Pigs as organ donors

[Shaker]

I'll take that as an admission that you can't answer the question which renders a fair amount of your position as invalid.

Take it however the fuck you like. I don't really want to be bored by you any longer.

[jeremyp]

Take it however the fuck you like. I don't really want to be bored by you any longer.

So your credibility on the subject of animal farming is flushed down the toilet. If you had an argument, you would have presented it instead of attacking me.

[Shaker]

So your credibility on the subject of animal farming is flushed down the toilet. If you had an argument, you would have presented it instead of attacking me.

The argument has been presented throughout the 13 pages of this thread. I've explained it for you but understanding it is your responsibility. As with Rhiannon, claiming victory on no grounds whatever clearly seems to be your bag.

[jeremyp]

The argument has been presented throughout the 13 pages of this thread. I've explained it for you but understanding it is your responsibility.

So answer my question then.

[Shaker]

So answer my question then.

Arseholes.

[SusanDoris]

Joan Bakewell has a series on talking about death - I meant to listen to the first programme but forgot. However, a friend was telling me that the subject of donating bodies for dissection and teaching purposes was discussed. Not only  are whole bodies most definitely still required, but surgeons who want to work out a new way of performing some particular operation need that particular part of a body to test it on. I thought this was very interesting.

[floo]

Joan Bakewell has a series on talking about death - I meant to listen to the first programme but forgot. However, a friend was telling me that the subject of donating bodies for dissection and teaching purposes was discussed. Not only  are whole bodies most definitely still required, but surgeons who want to work out a new way of performing some particular operation need that particular part of a body to test it on. I thought this was very interesting.

They can have my body and that of my husband.

[Shaker]

It's an important point - quite apart from organ donation there's still a demand for bodies for medical research. Skin is especially useful, I gather.

[Rhiannon]

Earlier this year a friend’s dad died and asked for his body to be donated for research and it was declined on the basis that they had too many donated already and had no storage. My friend had to arrange a cremation instead, which wasn’t what her dad had wanted.

[SusanDoris]

Earlier this year a friend’s dad died and asked for his body to be donated for research and it was declined on the basis that they had too many donated already and had no storage. My friend had to arrange a cremation instead, which wasn’t what her dad had wanted.

Yes, I too have heard that point mentioned occasionally.  My friend said that the programme also mentioned the Human Tissue Authority as the place to refer to. I intend to look at the web site.

[floo]

Earlier this year a friend’s dad died and asked for his body to be donated for research and it was declined on the basis that they had too many donated already and had no storage. My friend had to arrange a cremation instead, which wasn’t what her dad had wanted.

I have also heard it isn't easy to get your body accepted for research purposes.

[Shaker]

I have also heard it isn't easy to get your body accepted for research purposes.

Necessarily so, as the criteria for acceptance are so stringent. Most people die old and ill in some way, shape or form, whereas the ideal subjects are young and healthy.

[floo]

Necessarily so, as the criteria for acceptance are so stringent. Most people die old and ill in some way, shape or form, whereas the ideal subjects are young and healthy.

It is far better if animal organs can be used as there would be an unlimited supply.

[Shaker]

It is far better if animal organs can be used as there would be an unlimited supply.

No it wouldn't. Far better for whom? Not for the animals born to suffer for another exploitative and abusive human venture.

It would be far better if we had presumed consent. Which it looks as though we will.

[Rhiannon]

No it wouldn't. Far better for whom? Not for the animals born to suffer for another exploitative human venture.

It would be far better if we had presumed consent. Which it looks as though we will.

What's your evidence for this?

[Shaker]

What's your evidence for this?

For which bit? The presumed consent system? From the countries which already have such a system in place.

https://tinyurl.com/yasr9ujc
https://tinyurl.com/yblfvbwm
https://tinyurl.com/y7k8xemx

[Rhiannon]

For which bit?

That it will improve things to have presumed consent. There's not evidence that it has improved things in Wales, and people who have definitely opted out now definitely cannot be donors - maybe their families would have consented if they hadn't.

More here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41199918

[Shaker]

There's not evidence that it has improved things in Wales

Perhaps not in Wales, though that may be due the short space of time the opt-out system has been in place. Furthermore, your link with regard to Wales is contradicted here: https://tinyurl.com/y88bw4jl

In the other countries which have had the system (usually for considerably longer) the evidence shows substantial increases in organ donation - links provided in previous post. Edited highlights:

Explicit opt-out laws have long been among the major interventions used to increase the pool of potential donors in countries such as Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. There is evidence that supports the association between presumed consent and increased donation rates and that countries with opt-out laws have rates 25 to 30% higher than those in countries requiring explicit consent.

(World Health Organisation).

In countries with an opt-out policy - that is everyone is on the register - it is seen that the vast majority remain on the register.

It was estimated that moving to an-opt out system would increase effective donation rates by 50 per cent. To examine this, Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein in their well-known study Do defaults save lives? analysed the actual number of cadaveric - that's a dead body intended for dissection - donations made per million across a large list of countries, with data from 1991 to 2001.

They found that when donation is the default, there is a 16.3 per cent increase in donation, increasing the donor rate from 14.1 million to 16.4 million.

When looking only at 1999 for a broader set of European countries, including many more from Eastern Europe, a study led by Ronald Gimbel reported an increase in the rate from 10.8 million to 16.9 million - a 56.5 per cent increase.

So, the evidence so far is pretty convincing and is certainly something the Department of Health should at least trial in the UK.

(University of Warwick).

If you want the evidence ("That it will improve things to have presumed consent"), there it is.

[Rhiannon]

And yet Sweden and Luxembourg, for example, still have among the lowest rates of donation in Europe.  And France and Brazil saw declines in donation.

I've been reading comments on Welsh websites (newspapers for example) where people have deliberately;y opted out because they don't like the government interfering in what they see as a personal autonomous decision. It's not a point of view that I agree with, but it's one that people hold.

Where there is a big rise in donations it is only in countries where there is a strong incentive (e.g. your relations get priority should they need a transplant) or no opt out. Not what is proposed for here.

Oh, and your Guardian link - a year out of date.

From what I've seen it's talking about death, donation and what difference it makes that will have the biggest effect. These are conversations we just don't have enough. It should be discussed in schools so that young people grow up knowing about the importance of donation. And families should no longer be able to overrule the wishes of someone who has registered.

[Shaker]

And yet Sweden and Luxembourg, for example, still have among the lowest rates of donation in Europe.

Is population size taken into account? I mean, you can hire Luxembourg for the weekend.

And France and Brazil saw declines in donation.

I've been reading comments on Web;sh websites (newspapers for example) where people have deliberately;y opted out because they don't like the government interfering in what they see as a personal autonomous decision. It's not a point of view that I agree with, but it's one that people hold.

The silly, like the poor, are always with us.

Where there is a big rise in donations it is only in countries where there is a strong incentive (e.g. your relations get priority should they need a transplant) or no opt out. Not what is proposed for here.

I know of no evidence for that. Preferential treatment for relatives sounds at the very least unethical and very probably illegal - where does such a system obtain?

[floo]

No it wouldn't. Far better for whom? Not for the animals born to suffer for another exploitative and abusive human venture.

It would be far better if we had presumed consent. Which it looks as though we will.

We eat animals like pigs, so why shouldn't we use their organs too? We aren't all veggies, thank goodness.

[BeRational]

We eat animals like pigs, so why shouldn't we use their organs too? We aren't all veggies, thank goodness.

It might be possible to engineer the pig organ to be a match for a particular human, thus making the rejection risk much less.

It might also be possible in future to grow individual organs without the need for a donor animal, which would be best, but in the meantime, using a pig is in my opinion, justified.

[Walter]

We eat animals like pigs, so why shouldn't we use their organs too? We aren't all veggies, thank goodness.

well said Floo,
btw , I'm more of a vaggie than a veggie 

[ekim]

There are too many pig headed people already.

[floo]

It might be possible to engineer the pig organ to be a match for a particular human, thus making the rejection risk much less.

It might also be possible in future to grow individual organs without the need for a donor animal, which would be best, but in the meantime, using a pig is in my opinion, justified.

Yes it would be wonderful if one day it was possible to grow individual organs without any donor being needed.