Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Should rules about paying for organs for transplant be abolished?

Ten-year old cystic fibrosis patient Sarah Murnaghan captured the nation’s attention when federal bureaucrats imposed a de facto death sentence on her by refusing to modify the rules governing organ transplants. The rules in question forbid children under 12 from receiving transplants of adult organs. Even though Sarah’s own physician said she was an excellent candidate to receive an adult organ transplant, government officials refused to even consider modifying their rules.

Fortunately, a federal judge intervened so Sarah received the lung transplant. But the welcome decision in this case does not change the need to end government control of organ donations and repeal the federal ban on compensating organ donors.

Supporters of the current system claim that organ donation is too important to be left to the marketplace. But this is nonsensical: if we trust the market to deliver food, shelter, and all other necessities, why should we not trust it to deliver healthcare—including organs?

It is also argued that it is “uncompassionate” or “immoral” to allow patients or insurance companies to provide compensation to donors. But one of the reasons the waiting lists for transplants is so long, with many Americans dying before receiving a transplant, is because of a shortage of organs. If organ donors, or their heirs, were compensated for donating, more people would have an incentive to become organ donors.

Those who oppose allowing patients to purchase organs should ask themselves how compassionate is it to allow those people to die on the transplant waiting list who might otherwise have lived if they were able to obtain organs though private contracts.

Some are concerned that if organ donations were supplied via the market instead of through government regulation, those with lower incomes would be effectively denied access to donated organs. This ignores our current two-tier system for allocating organs, as the wealthy can travel overseas for transplants if they cannot receive a transplant in America. Allowing the free market to alleviate the shortage of organs and reduce the costs of medial procedures like transplants would benefit the middle class and the poor, not the wealthy.

by Anonymousreply 5307/24/2013

[quote] The costs of obtaining organs would likely be covered by most health insurance plans, thus reducing the costs directly borne by individual patients.

Except for the nearly hundred million without health insurance. (I include the undocumented in my health care statistics).

by Anonymousreply 307/15/2013

[quote] Furthermore, if current federal laws distorting the health care market are repealed, procedures such as transplants would be much more affordable

Yes. Surely doctors will slash their fees and open up unregulated transplant clinics where they can prepare the patient, do the transplant and provide after care for a fraction of current cost. Just tell patients they must have a friend or family member come with them and provide all the postoperative care, because nurses are expensive. Do away with costly lab tests so we can wing it postoperatively. Decide on the care of the patient based on our feelings and institution and not by costly laboratory tests and scans. Involving family in the care can result in shorter in-clinic stays. Maybe a day or two, then discharge to home.

BTW, let's get rid of regulation of abortion as well. Let the patient and doctors make the decision about how and when to abort. The government has no right to tell someone they can't abort at 5 months.

by Anonymousreply 507/15/2013

[quote] based on our feelings and institution

Intuition.

Thanks, iPad.

by Anonymousreply 607/15/2013

What rules?

by Anonymousreply 807/16/2013

[quote]if we trust the market to deliver food, shelter, and all other necessities,

You might trust "the market" to "deliver" those things, sensible people don't.

Face it, OP, you're just another selfish asshole and everyone hates you.

by Anonymousreply 907/16/2013

[quote] Ten-year old cystic fibrosis patient Sarah Murnaghan captured the nation’s attention when federal bureaucrats imposed a de facto death sentence on her by refusing to modify the rules governing organ transplants. The rules in question forbid children under 12 from receiving transplants of adult organs. Even though Sarah’s own physician said she was an excellent candidate to receive an adult organ transplant, government officials refused to even consider modifying their rules.

This case pissed me off. Judges shouldn't be involved in this. There are reasons they have restrictions and rules regarding organ donation. A lot of it has to do with the fact that children's immune systems are different and they can reject the transplant

The media was all OVER this story. Of course they aren't all over the fact that she rejected her first transplant in the first 3 days and then was secretly given another transplant. So two adults died because she rejected her first transplant and then needed another transplant because her family don't want to follow the laws and rules regarding transplants

by Anonymousreply 1007/16/2013

[quote]Should rules about paying for organs for transplant be abolished?

Fuck no.

Thread closed.

by Anonymousreply 1107/16/2013

No. And that girl should not have received those lungs. They will only prolong her life a few months. It may sound cold,but they could have gone to someone who would receive years of life off the lungs.

by Anonymousreply 1307/16/2013

I am saying: no, the rules should not be abolished.

I would love to have a more in-depth discussion (although it has been written about extensively already- google Arthur Caplan + pediatric transplant for more information), but I am typing from my iPad, which is a huge pain (literally). Maybe I will come back tomorrow.

Yes, I am a real bioethicist at a medical school in the US.

by Anonymousreply 1507/17/2013

These really obvious troll posts like the OP's come from the same person. It's obvious by the familiar writing structure. The purpose of these threads is to inflame and generate multiple responses from the same few people who love to argue with trolls. That makes for a lot of web site hits and activity.

by Anonymousreply 1707/17/2013

[quote]Glib (thank you, TCruise) replies that are filled with moronic strawman arguments far removed from reality...what else can I expect.

ROFL.... I just love replies like these in R7. R5 demolished his arguments, he knows it, and he can't handle it, so he engages instead in childish insults, completely ignoring the substance of the response.

by Anonymousreply 2007/17/2013

The real tragedy here is that the Idiot Libertarian Troll's brain was clearly purchased from a black market dealer in China.

by Anonymousreply 2207/18/2013

While R22 is still waiting for the Wizard to give him a tax-subsidized brain!

by Anonymousreply 2307/18/2013

[quote]Yes, when you can deny anyone any treatment for "cost" reasons, or make them wait 2 years for an MRI, or tell them they don't meet guidelines for cancer treatments, I guess you could control costs.

That must be why government-run health care is so unpopular in those countries. Yeah.

But this was my favorite part:

[quote]Fortunately, a federal judge intervened so Sarah received the lung transplant.

ACTIVIST JUDGES! ACTIVIST JUDGES! INTERVENING IN THE RULES OF LAW!

by Anonymousreply 2607/19/2013

R26-

Government run health care for sick people in those countries is very unpopular. It's the 95% that are fairly healthy that are happy. The sick are pissed.

by Anonymousreply 2707/19/2013

[quote]Government run health care for sick people in those countries is very unpopular

Wow... talk about denial! Sorry, moron, but this is simply false.

[quote]My local doc gets 13 pennies for every Medicrap dollar he bills,

Nope.

[quote]and 5 of those pennies go to pay for billing costs.

This one may be true but it has zilch to do with Medicare and everything to do with having to maintain billing records for dozens of different insurance companies and providers, something that would be quickly and easily handled by using single-payer.

[quote]I am amazed at how someone can be so retarded.

ROFL.... Your standard childish insults when you get your ass handed to you and you don't have a reply.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with these simple, incontrovertible facts: that Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives, controls costs better than the private alternatives, is more popular than the private alternatives, and has better outcomes than the private alternatives.

[quote]You obviously know NOTHING about health care and just post bullshit.

And yet, somehow, you are wholly unable to actually handle, respond to, or contradict anything I write with respect to health care. All you can do is call me childish names. Why is that?

[quote]It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Sick. Depraved. Disgusting. You should try to learn about a subject before exposing yourself as a retarded fool.

If I'm such a "retarded fool," it should be trivially easy to point out where I'm wrong. And yet, you can't do it. Why is that?

[quote]Yes, when you can deny anyone any treatment for "cost" reasons, or make them wait 2 years for an MRI, or tell them they don't meet guidelines for cancer treatments, I guess you could control costs.

Duh. Did you have a point to make? None of that changes these incontrovertible facts: that they spend far less than we do, cover more people than we do, control costs better than we do, *and have outcomes that are at least as good.* [emphasis added]

You just can't bear it that your philosophy is so directly contradicted by all of the available facts. So instead of dealing with that, you go into denial, just as you've done here, and trot out standard boilerplate bullshit that has nothing to do with reality.

[quote]You really don't know anything about health care?

So you continue to insist and yet you can't point out a single error I've made. Not one.

[quote]Why do you embarrass yourself by opining on something of which you are utterly ignorant?

Never stopped you.

by Anonymousreply 2807/19/2013

No, it should be based on need and viability of the patient. No one should be able to buy an organ when a patient with a greater medical need but no financial means can't. They certainly shouldn't be sold to patients who will certainly die soon regardless, over those who might actually improve and regain their quality of life with a transplant.

Organs are an extremely precious resource. Selling organs to the highest bidder is reprehensible.

by Anonymousreply 2907/19/2013

[quote]Selling organs to the highest bidder is reprehensible.

Zey are putting people into cooomaaaas!

by Anonymousreply 3007/19/2013

My dad died at home on Monday - he was suffering from kidney failure as a result of metastatic bladder cancer.

He died peacefully and comfortably in his sleep, having received the finest palliative care from some of the kindest nurses you could imagine (and want) who attended to his every need 3x a day.

The next American cunt who says socialised medicine doesn't work is going to get F&Fed,

by Anonymousreply 3107/19/2013

Thank you, R31. I am sorry for your loss.

by Anonymousreply 3207/19/2013

My condolences, R31, having experienced socialized medlcal care first hand I'd agree that I found more good than bad with it

These libertarian cunts must all be multi-billionaires because they all act like they don't anyone and fucking thing.

by Anonymousreply 3307/19/2013

embarrassing trolls

by Anonymousreply 3407/19/2013

[quote] Or that every other major industrialized nation has some form of government-run health care or insurance and that they spend far less than we do, cover more people than we do, control costs better than we do, and have outcomes that are at least as good.

All those other countries use American medical research and advancements. America (companies, schools, govt run facilities - NIH) pays for this research and other countries don't have to. I'm not saying other countries don't do medical research, but their research usually never amounts to much

by Anonymousreply 3507/19/2013

[quote] having experienced socialized medical care first hand I'd agree that I found more good than bad with it

You're comment brings up a good point. People who bash other country's National Health Care systems are acting like U.S system is fabulous and no one (at least the insured) NEVER, EVER complains about the U.S health care system. They act like our hospitals and Drs have never made mistakes. That no one has ever died because their insurance company wouldn't cover a procedure, surgery or medication. Or that no one has ever had to sue a Dr for negligence

When ever I hear someone bashing another country's health care system I laugh at them. 8 out of 10 times they have probably never even been to that country and probably don't know a single person from that country, but they talk about all these bad stories they have heard about these health care systems. And they usually always say that "just wait until Obama care becomes effective, our system will be just like that". Our system is already like that. People get operated on the wrong side or part of the body. They get the wrong limb amputated. They get hospital acquired infections. They get surgical instruments left inside them (that happens every damn day in America)

by Anonymousreply 3607/19/2013

[quote]All those other countries use American medical research and advancements.

Not nearly as much as you think. America leaving the research field would definitely put a dent in things but research would continue unabated.

[quote]America (companies, schools, govt run facilities - NIH) pays for this research and other countries don't have to. I'm not saying other countries don't do medical research, but their research usually never amounts to much

Sorry, but that's not correct.

by Anonymousreply 3707/19/2013

[quote]I'm not saying other countries don't do medical research, but their research usually never amounts to much

Yeah, I don't know what the Nobel committee was thinking, giving all those awards to folks from Britain and France.

by Anonymousreply 3807/19/2013

Of course, according to our resident paranoid, loony, libertarian troll, Singapore is where it's at:

[quote]If I ever got really sick I would fly there in a minute and pay out of pocket for treatment. The advances in therapy and treatment make the USA look primitive.

Of course, Singapore has government-run health care but somehow that teensy little contradiction never seems to sink in to our dear chum.

by Anonymousreply 3907/19/2013

R31-

I am so sorry you lost your father. I cannot imagine how much that hurts. I am blessed to have both parents that are very healthy nearing 70.

I know that this will not help your dad, but the research and treatment centers in Singapore have developed treatments for bladder cancer (and MANY others) that are far more advanced than the US, UK or EU.

If you or any other family members are diagnosed, the treatments are miraculous.

Like breast cancer, once Bladder cancer passes stage 2 the survival rate plummets unless they have access to advanced treatments. Early detection and treatment is the only key.

I hope you will seek treatment and encourage family members to seek immediate treatment if they have any symptoms.

My partner is still semi-healthy, 4 years later, even though US docs told him he was terminal. The "off the record, off the books, experimental" treatments make Mayo and MDAnderson look like witchcraft.

by Anonymousreply 4007/19/2013

[quote]I know that this will not help your dad, but the research and treatment centers in Singapore have developed treatments for bladder cancer (and MANY others) that are far more advanced than the US, UK or EU.

As with everything you post here, this is rather stupidly false.

[quote]If you or any other family members are diagnosed, the treatments are miraculous.

Ditto. Thankfully, nobody here is dumb enough to fall for this bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 4107/19/2013

R41-

I'm so glad people ignore your constant rants. Some people will read what I wrote and Google it, and seek legal advice.

For the rest of us---

Singapore and Costa Rica are the big guns. They can treat anything, although some "treatments" might leave you dead or paralyzed.

I'd rather stay in a Chair than die.

by Anonymousreply 4207/20/2013

[quote]I'm so glad people ignore your constant rants.

Really? From where I sit, the "constant rants" are coming from you, and man, you have gotten very good at turning people off because of your ignorance, paranoia, and looniness. That's fine with me, of course, since I'm just here to be amused by you. I don't need to do anything other than to point out that you're a loon. Your posts are self-evidently idiotic.

[quote]Some people will read what I wrote and Google it, and seek legal advice.

I did. I laughed. Because, sadly for you, you're deluded or lying. Singapore, which has a government-run health care system, is no more advanced than any other country. It's got a decent system that does pretty well by its people but the claims of miracle cures you've been peddling here? Even they don't make those claims. They exist solely in your own mind.

[quote]Singapore and Costa Rica are the big guns.

Costa Rica??? Oh, wow... You really have jumped off the deep end, haven't you?

[quote]They can treat anything

*Shrug* Any country can "treat anything." It's just a question as to whether the "treatments" even remotely make sense. Anyone for some laetrile?

[quote]although some "treatments" might leave you dead or paralyzed.

Yeah, I'd say that's a rather critical side effect to be aware of. Do you really not realize just how downright stupid, not to mention gullible, you sound? And, sadly for you, likely are?

[quote]I'd rather stay in a Chair than die.

Personally, I'd rather get medical treatment I trust.

by Anonymousreply 4307/20/2013

I'm R31 - I should have said that Dad was 80yo and was very active until his final illness (thanks to NHS)

His final illness claimed him through kidney failure - any pain he felt until his last few weeks was dealt with efficiently - his final days were completely pain-free.

Like so many of his generation (my mother too) he didn't want to bother the GP - though he could get an appointment/home visit simply by lifting the phone.

(BTW, thank you for your condolences - such sweet people (except when we don't want to be :)))

by Anonymousreply 4407/21/2013

R44-

I don't want to pick. I won't.

Please read this.

-------

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

by Anonymousreply 4507/23/2013

The Libertarian Idiot Troll is clearly getting the best mental health care that Costa Rica has to offer.

by Anonymousreply 4607/24/2013

Oh, R46-

Please respond to the post at R45

by Anonymousreply 4807/24/2013

If you're going to spam the forum and commit copyright violation, R48, the least you can do is provide a link to the article you're quoting.

And why should we respond to such self-evident gibberish, wholly unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or data? It's fantasy and wishful thinking, and really stupid fantasy at that.

Come back when you're prepared to deal with the incontrovertible facts that Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives, controls costs better than the private alternatives, is more popular than the private alternatives, and has better outcomes than the private alternatives.

Or that every other major industrialized nation spends far less than we do, covers more people than we do, controls costs better than we do, and has outcomes that are at least as good.

by Anonymousreply 4907/24/2013

This is just right-wing, money makes right bullshit trying, through painful twists and contortions, to wrap itself in the flag of compassion and efficiency.

by Anonymousreply 5007/24/2013

In case no one else pointed it out, this is where OP copy & pasted his post from, lovely Lew.Rockwell.com

by Anonymousreply 5107/24/2013

Definitely not "compassion," R50. Under that proposal, anyone with a pre-existing condition would be denied coverage. Anyone without health insurance or a means of paying would be left without treatment, left to die. If you're elderly? Tough shit, since Medicare would be gone and no sane insurance company would cover you. Thousands of new "medications" would flood this new wholly unregulated market and you'd have almost no way of determining which of them worked and which didn't other than by spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to find out. You picked the wrong one? Sorry, you're dead.

As I said, it's fantasy, and really stupid fantasy at that.

by Anonymousreply 5207/24/2013

Alright, I'll "respond" to one of your attempted "points":

[quote][bold]Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel.[/bold] Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Now that is some 150-proof triple-distilled horseshit right there.

Since you're advocating the elimination of all medical regulation, I hereby declare myself a psychiatrist. My diagnosis concludes that you're crazier than a shit-house rat.

Since our newly deregulated healthcare nirvana doesn't require such fascist things as "prescriptions", start taking massive doses of prozac, adderall and xanax immediately. Exact dosages aren't necessary of course, because freedom. Just keep taking the meds until the voices in your head stop telling you to buy gold.

You don't have to update us on your progress of course, because the patient knows better than any so-called "experts" if he's healing.

by Anonymousreply 5307/24/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.