The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Organ transplants and medical ethics

Organ transplants and medical ethics

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
It appears that organ transplants have become a trend in medical field. Medicine is not like engineering where one can experiment with any idea because it will not affect people's life and health. Organ transplants often cause unwanted side effects besides being only a temporary relief in many cases. Evaluating the procedures by survival rates is not enough to judge the success of the procedures. Quality of life after the procedure should be the criteria for evaluation. It is well known that transplants need lifelong follow up to prevent rejection of the foreign transplant. Living donors also have the propensity of even death after organ harvesting. It is felt that adventuristic doctors are allowed to stifle with health and life ignoring the ethics in medical practice. Often such procedures fetch huge money for the surgeon and hospital. The only transplants that can be done ethically are the corneal transplant and blood transfusion.All others are in my opinion against ethics because they are associated with life threatening complications. These techniques cannot be considered as normal time tested surgical procedures.
Posted by Ezhil, Tuesday, 26 May 2015 1:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have your views on organ transplants Ezhill.
I only hope you or anyone you love don't have to suffer organ failure and have to look death in the face...often slowly and painfully.

Organ transplants give many people their lives back, and if that means taking anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives, well so be it.
The will to live is very strong and many sick people will do almost anything to survive.

I would suggest that you have the choice to refuse organ transplants if you ever need any Ezhill, because there are many others on the long waiting lists in Australia who would have no hesitation, despite the side effects.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 12:14:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I completely agree with Suse on this.

I have observed the difference between the health and well being of a person on dialysis and then having a kidney transplant and the difference is amazing. They then live a normal life. Some have extended their life by 30 or so years. What a bonus.

Pity there are not more organs available for transplant.

If someone can make use of any of my bits when I go, they are welcome to them.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 9:39:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take a very personal interest in this question, due the fact that I have a serious lung problem. A time may come when the only chance I have left is a new lung. If my lungs begin to fail, it would not be hard to give it go, but it is undoubtedly a last resort. If the only problem was taking anti rejection drugs, that would not even be a consideration.

I suspect the reason some people are against the idea is they fear that their own body parts might be harvested before they dead. In a country like Australia this is not a justified fear, but the same can not be said for some 3rd world countries. There are also a number of people who hold strong religious convictions against the whole idea but that’s their choice.

I don't think there is any ethical problem provide the organs are ethically sourced.

PS I was not a smoker
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 10:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair - Well said Sir. my sympathies.

I maintain that if you are so insensitive that you would decide not to donate you body parts to someone whose life depends on them - then you should forfeit the right to decide what happens to your organs.
In other words if your organs are able to save someone else's life then as long as the doctor and the anesthetist decide that you are dead and there is no possibility of your revival then your organs should be used for this purpose, permission or not.
Posted by ponde, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:49:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I plan not to have a funeral but to have my body parts distributed to anyone who can use them after I die.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 12:58:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there...

I totally support everything SUSEONLINE has said herein. A very close American friend of mine's daughter, has recently had a kidney transplant, just as well, she was heading down hill very rapidly indeed ! Provided the transplantation is for the purpose of saving a life, well any moral issue surely must come second ?

What I am very annoyed about though, I offered any of my own 'unique' organs if needed, as well as my entire body after death to science ! You know the 'buggers' merely laughed, and declined any and all of my most gracious (I thought?) offers, directing me instead, to some way off province in old Europe called Transylvania ? A largish area I understand, located in the NW region of that slavic nation of Romania ?

They sure know how to hurt a guy !
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 1:15:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no problem with organ transplants, particularly the more simple ones, like liver & kidney, which do appear to return many to a full & useful lifestyle. Some of the more exotic like heart/lung appear to have less useful results.

However if it means that many are waiting much longer for more simple, but critical surgery due to budgetary restraints I am not so much in agreement.

When we hear of some getting their second & even third organ, when others wait years for a gallstone operation, I'm more in favour of the effort being spread, rather than concentrated.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 4:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most important aspect of refining treatments either by medical equipments or by innovative surgical techniques is the neglect of aetiological enquiry. Doctors spend time and energy to come out with sophisticated machinery and techniques because it is the most rewarding. Because of this tendency, doctors and researchers spend very little to unravel the aetiological aspects of diseases, which alone can help in the prevention of diseases. This is a serious matter which many do not understand. Let the society not be trigger happy.
Posted by Ezhil, Saturday, 30 May 2015 1:23:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hardly think that taking the heart from a dead donor threatens that donor's life.
Where a living donor of an organ that they can live without is voluntary then the practice is ethical.

I also wish to state my agreement with you, Suse.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 30 May 2015 8:38:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just because they can do it, does not mean it is ethical to do it.

After 3 heart attacks, 2 due to poor medical practice, my heart & lungs have some damage. A heart lung transplant may extend my life, however I am past my three score years plus ten, & can see absolutely no reason why the taxpayer should spend a million dollars or more on doing that for me.

I can see no reason why they should do it for anyone who is not young enough for restored productivity to repay the cost to society. It should never be an option to expect transplant surgery simply because you are old & clapped out. I believe you are only entitled to some very expensive procedures if you have earned the money to pay for them yourself.

I also question the ethics of surgeons with expensive treatments of doubtful benefit to the patient. When my mother was 96 surgeons wanted to undertake serious work on her. Research told us that with older patients, the bedridden recovery time was so great that most older patients did not regain the use of their legs, & were never able walk again. My mother's last 3 years were better for not undergoing that operation.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 30 May 2015 1:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
I dunno mate, if I needed a heart/lung transplant, and I am about your age, I would not object if they wanted to experiment on me. What they learn may help some young person later on.

Better to experiment on an old codger like me than try something new on a young bloke. But I take your point that if they are not going to learn anything, why bother.

I now would not accept treatment if cancer was diagnosed.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 31 May 2015 8:59:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is OT but Hasbeen's post reminded me of it so I'll share it.

Back in the 1950s I was down at Port Kembla and was in the local RSL.
An elderly gentleman came in, bought a pint and got change of a pound, then went over to play the 6 penny poker machine. He'd feed the 40 coins in then take the payouts and go home.

My host told me about him, a Sudan,Boer and WWI(instructor) veteran he had been knocked down by a car and badly injured when he was 72, at the subsequent damages hearing the insurance company argued that as he had reached his three score years and ten that he was not entitled to compensation.
The Judge (whatever) saw a point in this so suggested to the lawyer for the company that the insurance company pay him the Basic Wage for the rest of his life, everyone agreed on this, it looked like a real money saver for the company and he'd have enough money for his no doubt simple needs.

I had the pleasure of attending his 100th birthday party in 1965 and he lived for a year or two longer.

So the insurance company ended up paying him for some 30 years, with the payments increasing each time the basic wage went up; probably cost them a lot more than the modest settlements of the 1950s.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:28:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline
"The will to live is very strong and many sick people will do almost anything to survive."

Actually my experience is that sick people are more interested in quality of life rather than length of of life. I have had a number of friends that refused treatment, such as Chemotherapy simply because they found the treatment so unpleasant, they preferred to die sooner but with less hassles. One of my very good friends who had a very serious heart condition, gave strict instructions that he was not to be resuscitated, another acquaintance I had, told the doctor off for resuscitating her, telling him she was so tried so just wanted to go.

I am not sure I agree with Hasbeen in considering cost as a factor, but I can see the point that saving two lives is a better option than saving one at great cost.
In my own case I really don't know if the crunch comes whether I would go with a lung transplant or not
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:50:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo things like cancer treatment & Catheter ablation treatment of heart problems are simple & cheap. The cost of on going medication is greater than such treatments.

These are good value. It is the high end organ transplant stuff, with surgeons being paid like pop stars, that is really too expensive for us to continue funding from the public purse.

I expect our ability to replace parts will grow, but if a reduction in costs of surgery does not occur we will end up with no public health as we go bankrupt.

Watching RPA we see some amazing work being done on people who are no use to society, who have very short survival after a successful operation. This is what I am talking about, where surgeons are doing it because they can, [& perhaps because it's profitable], not because it is if any public benefit, & often little or no benefit to the patient.

I am 100% against "feel good" medical treatment.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:59:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
I have actually seen people given a kidney transplant and they lived a normal life for many years after. It gave them quality of life.

In contrast I have witnessed people on Chemo with horrible side effects and who wished they had not had it. For an oldy like me, I would elect to have just palliative care.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 31 May 2015 1:54:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Banjo, kidney & liver transplants do seem to be highly successful, can use a live donor, & can return often quite young people to a full productive life. These are good value, it is the more exotic, which rarely appear to get people back to full productivity that I'm against, or those on old farts like us, if it is on the public purse.

I have no doubt we can develop spare parts to replace most of the usual organs, but we will need to get surgeon's down to mechanics remuneration, before this will become practical.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 31 May 2015 6:20:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This are ordinary things now for medicine. The ultimate thing they have discovered is the head transplant. This is something amazing. It costs a lot but in one day an old person can have a 20 years old body. Crazy or not I find science amazing. I work for CUA (http://australiainsurancequote.com/cua) in the health insurance area and we receive all this crazy madical news.
Just google it ;)
Posted by ana.cruceru, Tuesday, 9 June 2015 4:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy