News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Going public is pretty much always the correct decision.
I don't want a healthcare system where fuck-ups are covered up in order to influence decisions of the patients.
That's not a slippery slope, that's a greased fireman's pole to corruption.
I agree. I also think the media plays a large role in the equation.
I would assume they'd sedate the person, even if brain dead, to guard against this exact scenario (which means they'd be harvesting a not-actually-braindead person, but that's a separate issue). Do they not do this? Or did they just not sedate enough or something? I don't know how sedation is measured, does being braindead make it harder to measure because some metric already looks like it does while sedated?
No, if a patient is declared brain dead, there is usually no sedation given. It shouldn't be necessary, as the neurons responsible for sensing pain aren't alive and processing signals, and extra medication like sedation comes with the risk of hemodynamic instability, which is already kind of a headache in brain dead patients as the brain is no longer meditating that (extremely oversimplified). Yes, sedation can be measured (sorta) with a BIS probe, a spectral imaging probe on the forehead that acts like an EEG with fewer probes, but it's not very useful in brain death as it's ultimately looking at blood flow, and in brain death, we don't expect to see blood flow to the brain.
All of this, of course, assumes that he was declared brain dead, which is a very specific legal term with very specific parameters that vary slightly state by state, which seems unlikely in this situation. He may have been deemed to have a severe neurologic injury with an unlikely prognosis of meaningful recovery, and thus be a planned DCD (declared cardiac death) donation, meaning placed on a minimally assistive ventilatory support and allowed to die once his respiratory drive was so low he died of hypoxic respiratory failure. But the article is long on anecdotes and short on the technical terms physicians would use, so it's hard to say.
I opted out as an organ donor a few years ago and it was after reading comments like yours where people described the process of organ harvesting. I find it to be pretty dehumanizing. I think there is a lot of pressure to do it without much education on the subject. Additionally I wish I could control where my organs went, I wish I could consent right before I died and I wish there wasn't a giant Rube Goldberg machine of financial incentives (that can be cheated to benefit the wealthy) driving the entire enterprise, but we don't live in a perfect world. I hope if I'm ever I situation where I would need a transplant I will not be a hypocrite and let myself die or just survive on life support. This article is just a drop in the bucket, and to me, your comment and this case only highlight sentiments that were already there. We are not animals we can't put blinders on people in the hopes that more of them sign up to have their organs harvested after death using a system that is arguably kinda fucked up. There is this attitude and arrogance that come from the medical profession where people think because they know best and want to keep patients in the dark in matters of life and death (CDC lying about masks, to absolute catastrophes like the case of Memorial Medical Center after hurricane Katrina)
You opted out of potentially saving lives because you feel like the necessary process of rapidly removing and preserving quickly decaying organs doesn’t treat the cadaver with proper respect?
That’s a really strange stance.
I’m glad you can’t. I realize the system isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the absurd complexity of letting the flawed and uneducated person dying decide who gets them. Imagine, for example, bigots demanding no black person or gay person gets their organs. Screw that. Continue to improve the system, but a system needs to be in place.
See, this is what I mean 👆 "iT sAvEs liVess, wHat arE yOu a PieCe of ShiT?" Using social pressure to shame others into a system, which if they were educated on it, they probably wouldn't agree to it.
More than 60% of the people that receive organ transplants are 50 or older. To tell you the truth, no I don't care about being their hero. And as I mentioned there is a for profit incentive system in place which I'm not comfortable with (in the US at least) And just as a bigot wouldn't want their organ going to a certain portion of the population, I wouldn't want my organs going to a bigot or some wealthy asshole that can afford the procedure while others die. Also I wouldn't want to find myself at deaths door surrounded by a transplant team circling my dying body like vultures treating my body like a commodity.
Those were not my words.
I think it’s wild that you care about what happens to your organs after you die. I do think it’s a selfish position, personally, but you do you. I just doubt you’ll feel as strongly opposed to organ donation if you ever find yourself needing one.
Maybe I’m an optimist, but perhaps this will simultaneously scare off the conspiracy paranoids/lead paint crowd and ensure quality organs go to deserving and rational patients.