Israeli organ donors to get transplant priority

Bottle_of_Smoke

Israel is to become the first country to give donor card carriers a legal right to priority treatment if they should require an organ transplant.

The law has been changed to try to boost donation rates, as there is a shortage for organs for donation.

Partners and close relatives of those with signed donor cards will also move up the queue, The Lancet medical journal reports.

Critics say patients should be treated on the basis of clinical need.

Writing in The Lancet, Professor Jacob Lavee, of the Sheba Medical Centre, one of the leading advocates for the reform, describes Israel's organ donation statistics as "grim".

As much as they're a bunch of America backed terrorists I really like this decision. Always thought this is how donors should be rewarded and glad to see a country finally do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8416443.stm

toiletduck

That's a pretty good idea. Should be implemented here along with a reward scheme (of some type) for blood donation.

wes

Certainly a interesting idea, and probably would encourage more people to donate.

RMD

toiletduck wrote: »

That's a pretty good idea. Should be implemented here along with a reward scheme (of some type) for blood donation.

Tax benefits possibly? Cash up front would just lead to that HIV scandal from years ago.

I think it's a great idea to offer donors priority for transplants, I've always felt people who aren't willing to donate their own when they have no need for them shouldn't have the right to receive them. Has to be an equal playing field.

Morlar

I would be curious to see why israelis have such low donation levels to begin with (1 in 10 compared to 1 in 4)

I think the most interesting part of the article was this which I fully agree with

But he acknowledged that it violated the principle of "true altruism", and the "ideal" of care being provided solely according to medical need.

Not sure if I agree with 'presumed consent' but it might be worth Ireland considering too.

amacachi

Until the carrying of a donor card overrides the next-of-kins right to decide what happens to someone's organs I won't be carrying a card.

Cookie_Monster

Sign up, get donated organ, remove signature...

job done :pac:

genericguy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Sign up, get donated organ, remove signature...

job done :pac:

yea, then the mossad knock at your door to take the organ back.

NothingMan

toiletduck wrote: »

That's a pretty good idea. Should be implemented here along with a reward scheme (of some type) for blood donation.

I got 2 bourbon creams and a bottle of Guinness. Good enough for me.

Morlar

NothingMan wrote: »

I got 2 bourbon creams and a bottle of Guinness. Good enough for me.

Except they don't still do guinness (not in the mobile bloodbank anyway). Some biscuits and a 'well done' pat on the back are about it. Not forgeting the 'monkey' questionairre which is always funny.

NothingMan

Morlar wrote: »

Except they don't still do guinness (not in the mobile bloodbank anyway). Some biscuits and a 'well done' pat on the back are about it. Not forgeting the 'monkey' questionairre which is always funny.

The questionaire is ridiculous alright, I was 18 when I first donated and was pretty embaressed answering some of the questions, and I couldn't see how they were relevant at all.

So what if I rimmed a Shemale in Thailand less than a bajillion years ago, do you want my blood or not?

toiletduck

NothingMan wrote: »

I got 2 bourbon creams and a bottle of Guinness. Good enough for me.

Did you not get the pack of tayto aswell? :eek:

NothingMan

toiletduck wrote: »

Did you not get the pack of tayto aswell? :eek:

I was goin out on the piss after and wanted a cheap night!

General Zod

wes wrote: »

Certainly a interesting idea, and probably would encourage more people to donate.

So basically we abandon the idea of medical necessity determining transplant allocation and turn to a "but I have a card" system.

mikom

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Israeli organ donors to get transplant priority

As much as they're a bunch of America backed terrorists I really like this decision. Always thought this is how donors should be rewarded and glad to see a country finally do it.

Stupid idea.
Seriously, who would want the heart of an Israeli.........

General Zod

"I'm sorry little Emil, I know you needed a new liver, but Larry Hagman just turned up and he has a card, so he gets it first".

RobbieTheRobber

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

As much as they're a bunch of America backed terrorists I really like this decision.

What was the purpose of this line?

I dont think it added anything to the discussion except to give your ill informed political views and invite posts such as the oh so clever one below!

mikom wrote: »

Stupid idea.
Seriously, who would want the heart of an Israeli.........

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

hooradiation

mikom wrote: »

Stupid idea.
Seriously, who would want the heart of an Israeli.........

you cannot give that which does not exist.

mikom

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What was the purpose of this line?

Two words......... After Hours.

I'm not allowed to donate blood, so why should I be denied it if I needed it? It's not my fault I can't donate. This is one of those things that seems like a good idea but is actually quite stupid.

wes

General Zod wrote: »

So basically we abandon the idea of medical necessity determining transplant allocation and turn to a "but I have a card" system.

I just said the idea was interesting, and not that it should be implemented right away. I think it would be better to take a wait and see approach on an actual implementation, and if it fail miserably in Israel, then we shouldn't bother.

RobbieTheRobber

mikom wrote: »

Two words......... After Hours.

Two words ......... So what

mikom

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Two words ......... So what

Two words x2.......... What's the problem so?

RobbieTheRobber

mikom wrote: »

Two words x2.......... What's the problem so?

Your attempt at using anti-semitism as humour is old tired and a little dated, and by a little dated I mean by 135 BC it was already old :rolleyes:

Nodin

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Your attempt at using anti-semitism as humour is old tired and a little dated, and by a little dated I mean by 135 BC it was already old :rolleyes:

You seem to be confusing the Israeli state and criticism thereof with Jews. The two are not synonomous.

derfderf

I prefer the idea that people opt out of donating. Otherwise it's assumed you're ok wit it. Who really wants their corneas to rot in their coffin wit them?

Cookie_Monster

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Your attempt at using anti-semitism as humour is old tired and a little dated, and by a little dated I mean by 135 BC it was already old :rolleyes:

not its not.





[see Southpark for reference]

RobbieTheRobber

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

As much as they're a bunch of America backed terrorists I really like this decision.

mikom wrote: »

Stupid idea.
Seriously, who would want the heart of an Israeli.........

hooradiation wrote: »

you cannot give that which does not exist.

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the Israeli state and criticism thereof with Jews. The two are not synonomous.

Very good attempt at distraction, what other assumption would you suggest I take from these comments?

toiletduck

[quote=[Deleted User];63541270]I'm not allowed to donate blood, so why should I be denied it if I needed it?[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's proposing that. Blood shortages are of serious concern, I think something should be done to encourage more (and yes I think that some of the rules regarding eligibility should be challenged).

Cookie_Monster

toiletduck wrote: »

I don't think anyone's proposing that. Blood shortages are of serious concern, I think something should be done to encourage more (and yes I think that some of the rules regarding eligibility should be challenged).

The rules are there for a very good reason. Remember the whole Hep C scandal of a few years ago?

hooradiation

I don't know about you guys, but i totally hate the Jews.

who do they think they are, living in igloo like they're all kinds special....

RobbieTheRobber

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't know about you guys, but i totally hate the Jews.

who do they think they are, living in igloo like they're all kinds special....

Indeed!

CrazyRabbit

If they are to bring out a priority system, then it should be based on age and how well you have taken care of your body.

Those who should go to the end of the queue;

• The long time heavy drinker who needs a new liver .
• The smoker who needs new lungs.
• The overweight person with high colesterol who needs a new heart.

First in line should be children/teens and those who need a transplant through no fault of their own.

Of course, we are not far away from having lab-grown organs and we won't need donors anymore.

Cookie_Monster

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

If they are to bring out a priority system, then it should be based on age and how well you have taken care of your body.

Those who should go to the end of the queue;

• The long time heavy drinker who needs a new liver .
• The smoker who needs new lungs.
• The overweight person with high colesterol who needs a new heart.

First in line should be children/teens and those who need a transplant through no fault of their own.

Of course, we are not far away from having lab-grown organs and we won't need donors anymore.

Those people should not even be on the list.

And as you say in the next 10 years I imagine it all be redundant anyway.
News out today that they've mapped two cancer genomes, one more step on the road to killing them completly.

toiletduck

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The rules are there for a very good reason. Remember the whole Hep C scandal of a few years ago?

Yeah of course, but the blanket ban on gay men for instance...

RobbieTheRobber

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

If they are to bring out a priority system, then it should be based on age and how well you have taken care of your body.

Those who should go to the end of the queue;

• The long time heavy drinker who needs a new liver .
• The smoker who needs new lungs.
• The overweight person with high colesterol who needs a new heart.

First in line should be children/teens and those who need a transplant through no fault of their own.

Of course, we are not far away from having lab-grown organs and we won't need donors anymore.

The young should be first, but priorty systems have faults and in any case involving a transplant no family wants to hear that their husband/wife father/mother brother/sister isn't a prioity because of age or other qualifying factors and surely in any prioritisiing you would have to consider the possibility of rejection and put more of a prioity on those who you deem to have a higher chance of success following the operation.

Bottle_of_Smoke

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What was the purpose of this line?

I dont think it added anything to the discussion except to give your ill informed political views and invite posts such as the oh so clever one below!





:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The topic was a bit serious for after hours. Was being ironic for that reason. Lighten up Mr Moneylendinggoldfiendjesuskillerstein

Cookie_Monster

toiletduck wrote: »

Yeah of course, but the blanket ban on gay men for instance...

I don't want no homo blood in me...

Bottle_of_Smoke

General Zod wrote: »

So basically we abandon the idea of medical necessity determining transplant allocation and turn to a "but I have a card" system.

It wouldn't have to be black and white like that. Obviously if someone is 24hours from death we should give them priority if they're a donater or not.

However, say when a bunch of people aren't dying but are on dialysis and are waiting for a new kidney, I think it would be perfectly fair to give the first available ones to those who had put themselves forward for organ donation.

toiletduck

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't want no homo blood in me...

I hear if that happens to you, then you become one of them!

Bottle_of_Smoke

toiletduck wrote: »

Yeah of course, but the blanket ban on gay men for instance...

There's no ban on gay men donating blood. Or using blankets for that matter.

toiletduck

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There's no ban on gay men donating blood. Or using blankets for that matter.

Fine, gay men who have had sex then.

Never give blood if:
.......
You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used
........

http://www.giveblood.ie/Become_a_Donor/Keeping_Blood_Safe/Safety/

Capt'n Midnight

NothingMan wrote: »

The questionaire is ridiculous alright, I was 18 when I first donated and was pretty embaressed answering some of the questions, and I couldn't see how they were relevant at all.

So what if I rimmed a Shemale in Thailand less than a bajillion years ago, do you want my blood or not?

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102219499.html

median time from contamination to clinical AIDS stage was 9.4 years

The maximum incubation time would of course be significantly longer than the median time.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/45851.php

As the CJD incubation period may be over 60 years, we could be decades away from an epidemic, say researchers from University College London and scientists from Australia and Papua New Guinea. The researchers studied former cannibals in New Guinea where a disease called 'Kuru' exists. Kuru has very similar symptoms to CJD, and like CJD, is caused by a prion.

As BSE-contaminated beef was consumed during the 1990s, the number of humans developing CJD may not be known until we are half way into the present century.

Kuru has an incubation period of 50 to 60 years, the researchers say that the incubation period for BSE, which can infect humans who then develop CJD, could be even longer. This is because CJD comes from cattle, the species-barrier effect could prolong the incubation period.

You can read about this study in The Lancet 2006; 367: 2068-74.

mikom

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Your attempt at using anti-semitism as humour is old tired and a little dated, and by a little dated I mean by 135 BC it was already old :rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The young should be first, but priorty systems have faults and in any case involving a transplant no family wants to hear that their husband/wife father/mother brother/sister isn't a prioity because of age or other qualifying factors and surely in any prioritisiing you would have to consider the possibility of rejection and put more of a prioity on those who you deem to have a higher chance of success following the operation.

Scan, it'd be more in your line to start sticking a few commas or full stops in your sentences rather than rolling your eyes.

Bottle_of_Smoke

toiletduck wrote: »

Fine, gay men who have had sex then.



http://www.giveblood.ie/Become_a_Donor/Keeping_Blood_Safe/Safety/

Once again you're the one adding in the gay reference.

If I decided to work as a rent boy tonight I'd be banned but it wouldn't make me gay. The ban is on certain activities, not sexuality.

toiletduck

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Once again you're the one adding in the gay reference.

If I decided to work as a rent boy tonight I'd be banned but it wouldn't make me gay. The ban is on certain activities, not sexuality.

Fine, I should give my posts the same attention as a legal document in future. It's rather pedantic to get bogged down in I think. In future I'll make sure to use "MSM" (Men who have sex with Men). Happy? :pac:

I think it should be challenged anyways.

NothingMan

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102219499.html

The maximum incubation time would of course be significantly longer than the median time.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/45851.php

So.... I shouldn't have rimmed that lady boy?

toiletduck

NothingMan wrote: »

So.... I shouldn't have rimmed that lady boy?

You shouldn't have paid for it anyways.

NothingMan

toiletduck wrote: »

You shouldn't have paid for it anyways.

But I had a coupon for "Rim one ladyboy and rim another of equal or lesser value for free."

PopUp

Morlar wrote: »

I would be curious to see why israelis have such low donation levels to begin with (1 in 10 compared to 1 in 4)

Very very strict forms of Othodox Judaism forbid organ donation. Jewish law states that the body should be buried whole and complete. (It's very morbid but that's why Israel has a special crime scene unit that gathers up and identifies all human remains, down to the tiniest scrap of flesh, after a suicide bombing).

This only applies to the most conservative denominations. Most Jews have no problem with organ donation (like most Catholics have no problem with birth control). See here for how 'liberal' (or at least non-ultra conservative) rabbis justify it in the Torah.

However, Israel has a very significant population of extreme conservatives, and I imagine they skew the organ donation rates.

Kooli

I think organ donation and blood donation are totally different and should be treated as such.

For organ donation, I'm all for it. You have to agree to give yours up before you can ask for someone else's.

But blood is different. For a start, too many of us are excluded. Secondly, people may not want to donate blood for other reasons (fear of needles etc.), which I don't think is enough of a crime to withhold blood from them in case of emergency.

But donating your organs costs you absolutely nothing, so it should be the norm rather than the exception.