Israeli organ donors to get transplant priority

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.

RobbieTheRobber

mikom wrote: »

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.

So, you, cant, argue, with, my, statements, so, you, instead, complain, about, commas, and, fullstops!

Well done sir you have proven how witty your original statement was by pointing out a lack of commas.


Here is my fullstop quota for the day
.......................................................................
................................................................................
..........................................................................................
.................................................................

and my comma quota
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Now that should be more than enough! Take those commas and fullstops and whenever you read my comments and feel it needs one just come back here and use one of these.

Overheal

Doesnt this Discriminate?

You have to address the number of issues that would make someone ineligible to be a donor. As one poster pointed out, this system would immediately discriminate homosexuals.

Kooli

Overheal wrote: »

Doesnt this Discriminate?

You have to address the number of issues that would make someone ineligible to be a donor. As one poster pointed out, this system would immediately discriminate homosexuals.

Are you sure homosexuals can't be organ donors?

Overheal

No, But there are other examples im sure. Im not a doctor though

Kooli

Overheal wrote: »

No, But there are other examples im sure. Im not a doctor though

Yes but if there is no screening to become a donor (i.e. you just have to carry a donor card), then there is no discrimination.

After you're dead, the doctors can discriminate all they want and turn down the organs. But what matters is that you agreed to hand them over.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kooli wrote: »

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.

Excellent post

arybvtcw0eolkf

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....

Seriously?.

NothingMan

Paula Damaged Milkshake wrote: »

Seriously?.

I was going to make some quip about you in your igloo. Then I remebered that's really you in your avatar.

Lookin good today sir.

givyjoe81

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

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

Mountain out of mole hill perhaps MR Serious?!

RobbieTheRobber

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Mountain out of mole hill perhaps MR Serious?!

Well no seeing as it took relatively little effort on my part to point those things out, I dont see how I made a mountain out of it and I haven't yet called for a tribunal into the comments made.

However I do thank you for pointing out to me, that i was pointing out something and that by pointing out something, other people could percieve that as being me making something out of something else, such as in your example mountains or mole hills or perhaps even cake.

Yours
Very