Atheists versus "non-Atheists" for organ donations

Kivaro

After reading the cremation thread, I started wondering about organ donation and the percentage of Atheists who donate versus the others.

It is imprinted on my driver's license that I am an organ donor, so in the event of my demise there are no questions about donation.

I did it without hesitation, so I'm curious if Atheists are more liable (percentage-wise) to become donors versus non-Atheists. I understand the confusion with Christians because when they rise up from their graves after the second coming (or whenever), they will probably want to be intact i.e. they can't have an eye here and a heart there and a liver in someone else. I can see riots breaking out by the risers seeking their body parts back again.

As a percentage of our corresponding groups, are we more willing to become donors?

jank

So, you are looking for statistics to reafirm your superiority complex of atheism?

Maybe a quick google would point out that religious people in general have no problem with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_organ_donation

Galvasean

jank wrote: »

So, you are looking for statistics to reafirm your superiority complex of atheism?

BORING!!!!

*looks at who thanked Jank's post*

Surprise surprise :rolleyes:

jank

By all means feel free to comment on the subject Galvasean. Or is it easier to snipe from the sidelines.

Dades

jank wrote: »

By all means feel free to comment on the subject Galvasean. Or is it easier to snipe from the sidelines.

Says the poster whose very first reply to the OP was in the form of a snipe.

Honestly, jank, if the threads on this forum irk you so much you don't have to read them.

This is not a conversation opener.
On topic please.

Penn

Kivaro wrote: »

After reading the cremation thread, I started wondering about organ donation and the percentage of Atheists who donate versus the others.

It is imprinted on my driver's license that I am an organ donor, so in the event of my demise there are no questions about donation.

I did it without hesitation, so I'm curious if Atheists are more liable (percentage-wise) to become donors versus non-Atheists. I understand the confusion with Christians because when they rise up from their graves after the second coming (or whenever), they will probably want to be intact i.e. they can't have an eye here and a heart there and a liver in someone else. I can see riots breaking out by the risers seeking their body parts back again.

As a percentage of our corresponding groups, are we more willing to become donors?

I don't think Christians believe their body will rise up, but their soul. Therefore organ donation isn't an issue as you can't donate your soul (because if it does exist, it's not a physical thing, which like most parts of religion, is very f*cking convenient)

Dave!

jank wrote: »

So, you are looking for statistics to reafirm your superiority complex of atheism?

That's the interpretation you might come to if you're a sarky whiney bore, but another might be that the OP hypothesizes that religious/spiritual/mystical baggage might make theists less comfortable with organ donation than atheists, who would generally have a materialist view of things. Now the OP is looking for evidence to support or falsify this.

jank wrote: »

Maybe a quick google would point out that religious people in general have no problem with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...organ_donation

That article gives an overview of what religious leaders and policy-makers say. And we all know that the flock don't necessarily fall in line with things just because the leaders say so.

So really your post wasn't very good was it? You were quick off the mark to get an oul snipe in, but should have put more effort into it.

6/10 at best

Ickle Magoo

Not heard anyone of any religious persuasion/none who has an issue with organ donation as a whole - I have heard lots of people say they couldn't/would donate or consent to donate eyes...being the window to the soul and all...

MrPudding

Penn wrote: »

I don't think Christians believe their body will rise up, but their soul. Therefore organ donation isn't an issue as you can't donate your soul (because if it does exist, it's not a physical thing, which like most parts of religion, is very f*cking convenient)

I think some onthe denominations do actually believe their actual body will rise. Even then it should not be an issue though, surely a thing planning to raise all the dead of a planet would be carrying a few spares?

MrP

Penn

MrPudding wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

I don't think Christians believe their body will rise up, but their soul. Therefore organ donation isn't an issue as you can't donate your soul (because if it does exist, it's not a physical thing, which like most parts of religion, is very f*cking convenient)

I think some onthe denominations do actually believe their actual body will rise. Even then it should not be an issue though, surely a thing planning to raise all the dead of a planet would be carrying a few spares?

MrP

I can't imagine that working against them. "Well, we were going to raise you up to Heaven, but you tried to help people in death... so... Sorry... But look, we'll have a word with Satan, get him to put you in the least worse part of Hell, yeah?"

Dades

@ Dave! - less of the obvious ad hominems in your posting please.

Dave!

Sorry, will be more subtle in future!

Kivaro

Dave! wrote: »

That's the interpretation you might come to if you're a sarky whiney bore, but another might be that the OP hypothesizes that religious/spiritual/mystical baggage might make theists less comfortable with organ donation than atheists, who would generally have a materialist view of things. Now the OP is looking for evidence to support or falsify this.



That article gives an overview of what religious leaders and policy-makers say. And we all know that the flock don't necessarily fall in line with things just because the leaders say so.

So really your post wasn't very good was it? You were quick off the mark to get an oul snipe in, but should have put more effort into it.

6/10 at best

Thanks Dave.
I was genuinely interested based on psychological/religious reasons.

jank

Dades wrote: »

Says the poster whose very first reply to the OP was in the form of a snipe.

Honestly, jank, if the threads on this forum irk you so much you don't have to read them.

This is not a conversation opener.
On topic please.

Doesn't irk me at all, just very amused that we are discussing these things as if its a matter of supporting the right "team". Dare to say something different the hounds are released so to speak. Challenge the general consensus, half a dozen posters will respond in kind. Very aggressive bunch here.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Doesn't irk me at all, just very amused that we are discussing these things as if its a matter of supporting the right "team". Dare to say something different the hounds are released so to speak. Challenge the general consensus, half a dozen posters will respond in kind. Very aggressive bunch here.

jank

Care to elaborate or do you like posting images.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Care to elaborate or do you like posting images.

You don't know what the picture means?

You accuse everyone of being aggressive yet pretty much every single post of yours I've seen in this forum in the last day or two has been agressive. It seems to me that you're just looking for a reaction without adding anything of substance.

Dave!

jank wrote: »

Doesn't irk me at all, just very amused that we are discussing these things as if its a matter of supporting the right "team". Dare to say something different the hounds are released so to speak. Challenge the general consensus, half a dozen posters will respond in kind. Very aggressive bunch here.

Maybe you just read perfectly benign threads in adversarial ways for some reason.

Besides a few tongue in cheek jokes, there was nothing about the OP to suggest that they were trying to reaffirm anything. Just asking a legitimate question.

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Doesn't irk me at all, just very amused that we are discussing these things as if its a matter of supporting the right "team". Dare to say something different the hounds are released so to speak. Challenge the general consensus, half a dozen posters will respond in kind. Very aggressive bunch here.

It is tiresome when a person, such as yourself, joins a thread and assumes the thread is some kind of "atheists are better" justification thread. Sometimes the thread is simply about something the OP finds interesting, which I think is the case here.

Besides, we already know we are better. We don't. We don't need confirmation based on donor rates.

MrP

MrPudding

Dave! wrote: »

Maybe you just read perfectly benign threads in adversarial ways for some reason.

Besides a few tongue in cheek jokes, there was nothing about the OP to suggest that they were trying to reaffirm anything. Just asking a legitimate question.

He has a crisp on his shoulder? Say it isn't so.

MrP

MagicMarker

MrPudding wrote: »

He has a crisp on his shoulder? Say it isn't so.

MrP

He has a hunky dory on his shoulder.

Real Life

I have an organ donor card on me all the time and i have my drivers license signed for organ donation too, I dont know how religious people feel but i can say i did have a conversation about this with friends before, everyone in the room (about 8) was atheist apart from 2 and the 2 of them said they wouldnt donate their organs. Obviously this does prove anything but i thought it was interesting that only the religious people were refusing it.
Having said that my mother is slightly religious and she wants to donate her organs so obviously its just different for everyone.

doctoremma

My husband manages a tissue bank, where excess pieces of people from operations (think tumours, veins, heart valves etc) are collected for medical research. Generally, most people consent to allowing their tissue used in research (with some "get out" clauses to allow for people's preferences on stem cell/cloning research). However, he observes that the majority who don't consent and state their reason do so on religious grounds. As he has zero interest in such things, he doesn't overanalyse it but I wonder if it's linked to this subject?

meganj

I'm an organ donor, I imagine the majority of people are, or would be if not yet registered, regardless of religion.

The only religion I'm aware of that might pose problems for organ donation is the Jewish faith, who believe that the body must be returned as it was given, the removal of an organ either alive or dead can result in your not being buried in a Jewish cemetery.

However I'm pretty sure most Rabbi's give permission to potential donors because they can use the 'pikuakh nefesh' or the principle of saving a life, which (and forgive me if I'm wrong) I think is essentially you can break Jewish Law if you are doing it to save the life of a person.

I'd say there's little to no distinction between atheists and theists in organ donation, but would be interested to know if the religion of the family (or lack there of) would influence the family in making a decision about donation after a loved ones death.

Real Life

doctoremma wrote: »

My husband manages a tissue bank, where excess pieces of people from operations (think tumours, veins, heart valves etc) are collected for medical research. Generally, most people consent to allowing their tissue used in research (with some "get out" clauses to allow for people's preferences on stem cell/cloning research). However, he observes that the majority who don't consent and state their reason do so on religious grounds. As he has zero interest in such things, he doesn't overanalyse it but I wonder if it's linked to this subject?

it seems rediculous to not want to give away an organ or tissue etc to research when its of no use to you and can help someone else, i dont understand why anyone would feel like that. Last year i gave my colon to research after it was removed. I had to sign something to allow it, even that seemed rediculous to me, i just said to the surgeon its of no use to me anymore i dont care what you do with it.

Bannasidhe

Real Life wrote: »

it seems rediculous to not want to give away an organ or tissue etc to research when its of no use to you and can help someone else, i dont understand why anyone would feel like that. Last year i gave my colon to research after it was removed. I had to sign something to allow it, even that seemed rediculous to me, i just said to the surgeon its of no use to me anymore i dont care what you do with it.

I donated my record amount of gall stones plus hideously swollen gall bladder...I do wish I could have been there so when the lecturer informed the medical students that the patient would have been in severe pain I could have raised one eyebrow and say 'No **** Sherlock'.

doctoremma

Real Life wrote: »

it seems rediculous to not want to give away an organ or tissue etc to research when its of no use to you and can help someone else, i dont understand why anyone would feel like that.

The sign up rate is high, although it's fair to say that the care team perform a mini-screen of patients and can identify those who don't want to even talk to the tissue bank. So I guess the most extreme detractors slip through the stats here. By the time my husband gets to them, they have already been prepped for the talk and are open to the possibility. The back out rate at this stage is low.

Real Life wrote: »

Last year i gave my colon to research after it was removed.

*thumbs up*

Real Life wrote: »

I had to sign something to allow it, even that seemed rediculous to me

Well, a crazy pathologist who robbed organs without consent changed the law forever regarding tissue donation (in the UK, at least).

Knasher

meganj wrote: »

The only religion I'm aware of that might pose problems for organ donation is the Jewish faith, who believe that the body must be returned as it was given, the removal of an organ either alive or dead can result in your not being buried in a Jewish cemetery.

Really? According to the wikipedia page on religious views on organ donation, "Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life, as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law". There probably are sects that take different views, but I don't think it applies to Judaism universally.

According to the same page Jehovah's Witnesses are actually okay with organ donation so long as the blood is drained from the organ. Although I doubt it is really viable to drain all the blood from at least some organs (like the lungs maybe?).

And of course you get to the more fringe groups, like for example the christian scientists, who pretty much don't believe in medicine.

meganj

Knasher wrote: »

Really? According to the wikipedia page on religious views on organ donation, "Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life, as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law". There probably are sects that take different views, but I don't think it applies to Judaism universally.

I stand corrected, although I am nearly positive that at the very least if you are seeking to do a live donation, for example kidney, you at least need to consult your Rabbi, I know some have applied for permission only to have it rejected.

But as you say sects and whatnot.

Pushtrak

Organ donation was something I always had planned as a "I'll get around to it" thing. I know I posted in a topic a long time ago but still hadn't gotten around to it. Well, no time like the present, and I just looked up online about doing so. Honestly hypocritical of me for what I posted there and not having one yet.

http://www.organdonation.ie/donate

norrie rugger

There was an issue of hospitals taking the internal organs of still births and babies that died after birth, filling the body with stuffing and not telling the parents. I imagine that this also added to the requirement for consent

Ellis Dee

Full marks to Kivaro for at least originality. It's the first time I've ever given any thought about organs donated by atheists (who probably couldn't give a fcuk where their bits go when they check out) being implanted in believers, who might be fussy about that. However, I doubt whether they really would be. Just think of all the Jewish and Muslim diabetics who use insulin, most of which is extracted from the pancreases of pigs in slaughterhouses.:)

It would get very complicated if potential recipients were asked if they had any preferences regarding the source of the organs that were going to be put into them. It would also be quite a test of faith if Mr. Biblethumper were told. "At last, we've gotten hold of a suitable liver, and it will be flying in from Oslo in three hours' time. We're going to start prepping you now. It should be a good one, too, as it belonged to a Muslim who never used alcohol and harmed his liver like you did to yours.":rolleyes:

And what about blood transfusions? A year and a half ago, when my CRP value was close to 300, they gave me lots of blood transfusions in the Helsinki University Central Hospital and pulled me back from a pretty nasty brink. Should I have insisted they only gave me blood from atheists? I'm just mighty thankful to the donors, irrespective of whatever sky fairy they do or don't believe in.:):)

seamus

A quick google suggests that much like blood donation, there's no general variance between religious and non-religious populations and the preference for donation.

So with the exception of the few very specific religious variants which prohibit donation, religiousness doesn't appear to make anyone more or less likely to donate.

This is presumably because the first proper* organ transplants took place at least 1,000 years after the major religious texts were written, so the people who made them up hadn't even considered that such a thing was possible.

*Sadistic experimentation and meddling aside

ShooterSF

I imagine like a lot of topics most religious people would be fine with organ donation so would go ahead with it. Those that found themselves uneasy about it could then rationalise their fear with some religious reasoning but I imagine it would be a small percentage.

Pushtrak

Pushtrak wrote: »

Organ donation was something I always had planned as a "I'll get around to it" thing. I know I posted in a topic a long time ago but still hadn't gotten around to it. Well, no time like the present, and I just looked up online about doing so. Honestly hypocritical of me for what I posted there and not having one yet.

http://www.organdonation.ie/donate

Still up to your family if organs would be taken or not.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

Still up to your family if organs would be taken or not.

Yeah. Not happy with that. My family is well aware of my wishes, but I think many donations have fallen through due to family ignoring the wishes of the person.

There is talk, in the UK, of making organ donation opt out rather than opt in. I am fully supportive of that. As an interim step, I don't think next of kin should be allowed to overrule the wishes of the potential donor, unless they can prove, pardon the pun, a change of heart.

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. Not happy with that. My family is well aware of my wishes, but I think many donations have fallen through due to family ignoring the wishes of the person.

There is talk, in the UK, of making organ donation opt out rather than opt in. I am fully supportive of that. As an interim step, I don't think next of kin should be allowed to overrule the wishes of the potential donor, unless they can prove, pardon the pun, a change of heart.

MrP

Even just a proper opt-in would probably be good enough.

MagicMarker

Everyone should be organ donators by default, you should have to opt-out, not in.

eyescreamcone

I'd like to donate my soul (as new - never used)
This offer is available immediately.

MrPudding

MagicMarker wrote: »

Everyone should be organ donators by default, you should have to opt-out, not in.

Agreed. But i suspect there will be resistance. As I said, stopping next of kin stopping the donations would be a very effective interim step.

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

Agreed. But i suspect there will be resistance. As I said, stopping next of kin stopping the donations would be a very effective interim step.

MrP

I asked my OH and my son if they would want their organs donated and both immediately said yes. Now, I have to be honest and say that I did find the idea of my son's organs being 'harvested' very unsettling. It was a purely emotive response. Then I told myself to get over it.

MrPudding

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I asked my OH and my son if they would want their organs donated and both immediately said yes. Now, I have to be honest and say that I did find the idea of my son's organs being 'harvested' very unsettling. It was a purely emotive response. Then I told myself to get over it.

Funny, my 13 year old daughter signed up for her Boot's Advantage card yesterday, and there is a option during sign up to go on the organ donor register. She decided she wanted to be on it. Obviously I hope that is a choice I will never have to confirm for her...

MrP

Knasher

I've ticked the back of my driving license, but my understanding of the organ donation cards was that they are entirely meant as a conversation starter so your next of kin know you want your organs donated and hold no power beyond that. I signed up for it once but they never actually sent out the card so I just informed my parents what my wishes would be and left it at that.

cavedave

Does organ donation go far enough?

Say you are in a car accident and unfortunately end up dead but still breathing. Here are some options

1. Turn off the ventilator and give your organs to people. Say thats 5 lives saved. 2 kidneys. A heart a set of lungs and some other bits of you.

2. Leave on the ventilator and use you to test drugs on. Drugs have to go through years of trials to test if they will harm a person. This costs money and delays drug release. Why not use your breathing corpse to test if a drug is severely toxic. It could save far more then 5 lives if it speeds getting a drug to market and make the resulting drugs cheaper again saving lives.

3. Sell your organs. 5 lives still saved just of rich people. The state has to get money somewhere and a fairer way to me seems to be from dead people. Someones relatives might complain about all their money getting seized on death but it seems fairer to me then constantly seizing 40+% throughout their life. Besides in this case its hardly as if they were going to get the use of the organs. So why not just sell your organs as it is better way to make money for the government then taking money off you now when you could use it?

Are 2 and 3 moraly repugnant to you and if so why?

MrPudding

Knasher wrote: »

I've ticked the back of my driving license, but my understanding of the organ donation cards was that they are entirely meant as a conversation starter so your next of kin know you want your organs donated and hold no power beyond that. I signed up for it once but they never actually sent out the card so I just informed my parents what my wishes would be and left it at that.

I am a biker, and therefore statistically more likely to become an organ donor. When on my bike I wear a u-tag which makes my wishes clear. I have also been very clear with my relatives about what I want to happen. I am hopeful that when the time comes my wishes wil be granted. Of course i won't know...

MrP

MrPudding

cavedave wrote: »

Does organ donation go far enough?

Say you are in a car accident and unfortunately end up dead but still breathing. Here are some options

1. Turn off the ventilator and give your organs to people. Say thats 5 lives saved. 2 kidneys. A heart a set of lungs and some other bits of you.

2. Leave on the ventilator and use you to test drugs on. Drugs have to go through years of trials to test if they will harm a person. This costs money and delays drug release. Why not use your breathing corpse to test if a drug is severely toxic. It could save far more then 5 lives if it speeds getting a drug to market and make the resulting drugs cheaper again saving lives.

3. Sell your organs. 5 lives still saved just of rich people. The state has to get money somewhere and a fairer way to me seems to be from dead people. Someones relatives might complain about all their money getting seized on death but it seems fairer to me then constantly seizing 40+% throughout their life. Besides in this case its hardly as if they were going to get the use of the organs. So why not just sell your organs as it is better way to make money for the government then taking money off you now when you could use it?

Are 2 and 3 moraly repugnant to you and if so why?

I actually quite like the sound of number two, though I am not sure of the practicalities of it. My understanding is that after brain death the body starts to die, even though the ventilator is doing the work of the heart and lungs. I always found that interesting.

As for number three I have an issue. Whilst I would probably not, in theory, be against the selling of organs I suspect your plan would mean that many people, who are not rich and currently have a chance of getting an organ would be highly unlikely to get an organ. So for that reason, not due to the commercial aspect, I would object to that option.

MrP

JuliusCaesar

Penn wrote: »

I don't think Christians believe their body will rise up, but their soul. Therefore organ donation isn't an issue as you can't donate your soul (because if it does exist, it's not a physical thing, which like most parts of religion, is very f*cking convenient)

If this is the case, how come there was such a fuss about hospitals keeping organs in jars a couple of years ago? People got the organs back and buried them with the deceased relatives body.

It's a wonder people don't claim their amputated limbs from the clinical waste, to bring home with them and preserve it in formaldehyde, so it can be buried/cremated with them when they die.

Just as people take the 6-day creation seriously, so do they also believe in literally rising again, and sitting on the right hand of god-the-father, all x-millions of them.

(Never mind post-fatal decomposition...)




For those of you who wondered about diabetic Jewish people and porcine insulin - it's ok because they don't orally ingest it! If only they'd known about INJECTIONS in Old Testament times! LOL

doctoremma

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

It's a wonder people don't claim their amputated limbs from the clinical waste, to bring home with them and preserve it in formaldehyde, so it can be buried/cremated with them

In the UK, patients are entirely within their rights to take their excess tissue waste home with them. If their bits are to be incinerated, they have to be separated in bags and not mixed with other clinical waste; please be assured that any lumps of skin, gristle, and other miscellany are 'disposed of with dignity'. If you discover that your tissue has been disposed of in too casual a manner - perhaps the caretaker fed a bit of you to a stray dog - you have grounds for complaint.

Furthermore, a patient can retrieve stored tissue at any point, as can relatives after their death. This means that, in theory, you could request the return of tissue slices from your dead granny's cancer biopsy. The slides would be returned to you in a storage box, which can be bought in a variety of shapes/colours, including - wait for it - coffin-shaped (I'm not kidding).

cavedave

MrPudding

I actually quite like the sound of number two, though I am not sure of the practicalities of it. My understanding is that after brain death the body starts to die, even though the ventilator is doing the work of the heart and lungs. I always found that interesting.

AFAIK there are different stages of brain death. You can still breath for yourself but have no prospect of waking up. In such cases I believe they eventually stop feeding you. Most drug tests take a long time so they would not be suitable. But some of the earlier tests are just to check for serious toxicity which do not take as long.

As for number three I have an issue. Whilst I would probably not, in theory, be against the selling of organs I suspect your plan would mean that many people, who are not rich and currently have a chance of getting an organ would be highly unlikely to get an organ. So for that reason, not due to the commercial aspect, I would object to that option.

In such a system poor people might not get organs. We do allow inequalities of health care for the rich at the moment. There are some chemo drugs that are so expensive the health service only pays for in certain circumstances. However if you are rich enough you can go buy them yourself.

iguana

Knasher wrote: »

Really? According to the wikipedia page on religious views on organ donation, "Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life, as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law". There probably are sects that take different views, but I don't think it applies to Judaism universally.

Israel has the lowest rate of organ donation in any 'Western' country in the world due to the interpretations of the rules about the desecration of the dead. It's why they recently changed the law to make so patients on the donor lists get priority if they need an organ. If two patients have identical needs to a particular organ and only one is willing to be a donor, then the potential donor gets the organ.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/in-israel-a-new-approach-to-organ-donation/

In the UK I was on the donor register but here the donor card here means very little at all, carrying it is nothing more than an indication to your family that you wanted to donate. It's still up to your next-of-kin what happens regardless of your wishes or that you were carrying a card. If you want to be a donor in this country what you need to do is ensure your next-of-kin knows this and is willing to agree to it if the time comes. Luckily my husband, parents and brothers are all of the same mindset as me on this issue, so I feel as secure as it is possible to feel in this country that I'm definitely a donor.

MrPudding

iguana wrote: »

In the UK I was on the donor register but here the donor card here means very little at all, carrying it is nothing more than an indication to your family that you wanted to donate. It's still up to your next-of-kin what happens regardless of your wishes or that you were carrying a card.

This is also the case in the UK.

MrP