At the end of the day, if we all want to follow our own special ideas, we should be ready to pay the extra price!

jadesailor14 said:Plus they end up footing the bill for their own treatment themselves.
Not that long ago, there was this case involving a mother—I think it was at the Memorial Hospital—who refused a blood transfusion. From what I recall, the medication costs were huge. Like, according to the news, enough that the hospital had to cover her expenses for an entire month... when everything could have been settled with just one single transfusion.
If people want to stick to their choices, fine, let them shoulder those costs instead of draining our already struggling healthcare system. We all have to pay extra for our own little "special" ideas, right?

Yeah, obviously, that goes without saying.

Look, if you're insisting on a specific way of being treated that isn't the standard protocol—and it ends up costing more than just following the classic procedure—then by all means, cough up the difference.

I mean, we're talking about paying for specialized medical supplies or covering the massive fallout from refusing a basic transfusion... it makes sense.

The "blue" stuff and all those other acrylate-based gypsum products have been getting billed for a while now 😬

Actually, it’s even better if they go through Medicare: standard gypsum costs about $5.25, but this specific type $50 (just looking at the amount needed for a forearm cast)... and Medicare only pays us 12 bucks. My four companies just end up gifting those four units to the patient without anyone even asking us 😈

Exactly, that’s why I used it as an example—I don't want just any boring old cast, I want the blue one. So go ahead, Jose Miller3, pull $50 right out of your own pocket... and if you really want to get fancy, we can even throw some flowers on it.

Susan Martin24 said:Did anyone catch Hillary Clinton on TV last night? I actually liked that one point someone brought up—the idea of people signing a waiver stating they don't want to be donors, or specifically won't give an organ if they end up needing one themselves.
Of course, the majority immediately pushed back... total nonsense.

Why nonsense? Are we going to start implementing rules where organ donors only donate to people who would have done the same for them? Or maybe just to people with blue eyes and blond hair from their own neighborhood? As I see it, donating is a humanitarian act. You don't just pick the "good" people; you include the jerks too, whoever happens to be next in line. I’m against discrimination. Besides, someone could easily declare themselves a donor, receive an organ, and then suddenly change their mind and say they aren't a donor anymore, right?

Justin Fox, you cheapskate!

You’d love to take, wouldn't you? Just wouldn't give a damn. 😲

You wouldn't give up a single red blood cell—you'd probably choke on the sheer effort of trying to be generous. 😠

I wasn't actually commenting on whether I’d personally donate an organ or not. My point was about how Hillary Clinton's seemingly polished idea could be so easily bypassed. Laws that are easy to circumvent just aren't worth passing in the first place.

As for me, the whole concept of death is pretty unsettling. It makes you overthink what happens to the physical remains left behind. In theory, allowing those parts to be donated to help someone else would be the most humane and decent thing to do. But honestly? Most people find the thought of their own mortality so uncomfortable that they just avoid making any kind of decision at all.

I haven't done any deep dives into the medical side, but I have my doubts about how long or well people actually live with transplanted organs. It’s not like you get someone else's kidney and then head straight to the local YMCA to play basketball a month later. Between the surgery and the immunosuppressants likely taking a toll on the body, it's a struggle. Still, if it buys someone a few more years, it's worth it. So, yes—organ donation after death should be encouraged, provided we promote it as an act of humanity and respect. What turns my stomach is when it starts feeling coercive, like: "We're taking it because you didn't go to a notary to officially opt out. Oops, our bad!"

Why don't you just wander down to the dialysis ward and try selling that garbage there? Just go tell those folks that even if they land a new kidney, it won’t matter anyway—that they’re basically just ticking clocks with a few years left in them... yeah, give 'em that much "comforting" news...

Look, I know people who’ve been living with transplanted kidneys for like, 20 years now—and let me tell you... that life is INCOMPARABLY better than being stuck on dialysis. It's night and day... seriously...

Don't even get me started on the other organs—like the heart, the liver, or all that other stuff... honestly, I don't even want to go there. It’s just... you look at the people stuck on those waiting lists for a heart or a liver and it’s brutal. There isn't even a middle ground, you know? Like, there's no "maybe" or "we'll see"... it's basically just a choice between dying or praying someone else can hand over a new organ. It's heavy stuff... really heavy...

By the way—this whole debate about whether someone who received an organ should decide to donate their own after they pass... it’s totally irrelevant. Like, seriously, why are we even talking about this? It’s because those people aren't actually eligible donors anyway—their organs just don't meet the "quality" standards, so they wouldn't be taken in the first place... so yeah, basically a moot point.

Justin Fox said:Why "without reason"?

Nah, it’s not "without reason" at all. And I’m not making some stupid comparison about hair color or whatever. Look, if you’re a complete piece of trash who’d rather let your own heart rot than save someone else’s life, then fine—go ahead and die when you actually need that organ. You aren't worth the trouble. If you don't want to give up something you absolutely don't need—something that doesn't cost you a damn thing because you're dead anyway—then it’s just plain wrong to take it.

So, I ended up just deleting those 10 totally pointless posts about "how much an organ costs."

This is actually a killer topic—let's see if we can keep this momentum going and really hold onto it. Thanks.

Edward Green, please, just read through the previous posts before you start flaming me. I made it pretty clear that, when you look at the big picture, donating organs is a profoundly human thing to do. I also noted that it’s incredibly difficult to wrap one's head around the concept of their own death.

Here is an interesting thought: there was recently some news about lab-grown bladders being developed—advancing despite all the pushback from religious dogmas and the church—thanks to genetic technology and our understanding of stem cells. It makes me wonder, how far off are we from growing more complex organs, like a heart or an eye, engineered specifically with the recipient's own DNA? That would eliminate the whole issue of immunosuppression, wouldn't it?

Justin Fox said:Here’s a thought—there was news about lab-grown bladder tissue being developed, despite all the pushback from religious groups and dogma... plus all this progress in genetic tech and stem cell research. What do you guys think? How much longer until we can actually grow complex organs, like a heart or an eye, using the recipient's own DNA (so there's no need for immunosuppressants)?

In my humble opinion, maybe fifty years or so...

I see that Jose Miller3 deleted my flame against Susan Martin24, though she took her shot at me too. Fair Play Dow, I suppose, even if I have been pretty critical of the medical field in general.

It wasn't even about that delete button—it was because of that absolute nutjob who posted "black market organ prices."

I didn't even notice you guys starting a flame war...

Justin Fox said:Edward Green, seriously, read the previous posts before you start flaming everyone. I already said that when you look at the big picture, donating organs is the humane thing to do.

I wasn't flaming you, I was making a general point!

Like I said, it's damn hard to even wrap your head around the idea of your own death.

Why? It’s just a reality check for me that I’m going to die one day. We all are. I don't want it to happen anytime soon, because honestly, I'm selfish enough to love the fact that I'm alive and can blow on a dandelion, but yeah, I'll die eventually. And thank God for that, otherwise I'd absolutely lose my mind.

Edward Green said:It’s just a plain fact to me—one day, I’m going to die. We all are. I don't necessarily want it to happen anytime soon, mostly because I’m selfish enough to enjoy being alive and blowing on dandelion seeds, but it's coming. Honestly, thank God for that, otherwise I'd lose my mind.

Me too. And if it happens sooner rather than later, I'd be glad to know my organs could help someone else out.

And personally, if one of the people I love needed a kidney, half a liver, or bone marrow, I’d be more than happy to step up and give it. 😘

It’s the classic debate: do you actually own your body and its parts? Even if we say we do, that doesn't mean we should be allowed to sell them. People pushing for a paid organ market always lean on "individual rights" and "personal autonomy." They argue that regulating the whole thing would be way better than just banning it and throwing moral judgment around—plus, they claim it would actually increase the supply. But the pushback is huge. The main argument against it is that it basically recreates slavery and trashes any sense of equality or social justice. M. Friedländer thinks we should legalize it, much like abortion, just so we can actually control the situation. He says, "..it's better to legalize an organ market than let organized crime run wild." His logic? "..if wealthy people are free to risk their lives in extreme sports for fun, it's hard to see why the poor, who face less risk selling a kidney, shouldn't be treated as capable adults—after all, both the rich and the poor have the right to make their own calls regarding risky behavior."

p.s. Do you want me to delete this too since it doesn't exactly "fit" the topic?

It brings up a similar question: could a market actually work if the government handled the distribution? Imagine if organs were allocated based on strict medical necessity rather than just who has the biggest bank account. Let’s be real—organ transplantation isn't some purely non-profit charity venture right now. Hospitals, surgical teams, and procurement agencies are all selling their services. So why is it that the actual organ donors are the only ones in the entire chain who aren't getting paid? The easy, textbook answers you always hear are that selling an organ is a sign of desperation and hopelessness, or that nobody should risk their own life just to save someone else's. Then there's the usual lecture about how organ trafficking is illegal and any money made from it is dirty money. But let's look at the other side. Organ trafficking ends up being part of the medical economy in developing nations, which drags down surgical standards, puts the sellers and their families at massive risk, leads to rights violations, and basically creates a system where the wealthy exploit the poor, turning the human body into just another commodity. Black markets thrive by targeting the most vulnerable and disenfranchised people in society.

Peter Hernandez53, you've become quite the interesting topic of conversation. Personally, I suspect the reason organ sales aren't legalized is simply because the current power players managing the transplant game have no intention of letting go of such a lucrative business.

We’re talking about hospitals and massive healthcare conglomerates here. Like any large institution, their primary drive is to expand their own influence. When doctors hold the sole authority to decide who gets an organ, everything looks pristine on paper—as if decisions are made purely on merit and ethical standards. But we know how the world works. If someone has the cash and needs an organ, they find a way to grease the palms of a physician. It’s essentially a purchase, just handled indirectly. There's no tax revenue, no transparency, and no fair play, but it makes it much easier for everyone involved to look the other way.

In theory, introducing a regulated market would bring order to the chaos because the rules of engagement would be transparent. However, that kind of clarity doesn't sit well with the corrupt individuals and entrenched systems currently in control. So, it's highly unlikely we'll see any real change anytime soon.