Ethics debate: Should organs donated in a state be kept in the state?

[WalterSobchakk]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey everyone, I thought this was interesting and worth talking about. Let's say that there is one state that has a large pool of organ donors and another state that doesn't have as many. The state with fewer donors sets up a clinic in the state with many, then transports patients to the organ rich state to have transplants. This effectively drains the organs from the state with many and sends them to the state that has few. The difficult part is that these organs are saving lives wherever they go, but it is not fair to the people on the waiting list in the state with more organs. Is this an ethical practice, or should the state with fewer organ donors simply campaign and advertise for more?

 

[thewzdoc]

No. Medical needs shouldn?t be dependant upon political boundaries.

 

[PreMedStudent]

Well aren't organs donated to help save another life... i dont think that the state should have anything to do with this. Basically whoever is in need should receive them, after all what does government have to do with this issue.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

That's a rather bizarre argument. Is it unethical to move organs across county boundaries? City boundaries? If one state/area were getting many fewer per capita organs (assuming the average need per 100,000 people was similar in the two different areas), then there would be an issue of fairness.

 

[flighterdoc]

Hey everyone, I thought this was interesting and worth talking about. Let's say that there is one state that has a large pool of organ donors and another state that doesn't have as many. The state with fewer donors sets up a clinic in the state with many, then transports patients to the organ rich state to have transplants. This effectively drains the organs from the state with many and sends them to the state that has few. The difficult part is that these organs are saving lives wherever they go, but it is not fair to the people on the waiting list in the state with more organs. Is this an ethical practice, or should the state with fewer organ donors simply campaign and advertise for more?

Silly argument. The organs should go where they can do the most good, within the limits of the ability to move them to where they're needed.

 

[WalterSobchakk]

These are good points, everybody. I agree with you. However,

If one state/area were getting many fewer per capita organs (assuming the average need per 100,000 people was similar in the two different areas), then there would be an issue of fairness.

That's basically what I'm saying. Is it fair for a lower per capita donor area to use organs from a higher per capita donor area, even though the organs are still needed to save lives in the higher per capita donor area? I suppose you all are right though, medicine isn't a local business, and the people who do the waitlists would be able to decide where they are needed more in the big picture.

 

[thewzdoc]

The difficult part is that these organs are saving lives wherever they go, but it is not fair to the people on the waiting list in the state with more organs. Is this an ethical practice, or should the state with fewer organ donors simply campaign and advertise for more?

The waitlist is National not State by State. There is no "fairness" involved in it. You may be #1 on the list but a more suitable candidate is found....it will not go to you.

 

[WalterSobchakk]

ah ha! cool. I didn't realize the list was national. disregard this thread. 😳

 

[Gleevec]

Actually the waitlist is by geographical region, for obvious reasons. Transport can result in damage to the organ, diminishing the value of a transplant.

 

[taehong81]

Even though the waiting list is national, it is broken down to regional waitlist so it does matter where you live. For example if there is a donor available in North Carolina, then UNOS (United Network of Organ Sharing) will first go to list of people waiting for organ around the regions around north carolina first. If they cannot find anyone then they will go to a more outside region (such as the southeastern region) and they will continue to go out further until they find a recipient. They do this because there is a time pressure for the organs. The heart can be outside of the donor bodies only for four hours and it has to be put into the recipient body within four hours. Therefore a heart from california cannot by transferred to New York since there isn't enough time for the transplant. You can cheat the system by being under multiple regional waitlist. You can assign to be on the waitlist around california and waitlist around new york. As long as you can be at either california or new york within certain time when they find you a donor, it is hard to find out that you are on both waitlist. So rich people who can afford to fly to a place anytime can cheat by being on both waitlist. But I guess the question is, is there a region where there are more donors than other regions?

 

[thewzdoc]

Actually the waitlist is by geographical region, for obvious reasons. Transport can result in damage to the organ, diminishing the value of a transplant.

It is a national program that tracks the organs. The point is that it is not a state by state system.

A friend of mine was on the waitlist for a Kidney for years.

 

[Gleevec]

It is a national program that tracks the organs. The point is that it is not a state by state system.

A friend of mine was on the waitlist for a Kidney for years.

Yes the program is national, but the waitlist is divided into regions as to ensure organs dont decay. It is not a state system, nor should it be.

 

[thewzdoc]

Yes the program is national, but the waitlist is divided into regions as to ensure organs dont decay. It is not a state system, nor should it be.

👍 You are correct sir....

 

[slackerjock]

Silly argument. The organs should go where they can do the most good, within the limits of the ability to move them to where they're needed.

organs should do the most good in the Stars N' Bars, where economic productivity is high. perhaps we should raise human organ systems in mexico. god bless nafta~

 

[ken37]

Silly argument. The organs should go where they can do the most good, within the limits of the ability to move them to where they're needed.

Nice sentiment, but I'm pretty sure that people would be in an uproar if we let US organs be exported to Mexico and Canada, especially if no one in those countries would reciprocate. Basically, the OP has a fair question. My hope would be that any state or country that chose to be in the system would have equal access, with the proviso that if a certain state was taking a lot more than they were donating, that that area would need to take steps to fix the problem, or face rationing. I'm sure others disagree.

I think the best option would to be figuring out how to grow organs from a patient's own stem cells, but I'm sure we're a ways away from that.

 

[Ames980]

speaking of organ donation.... id reccomend the book Stiff - very interesting look at cadavar usage