Organ donation after death: thoughts and experiences?

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

I don't even know where to start with this mess. Honestly, looking at these discussions makes my blood boil. You’ve got people throwing around half-baked ideas like they’re experts, when in reality, most of them wouldn't know a serious medical issue if it hit them in the face. It's absolutely infuriating! And then there's the way certain people react—it's just mindless. I see these comments popping up, and it's like reading a script written by someone who has never stepped foot in a real hospital in America. Everything is so superficial! We need actual substance, actual logic, not just this constant stream of nonsense. If we're going to talk about something this critical, let's at least act like adults for once. It's exhausting trying to have a rational conversation when everyone else seems intent on being completely irrational. kaže:
It’s such a damn shame. America really needs more associations like this...

Why on earth would the United States need an association like that or KAO? Seriously, what would be the actual purpose of such an organization here in the States? What exactly would a group like that—one focused on the whole organ donation business—even do?

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

Look, I’m not playing games here. I am deadly serious—in a sarcastic way, if that makes a difference. It’s funny to me that my tone bothers you so much, yet you seem perfectly fine with just ignoring the questions I directed straight at you. So, let's get one thing straight: stop being a hypocrite and actually answer me. Here are my questions:

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

And what exactly is this "other side" you’re talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited knowledge?
So, I’m sitting here waiting, staring at my screen, just waiting for you to finally come clean and give me an answer. I mean, seriously, I’m expecting it any second now. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you? Please tell me you aren't that kind of person.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

www.crodict.com

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

Let me drop the final argument you're clutching onto so desperately—when clinical death is declared, that death didn't actually happen at that exact moment; it happened much earlier. Just because the person is on a ventilator doesn't mean anything else, which means your exaggerated claim is pure fiction since that death is only being officially documented after the fact. Look, the person *is* dead; it’s just that certain organs are still functioning because, at the start of treatment, nobody knew which way the chips would fall. And all of this isn't happening because someone is trying to artificially maintain organ function; rather, it's usually because an accident victim was rushed to the hospital to receive proper care. Some recover more or less, some lose higher brain functions but breathe on their own, and some are brain-dead or clinically dead. It's those last ones who might be considered organ donors. And even then, only a fraction of them actually become donors. So, we are talking about a negligible number of people.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

Every single form of medical treatment (and saving lives in general) is an artificial interference in the dying process. If you personally don't go to a doctor or some herbalist, and if you have a clear DNR/DNI order marked on yourself, then at least you're being consistent. If you don't, then you're just a common hypocrite. Which is more likely? (That you're a hypocrite, that is), though I can't say for certain.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

If you're going to study any natural science, you won't find any biological basis for your claim that a decapitated human organism is "alive," so you can skip that part entirely.

That KAO initiative includes doctors within its ranks, and at least their main guy—who used to be a department head—knows exactly what I know. Honestly, it's mind-blowing to me that he doesn't. That man is almost certainly intentionally suppressing the truth. This association can call itself "critically minded" toward something all they want, but they aren't being critical at all.

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

Two years ago, I was in the final stages of heart failure. I couldn't even manage to take a shower and wash my hair in one go because it was just too much physical exertion—I'd have to shower, nap for an hour, and then finally wash my hair. Then, I received a new heart. Now, I'm back at work, I run, I hike, and honestly, I'm in better shape than I ever was—I'm absolutely thriving. If I recall correctly, the average life expectancy is about 12 years, though since most transplant recipients are in their 50s or 60s, for people my age, a heart can often last 20 years or more. Plus, re-transplants aren't rare anymore, so some people end up living for over 30 years after the procedure.

I once met a man who received a new heart back when he was just a guy in his 20s; in the meantime, he finished his degree, started a company, and got married... I know a mother who gets to spend time with her son—a professor who returned to teaching—and several older folks who have retired and are simply enjoying life with their children and grandchildren... Basically, if you're asking me what life is like for most people, it's excellent.

Nicole James said:Two years ago, I was in the final stages of heart failure. I couldn't even manage to take a shower and wash my hair in one go because it was just too much physical exertion—I'd have to shower, nap for an hour, and then finally wash my hair. Then, I received a new heart. Now, I'm back at work, I run, I hike, and honestly, I'm in better shape than I ever was—I'm absolutely thriving. If I recall correctly, the average life expectancy is about 12 years, though since most transplant recipients are in their 50s or 60s, for people my age, a heart can often last 20 years or more. Plus, re-transplants aren't rare anymore, so some people end up living for over 30 years after the procedure.

I once met a man who received a new heart back when he was just a guy in his 20s; in the meantime, he finished his degree, started a company, and got married... I know a mother who gets to spend time with her son—a professor who returned to teaching—and several older folks who have retired and are simply enjoying life with their children and grandchildren... Basically, if you're asking me what life is like for most people, it's excellent.

So, how long did the recovery actually take you? And what's the deal with your immune system now? Also—this is the weird part I always wonder about—did you feel any... I don't know, "foreign" sensations after the transplant? Like, having someone else's heart inside you... did it change your personality, your interests, or anything like that?

Cheers!

Nicole James said:Two years ago, I was in the final stages of heart failure. I couldn't even manage to take a shower and wash my hair in one go because it was just too much physical exertion—I'd have to shower, nap for an hour, and then finally wash my hair. Then, I received a new heart. Now, I'm back at work, I run, I hike, and honestly, I'm in better shape than I ever was—I'm absolutely thriving. If I recall correctly, the average life expectancy is about 12 years, though since most transplant recipients are in their 50s or 60s, for people my age, a heart can often last 20 years or more. Plus, re-transplants aren't rare anymore, so some people end up living for over 30 years after the procedure.

I once met a man who received a new heart back when he was just a guy in his 20s; in the meantime, he finished his degree, started a company, and got married... I know a mother who gets to spend time with her son—a professor who returned to teaching—and several older folks who have retired and are simply enjoying life with their children and grandchildren... Basically, if you're asking me what life is like for most people, it's excellent.

Is it actually true that your personality or temperament changes after a transplant?

Jeffrey Wilson4 said:So, how long did the recovery actually take you? And what's the deal with your immune system now? Also—this is the weird part I always wonder about—did you feel any... I don't know, "foreign" sensations after the transplant? Like, having someone else's heart inside you... did it change your personality, your interests, or anything like that?

Cheers!

It’s hard to pinpoint an exact moment when I was "recovered." I managed to get back to work after about six months, but I was still on pretty high doses of medication back then—and honestly, I was physically quite weak since my body had been through the wringer with heart failure and the surgery itself. It wasn't until about a year later that I could start ease into running or cycling; by then, my meds had been tapered down enough that I could actually go out and socialize normally.

As for my immunity, it’s definitely weaker than a healthy person's. I have to be much more cautious about certain things. For instance, COVID was a massive hurdle for me before I got vaccinated. If I'm in an environment with dust, dampness, or mold, I wear a mask—and I have to make sure any meat I eat is thoroughly cooked...
Otherwise, I haven't run into any major issues so far.

The feeling itself isn't different—it feels exactly as if I have my own heart. The only thing is, because the nerves were severed during the procedure, my heart responds a bit more slowly to physical exertion; so, when I work out, I need a longer warm-up period to get my heart rate up to where it needs to be. Beyond that, there has been a change, but primarily because I spent such a long time living with suppressed heart disease, which made physical effort uncomfortable, so I just avoided it. Of course, coming face-to-face with death changes a person to some degree. But other than that, I am the same person.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Is it actually true that your personality or temperament changes after a transplant?

It’s both yes and no. First off, you have to deal with a devastating illness and the agonizing uncertainty of waiting to see if an organ becomes available in time. Then comes the surgery and the post-op recovery period—which, mind you, about 20 percent of patients don't survive. After that, you're on high doses of medications like corticosteroids, which can absolutely impact your mood or even your cravings for certain foods... all of that, naturally, leaves a mark, and people do change somewhat because of those factors. On the other hand, I haven't experienced any kind of "inheritance" from the donor, nor has anyone I know. I've heard stories of people claiming they have, but I think all of that can be explained away by the medical and psychological factors I mentioned above.

Regarding the topic at hand, I think it’s vital to point out that organ transplantation is shifting from being a medical rarity to becoming the absolute standard of care for certain diseases—conditions that, until very recently, would have simply claimed young lives. The US is incredibly advanced when it comes to organ donation (in my view, we are among the leaders globally). As part of the major national networks, the ethical criteria and oversight here are extremely rigorous. There isn't really any room for complaining about waiting lists because everything is handled with total transparency at a federal level; the protocols for organ procurement are crystal clear, leaving virtually no margin for error, and the system just works. However, the whole thing relies heavily on the trust that donors and their families place in the system—which means that the irresponsible spread of conspiracy theories can cause massive damage. At the end of the day, any one of us could find ourselves in a situation where our survival depends on finding a matching organ in a very short window of time. For instance, up until a year before I was actually placed on a transplant list, I genuinely believed I was perfectly healthy.