Pigs as organ donors

[Rhiannon]

I agree with Gordon - any wait for a transplant should be avoided and the logistics are not ideal. In theory pig organs should mean no wait, or minimal wait, with far easier logistics. It also removes the need for living donors - something I really have huge reservations about - which reduces the impact on resources - no need for a second lot of major surgery with its attendant complications and long term hazards. Difficult to argue against given that as a society we both eat meat and use pig valves in surgery.

It's all theory though. Not convinced it will work.

Incidentally opt out has been shown to reduce living donorship, something not regarded as desirable by those who think it a better option than deceased donorship.

[BeRational]

In addition if it can be made to work, the pigs organs would be a better match for the patient, as the pigs organs could be genetically engineered to match.

This could make them a better match than one from another human.

The bottom line is, either you accept harvesting organs from pigs, or you don't. That should be a personal choice.

If people do not want it, then fine, don't have it, but do not presume to speak for others.

Seeking to stop this sort of treatment is backward, and offensive to humankind.

[BeRational]

My position was stated long, but given your penchant for repetition ... a system of presumed consent renders the use of pig organs superfluous. Unnecessary. Redundant. Otiose.

Pigs are being considered only to address the shortage of donors, but with an opt-out system this is no longer a consideration. We know that this is the case on the basis from the evidence of those countries where such a system already exists ... our immediate neighbours for starters.

I do not think this would be the case.

Also, the genetically engineered organs would always be a better match, and therefore a better chance for the patient.

Also, they could be grown to order, and not have to wait for someone to die.

You care too much about the pigs, and too little about human suffering.

[Shaker]

I do not think this would be the case.

You do not know this.

Also, the genetically engineered organs would always be a better match, and therefore a better chance for the patient.

Also, they could be grown to order, and not have to wait for someone to die.

OK, I've covered this already. I'm not going to pander to your dull incomprehension by repeating myself yet again.

You care too much about the pigs, and too little about human suffering.

What I care about and do not care about, and how much, and when, are my concern, not yours.

[floo]

I do not think this would be the case.

Also, the genetically engineered organs would always be a better match, and therefore a better chance for the patient.

Also, they could be grown to order, and not have to wait for someone to die.

You care too much about the pigs, and too little about human suffering.

If pigs organs can do a better job than human organs, the more pigs bred specifically for that purpose the better, imo.

[BeRational]

You do not know this.
OK, I've covered this already. I'm not going to pander to your dull incomprehension by repeating myself yet again.
What I care about and do not care about, and how much, and when, are my concern, not yours.

I said think not know.

Insult and evasion noted.

I can see that you are more concerned about pigs than fellow humans.
That much is clear.
That makes me more moral than you.

[SusanDoris]

I can make the same sort of allegation to you.

You advocate humans suffering to the point of death, rather that give them a pig organ.

I have a new aortic valve which is 'porcine tissue'. Without it I would probably be dead by now, instead of feeling very well and as active as ever. I wonder if Shaker thinks that would be prefereable. And I ask this indirectly because I am asking without emotional overtones.

[Robbie]

Shaker isn't immoral in his views at all, he feels that way and doesn't like the idea of breeding animals for transplant organs.  It's not a question of putting animals before humans.  The idea is a recent one and we've managed without animal parts, there's a fear that animals will not be properly cared for.  I understand where he is coming from but personally would consider the health of homo sapiens - up to a point- as more important than animals.  It's quite something though for a person to be prepared to go without certain treatment for the sake of animals and I admire it.

Just last night I heard about someone I know quite well, roughly my age, who had a coronary and has just been given a stent.  Not an animal product of course but shows how often people have to have things put into their bodies.  He seems to be recovering - might see him tomorrow - it's quite sobering & was so unexpected.

[Shaker]

I said think not know.

Insult and evasion noted.

I can see that you are more concerned about pigs than fellow humans.
That much is clear.
That makes me more moral than you.

That, as you put it in #222, is "just a difference of opinion."

[BeRational]

That, as you put it in #222, is "just a difference of opinion."

We have to agree to disagree on the use of animals.

You are not going to change my mind, and I will not change yours.

[Udayana]

Given the statistics and progress of medical science use of animal organs is pretty much inevitable.

Certainly, the numbers of people that could potentially be saved by transplants will grow year by year, but it seems unlikely that the number of organs recoverable from potential (human) donors would grow at a similar rate.

   

[Shaker]

Woman commended posthumously for saving six lives: http://tinyurl.com/ydf8s375

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41671600

Apparently hundreds of families block organ donation, should they be permitted to do that if someone has signed up to be a donor? 

[Nearly Sane]

No

[floo]

No

I agree. My husband and I would be horrified if our children didn't respect our wishes in that regard. Fortunately they are in agreement with us about organ donation and they carry donor cards too.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree. My husband and I would be horrified if our children didn't respect our wishes in that regard. Fortunately they are in agreement with us about organ donation and they carry donor cards too.

It is a circumstance in which the person cannot be horrified that their wishes aren't being respected though.

[floo]

It is a circumstance in which the person cannot be horrified that their wishes aren't being respected though.

True, I was waiting for you to point that out.

[Shaker]

It is a circumstance in which the person cannot be horrified that their wishes aren't being respected though.

No but people make such arrangements - as they do when they make a will or take out life insurance - in the expectatation that they have made their wishes known and will be respected. Piss all over that and why bother with any kind of future-orientated plan at all?

[Nearly Sane]

True, I was waiting for you to point that out.

I think though that's the issue. If a person is dead, and their relatives are all shouting No!!!!!!!, then it is surely the living that take precedence in making the decision, or rather that is what emotionally has a pull?

[Shaker]

If emotion is the sole arbiter here that's pretty much exactly and precisely why relatives should have no say in the matter.

[Nearly Sane]

No but people make such arrangements - as they do when they make a will or take out life insurance - in the expectatation that they have made their wishes known and will be respected. Piss all over that and why bother with any kind of future-orientated plan at all?

I think people feel different about this somehow, that isn't saying it's right. I've already stated I don't think relatives should be able to countermand the wishes of the dead person. Though say for example someone in their will stated that they wanted their body to be eaten by someone who had agreed to do so. I would suggest that many people who would be for wanting the transplants to go ahead against the wishes of relatives, would want them to be able to stop the cannibalism.

[Nearly Sane]

If emotion is the sole arbiter here that's pretty much exactly and precisely why relatives should have no say in the matter.

Who is suggesting emotion as the sole arbiter? 

[floo]

I think though that's the issue. If a person is dead, and their relatives are all shouting No!!!!!!!, then it is surely the living that take precedence in making the decision, or rather that is what emotionally has a pull?

As so many people are queuing up for organs, all organ donor's wishes should be respected, no matter how upset the relatives are about it. I realise that is easier said than done, but if the law made it quite clear this would be the case, the hospital wouldn't be subject to emotional blackmail.

[Nearly Sane]

As so many people are queuing up for organs, all organ donor's wishes should be respected, no matter how upset the relatives are about it. I realise that is easier said than done, but if the law made it quite clear this would be the case, the hospital wouldn't be subject to emotional blackmail.

Let me make clear, I believe in an opt out policy not an opt in one but I think that respecting the wishes of the dead is not a simple principle.

[Shaker]

Let me make clear, I believe in an opt out policy not an opt in one but I think that respecting the wishes of the dead is not a simple principle.

I don't think it's difficult.

If you've made your wishes re: organ donation official, your wishes carry the day. That's it. Some might say that objections from relatives are understandable if misguided, but not me - that doesn't seem to be borne out by one of the articles linked to above. Predominantly it seems to be based on the 'ick' factor (a dead relative being operated on to retrieve usable organs), which we don't allow to carry the day in other contexts.

People make wills and expect their wishes as enshrined therein to be respected. There's a legal avenue to challenge wills, but unless there are very good grounds for suspecting something genuinely amiss - mental imbalance or coercion - I don't agree with that any more than I do with the ability of relatives to override a person's altruistic wish to help others.