Pigs as organ donors

[floo]

Why not?

Even though the removal might kill you, if it was a heart, for instance?

[Shaker]

Even though the removal might kill you, if it was a heart, for instance?

Yes.

[floo]

Yes.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if you would if it actually came to that? No doubt you would have to cut it out yourself, because no surgeon is likely to take it out for you.

[SusanDoris]

By then the damage is done.

I prefer damage not to be done.

Well, I'll tell you one thing for nothing! ! After my aortic valve replacement * , even while I was lying there in ICU with bunches of tubes  taking things in and out of my body, I knew I felt better, with a heart that worked properly.  Okay, I was not comfortable, but that was very temporary.  I recommend that you accept one if it is ever required.

*I apparently had  atamponade which is one of the most dangerous things after heart ops and had to be rushed back into theatre, but since I was unconscious for all of that, I did not need to worry!

[Shaker]

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if you would if it actually came to that?

Ah, the usual thing: receive answer, deny answer.

No doubt you would have to cut it out yourself, because no surgeon is likely to take it out for you.

That's their issue, isn't it, rather than mine? I expect medical people to understand and respect the principles of medical ethics regarding autonomy and informed consent.

I'm more acutely aware of this than most because within the last two years I've had direct personal experience of its being ignored or disregarded.

[Shaker]

Well, I'll tell you one thing for nothing! ! After my aortic valve replacement * , even while I was lying there in ICU with bunches of tubes  taking things in and out of my body, I knew I felt better, with a heart that worked properly.  Okay, I was not comfortable, but that was very temporary.  I recommend that you accept one if it is ever required.

Thanks for the recommendation, but no thanks.

[SusanDoris]

Shaker

Do you mean that you would in fact rather die sooner rather than later by refusing to have such a valve if offered? Do you think you would look at all the pros and cons and decide that that is the bottom line for you

(P.S. There is no flippancy at all in those questions, I mention it just in case Gabriella sees this post!? )

[Shaker]

Shaker

Do you mean that you would in fact rather die sooner rather than later by refusing to have such a valve if offered?

Yes.

Do you think you would look at all the pros and cons and decide tphat that is the bottom line for you

I think I already have.

[SusanDoris]

Shaker

thank you for your reply. However, please do not let anything happen to you before the end of my life!!

[Rhiannon]

Not everyone wishes to live at all costs and not everyone wishes to exist at the expense of another creature. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

[Shaker]

Not everyone wishes to live at all costs and not everyone wishes to exist at the expense of another creature. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

It's life at all and any cost no matter what, surely?

Which doesn't exactly square with a majority of the population agreeing with the right of people to end their own lives as and when they choose, but don't expect consistency in these things.

[Robbie]

Not everyone wishes to live at all costs and not everyone wishes to exist at the expense of another creature. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

I get it & respect it but never been in a life or death situation so far.
Earlier somebody mentioned the plane crash where survivors ate human flesh &the very idea is abhorrent to me. Ithink I'd never do it, would rather die - but if that unlikely thing happened to me, would i change my mind?

We don't know until we're there.

[Udayana]

I get it & respect it but never been in a life or death situation so far.
Earlier somebody mentioned the plane crash where survivors ate human flesh &the very idea is abhorrent to me. Ithink I'd never do it, would rather die - but if that unlikely thing happened to me, would i change my mind?

We don't know until we're there.

There is no "there" ... we are always here, in a life or death situation at least until we do die. My father had a pig heart valve replacement, dying a few months later when it became infected. My sister died after refusing treatment for flu after far too long spent paralysed by MS.

BeRational is correct in that many of the lines drawn in the argument are arbitrary and it is not possible to come to any objective position on the extent and acceptability of suffering.

Every moment of ones life, one is causing the deaths or affecting the continuing lives of innumerable other lives.

Where you draw the line really depends on the extent of your empathy with them. We try and limit it by including "my family" or "humans", or "the same species", or  "entities with nervous systems", "sentient" beings - but ultimately it is illusory - we have no real way of separating our "individual selves" from that of our own gut bacteria or the rest of life in the universe. So what we ultimately do to other lives depends on how connected we feel to them and how responsible we feel we should be for their suffering or destiny - and our own.

[Gordon]

If I was wearing a hat, Udayana, I'd doff it: what a super post.

[Rhiannon]

Agree, G.

[Robbie]

Me too, great post Udayana.

[Sriram]

There is no "there" ... we are always here, in a life or death situation at least until we do die. My father had a pig heart valve replacement, dying a few months later when it became infected. My sister died after refusing treatment for flu after far too long spent paralysed by MS.

BeRational is correct in that many of the lines drawn in the argument are arbitrary and it is not possible to come to any objective position on the extent and acceptability of suffering.

Every moment of ones life, one is causing the deaths or affecting the continuing lives of innumerable other lives.

Where you draw the line really depends on the extent of your empathy with them. We try and limit it by including "my family" or "humans", or "the same species", or  "entities with nervous systems", "sentient" beings - but ultimately it is illusory - we have no real way of separating our "individual selves" from that of our own gut bacteria or the rest of life in the universe. So what we ultimately do to other lives depends on how connected we feel to them and how responsible we feel we should be for their suffering or destiny - and our own.

Yes...I agree with what you are saying. But obviously it is a little more complicated than that.

What we consider as 'our group' differs from person to person and it is not a random occurrence. In a civilized environment, the more we include within this group the more civilized we are considered.  Even from ancient days, it has been true that the more empathetic we are, the more spiritual and divine we are considered. People work towards being more empathetic.

So...there is something to be said in favor of including more and more organisms within 'our group'.

[trippymonkey]

Are we really that short of HUMAN donors that we 'need' this kind of post ?!!?!?

[floo]

Are we really that short of HUMAN donors that we 'need' this kind of post ?!!?!?

Apparently human donors are in short supply. You have to opt out, rather than opt in, where donation is concerned here in Wales.

[Shaker]

Apparently human donors are in short supply. You have to opt out, rather than opt in, where donation is concerned here in Wales.

It's the same in Scotland, and it's being proposed for England too.

A quick bit of research tells me that 6500 people are waiting for a transplant throughout the UK, of whom around 500 die per year still waiting. On the other hand, in England alone - not the UK - 500,000 people die each year. A major chunk of those people would be suitable donors but at present their organs are simply being buried or burnt - it's not hard to think that with an opt out system the organ donation situation could be solved in double quick time. No need to find another way to exploit pigs - we have the solution already.

[Rhiannon]

It's not a major chunk, sadly, which is why opting out and not in and not allowing family overrides is essential.

[Shaker]

It's not a major chunk, sadly, which is why opting out and not in and not allowing family overrides is essential.

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I meant a major chunk of the 500,000 deaths annually in England would be suitable donors whose organs could and would be used if we had the opt out system. Clearly for umpteen reasons many won't be suitable, but with a pool that large to draw upon I reckon the issue of transplant waiting lists could be solved.

I couldn't find figures for how many people are waiting for a transplant in England alone; the 6500 applies to the whole of the UK. Wales and Scotland already have an opt out system, Northern Ireland and England don't (yet) so I'm guessing that that 6500 applies to England and NI in the main.

Completely agree about not allowing overrides by others.

http://tinyurl.com/gpx3tqx

[Rhiannon]

No, you were clear.

[Shaker]

I try to be!

Just discovered that France has the opt out system too.

[floo]

I am of the opinion it is far better to use a pig's organ instead of a live donor, if a suitable dead donor isn't available. A live donor might require their kidney or lung in the future.