"So you alleviate suffering. Can I see your driver license? Oh, not an organ donor..."

[PB&Jam]

Kek in WoW was actually made to translate that way because that's how Koreans say "hah," and they were huge Starcraft players so basically any time some guy from Asia was owning you, you'd see "kekekekekekek." It's basically a meta in-joke for people that spent way too much time on Battle.net. Later on, 4chan would use it as a stand-in for lol, but at some point it came to be associated with Pepe the frog, who was then viewed as a deity after their prayers for Brexit were seemingly answered (and they simultaneously found out there was a similar Egyptian god of chaos). Thus began the age of memetic warfare, during which memes and Kek were called upon to elect Trump. Trump was elected, which they again viewed as a sign of their deity being real, and hence Kek worship continues both ironically and unironically to this day.

-Mad Jack, Internet Archivist and Part Time Memeologist

If you know so much about memes can you tell me what the heck "REEEE" is? I dont know why some people randomly shout/type it and it annoys the crap out of me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you know so much about memes can you tell me what the heck "REEEE" is? I dont know why some people randomly shout/type it and it annoys the crap out of me.

It all goes back to the sounds that frogs make when pissed off:

Since Pepe the frog is basically their spirit animal, people on certain corners of the internet (largely /b/, /r9k/, and /pol/) kind of view "REEEEEEEE" as their battlecry/squeal of agitation.

 

[libertyyne]

"I must've forgotten to check that box."
"I believe you have to specifically check 'no.' The clerk would have made sure of that."
"I must have misread it. I do love helping people ...."
"You misread? That explains the 125 CARS."
......

Savage. That dude eviscerated you. Was this a student interviewer ?

 

[May real name is...]

Don't panic. If I'm your boss and you panic, I'll say "Go home."

 

[BeddingfieldMD]

For what it's worth, I'm sure there is an exception...but I've never heard of an interviewer asking a question like this.

Otherwise, agree with prior comments. There are many reasons people may not personally want to be an organ donor. We don't have mandatory organ donation in this country (an increasing number of countries do), so the decision is personal and based on any number of reasons that don't need to be shared with physicians--and certainly not an admissions interviewer.

In general, my observation has been that most med school interviews are fairly relaxed and are more about getting to know applicants, their motivations and rationale for applying to med school, their understanding of what they're getting into, and perhaps a bit about their problem-solving and conflict-resolution skills. The most "gotcha" questions I've routinely heard of are things like, "Tell me about a time in which you had a challenging dispute with a coworker or roommate and how you resolved it," or perhaps something like, "During residency, you suspect a colleague of abusing prescription drugs. What do you do?"

The question you've posed is in the realm of, "While you are a resident, an active shooter enters your hospital and puts one gun to the head of your attending and a second gun to the head of your patient. He says he has to pull the trigger of one gun. Which do you choose?" Such a question would be ridiculous, and I can't imagine anyone ever asking it.

 

[Saifa]

FWIW, why is donor status emblazoned on a driver's license? Why not leave them in a state database accessible to physicians? Why would anybody else need to know?

 

[Lucca]

FWIW, why is donor status emblazoned on a driver's license? Why not leave them in a state database accessible to physicians? Why would anybody else need to know?

Organ harvesting is extremely time sensitive. If you die in a car crash, having it on your card makes sure everyone who needs to know knows ASAP without having to rely on technology. Theres also like a million people involved in the process beyond just physicians.

 

[Saifa]

Organ harvesting is extremely time sensitive. If you die in a car crash, having it on your card makes sure everyone who needs to know knows ASAP without having to rely on technology. Theres also like a million people involved in the process beyond just physicians.

I suspected as much, anything you read about being a donor is either suspiciously positive or suspiciously negative though.

 

[Mad Jack]

FWIW, why is donor status emblazoned on a driver's license? Why not leave them in a state database accessible to physicians? Why would anybody else need to know?

Because you have to identify someone to find them on any database, so you may as well just use identification to denote donor status to save a step.

 

[May real name is...]

Excuse me Sir? Those are my organs. I have the right to protect the sanctity of my own person from those who would wish to harvest them, even in cases of medical emergency.

 

[Mad Jack]

I suspected as much, anything you read about being a donor is either suspiciously positive or suspiciously negative though.

Suspiciously positive? Organ donation is pretty much winning all around and costs you nothing but the **** you weren't using anyway. In our state, it's run completely through nonprofits so there isn't really some huge financial incentive for a massive conspiracy to encourage donation.

 

[Mad Jack]

Excuse me Sir? Those are my organs. I have the right to protect the sanctity of my own person from those who would wish to harvest them, even in cases of medical emergency.

I mean, I'm all about opt-out donation personally, because when you're dead, they're not your organs because there is no you. But that's just my opinion. I respect how others feel about it even if I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[Goro]

"Yet you stated that you wish to help people, and there is a dire need of organs for transplant...."

You see how easy it is to fall into a rhetorical trap?

EDIT: I would respect an answer like this, and wouldn't ding someone for answering this way, but you do see the opening the answer provides?

Excuse me Sir? Those are my organs. I have the right to protect the sanctity of my own person from those who would wish to harvest them, even in cases of medical emergency.

 

[Mad Jack]

"Yet you stated that you wish to help people, and there is a dire need of organs for transplant...."

You see how easy it is to fall into a rhetorical trap?

EDIT: I would respect an answer like this, and wouldn't ding someone for answering this way, but you do see the opening the answer provides?

Yeah- I'm fine with people not donating their organs, but it's about how someone comes off with their answer to a question like this.

 

[May real name is...]

"Yet you stated that you wish to help people, and there is a dire need of organs for transplant...."

You see how easy it is to fall into a rhetorical trap?

EDIT: I would respect an answer like this, and wouldn't ding someone for answering this way, but you do see the opening the answer provides?

I have a really big problem with answering in a cheeky manner. My research mentor has been helping me with this. I don't believe this shows a contradiction in principles. What happens to my body is a private discussion between my family and me. My religion plays a large part in this. To insinuate that my desire to help those around me is any less real because of this is a play at my person.

EDIT: should be "play at my rights as a person." More correct with my intentions :I.

 

[Saifa]

In our state, it's run completely through nonprofits so there isn't really some huge financial incentive for a massive conspiracy to encourage donation.

Must be the good old small town hysteria in me. Getting my license at 16 my initial, unadulterated response to the option was "why wouldn't I want to do this?" Then years of shocked expressions and conspiracy theories of all kinds followed.

 

[BeddingfieldMD]

FWIW, why is donor status emblazoned on a driver's license? Why not leave them in a state database accessible to physicians? Why would anybody else need to know?

After attending a couple of political meetings here in Wisconsin about the state's efforts to create a narcotics prescription database (as many states in the country are doing or have recently done), I can tell you this is way easier said than done. It would likely take the federal government five years and $7 million to create such a searchable database--and it would end up being a piece of crap.

 

[Mad Jack]

Must be the good old small town hysteria in me. Getting my license at 16 my initial, unadulterated response to the option was "why wouldn't I want to do this?" Then years of shocked expressions and conspiracy theories of all kinds followed.

I've been involved in many an organ donation and actually took a full length course about the process and post-transplant care. It's really a tightly controlled thing, and it's done carefully every step of the way. If you're not clinically brain dead (which is essentially irrecoverable) it is a long and fairly involved process.

 

[May real name is...]

I mean, I'm all about opt-out donation personally, because when you're dead, they're not your organs because there is no you. But that's just my opinion. I respect how others feel about it even if I wholeheartedly disagree.

So I only have rights as I live? Can you go about digging up graves now? That was a terrible time in medical history, and the people will not accept doctors with such principles. Even then though, your ethics are flawed. My living relatives should have their religious and property rights to my body.

 

[Mad Jack]

After attending a couple of political meetings here in Wisconsin about the state's efforts to create a narcotics prescription database (as many states in the country are doing or have recently done), I can tell you this is way easier said than done. It would likely take the federal government five years and $7 million to create such a searchable database--and it would end up being a piece of crap.

There already are databases in many states. Donate Life New England runs one around here, and I think ORGANIZE.org is a national one.

 

[Lucca]

on a side note think about what a wonderful world it would be if patients actually owned their own medical information and all of it was tied to something as simple as a Driver's License, Resident Card, or Social Security number. The searchable database would create itself overnight and all relevant medical history would be immediately accessible without having to rely on the patient's memory or request it from other hospital/insurance systems.

too bad that will never happen under the current structure lmao.

 

[Mad Jack]

So I only have rights as I live? Can you go about digging up graves now? That was a terrible time in medical history, and the people will not accept doctors with such principles. Even then though, your ethics are flawed. My living relatives should have their religious and property rights to my body.

Hey, if you've got a religious thing that's fine, opt out. Simple. Not saying we should be taking organs against people's will, but that the default should be "yes" not "no."

 

[Mad Jack]

on a side note think about what a wonderful world it would be if patients actually owned their own medical information and all of it was tied to something as simple as a Driver's License, Resident Card, or Social Security number. The searchable database would create itself overnight and all relevant medical history would be immediately accessible without having to rely on the patient's memory or request it from other hospital/insurance systems.

too bad that will never happen under the current structure lmao.

Sounds great in theory, but at that point you're one data breech away from all hell breaking loose.

 

[Lucca]

Sounds great in theory, but at that point you're one data breech away from all hell breaking loose.

an inaccessible server is theoretically possible. The problem is that most security breaches happen at the key/login point which is entirely dependent on human practices (doesnt matter how secure a server is if you tweet your password by accident). If it is tied to something like SSN, then your medical info is *as* safe as your Social Security information.

 

[May real name is...]

Hey, if you've got a religious thing that's fine, opt out. Simple. Not saying we should be taking organs against people's will, but that the default should be "yes" not "no."

You're saying that if someone has not gone in to opt out of this, their body can be taken so that a doctor can perform medical procedures? How serious should a medical procedure be to justify taking a body from an accident? I know you guys get thousands for sticking skin on people. How much skin do you get for taking someone's son from them? How many vital organs can you sell to random people by stealing my body? How much plasma can you harvest if you keep me half alive for a while?

 

[Seldon]

You're saying that if someone has not gone in to opt out of this, their body can be taken so that a doctor can perform medical procedures? How serious should a medical procedure be to justify taking a body from an accident? I know you guys get thousands for sticking skin on people. How much skin do you get for taking someone's son from them? How many vital organs can you sell to random people by stealing my body? How much plasma can you harvest if you keep me half alive for a while?

...

 

[JoaoMoutinho]

an inaccessible server is theoretically possible. The problem is that most security breaches happen at the key/login point which is entirely dependent on human practices (doesnt matter how secure a server is if you tweet your password by accident). If it is tied to something like SSN, then your medical info is *as* safe as your Social Security information.

Those are both good points, but I think that something like records tied to SSN could be great. Unfortunately, many of the people who would benefit the most from this kind of system are also people who don't have good access to healthcare and/or a social security card.

 

[May real name is...]

...

You realize that they take the body right? Then they put it on a ventilator for as long as a paid medical doctor deems necessary in order to fulfill the "wholehearted wish" of the donor to help some random dude out. So in an opt out scenario, i your son forgot to check that box and died in a car crash, they would take him from you and do all that bull****.

 

[Mad Jack]

You're saying that if someone has not gone in to opt out of this, their body can be taken so that a doctor can perform medical procedures? How serious should a medical procedure be to justify taking a body from an accident? I know you guys get thousands for sticking skin on people. How much skin do you get for taking someone's son from them? How many vital organs can you sell to random people by stealing my body? How much plasma can you harvest if you keep me half alive for a while?

Uh, dude, if it's that important to you you would have opted out. It's implied consent, just as occurs when someone is found unconscious and it is implied that we should treat them. >80% of people support donating their organs, while only 45% have actually opted in to the system. An opt-out system preserves the right of the small minority that want to opt out, while ensuring that half of potentially donated organs aren't wasted because a person was too lazy to check a box. It basically ensures that zero lives are lost needlessly, and, in fact, many are saved.

As to how much a doctor gets for an organ transplant, it isn't a whole hell of a lot. Transplant surgery isn't very popular amongst physicians because it doesn't reimburse well, the patients ultimately will either die or have to have their organs replaced (as they don't last forever), and you have to follow your patients forever post-transplant. "Sticking skin on people," or plastic surgery, is much better reimbursing but uses autografts, not allografts, and doesn't reimburse all that well either (hence why the guys who want the big bucks in plastics do cosmetic, rather than reconstructive, surgery). You can't transplant skin from person-to-person, but skin can be used as a temporary covering for burn victims.

 

[Goro]

Which is how it is in Europe.

Hey, if you've got a religious thing that's fine, opt out. Simple. Not saying we should be taking organs against people's will, but that the default should be "yes" not "no."

 

[May real name is...]

Uh, dude, if it's that important to you you would have opted out. It's implied consent, just as occurs when someone is found unconscious and it is implied that we should treat them. >80% of people support donating their organs, while only 45% have actually opted in to the system. An opt-out system preserves the right of the small minority that want to opt out, while ensuring that half of potentially donated organs aren't wasted because a person was too lazy to check a box. It basically ensures that zero lives are lost needlessly, and, in fact, many are saved.

As to how much a doctor gets for an organ transplant, it isn't a whole hell of a lot. Transplant surgery isn't very popular amongst physicians because it doesn't reimburse well, the patients ultimately will either die or have to have their organs replaced (as they don't last forever), and you have to follow your patients forever post-transplant. "Sticking skin on people," or plastic surgery, is much better reimbursing but uses autografts, not allografts, and doesn't reimburse all that well either (hence why the guys who want the big bucks in plastics do cosmetic, rather than reconstructive, surgery). You can't transplant skin from person-to-person, but skin can be used as a temporary covering for burn victims.

It's also a medically accepted treatment for ulcers in slow healing patients. There's a lot of money right there. But that was really just hyperbole.

As for opt out, we have american legal precedent against such a system. Read Mcfall vs Shimp. We have the right to what happens to our body after death. Also, I conject that if a woman has the right to privacy in abortion, the same privacy should apply to others of their body and organs. Saying >80% of people support donating their organs misconstrues the american belief in the right to privacy and choice in what happens to their and their family's bodies after death.

 

[May real name is...]

Which is how it is in Europe.

So what's the flaw that opens with my response?

 

[Mad Jack]

It's also a medically accepted treatment for ulcers in slow healing patients. There's a lot of money right there. But that was really just hyperbole.

As for opt out, we have american legal precedent against such a system. Read Mcfall vs Shimp. We have the right to what happens to our body after death. Also, I conject that if a woman has the right to privacy in abortion, the same privacy should apply to others of their body and organs. Saying >80% of people support donating their organs misconstrues the american belief in the right to privacy and choice in what happens to their and their family's bodies after death.

You're disrespecting the rights of the 35% or so that would very much want to donate in favor of the 20% or so that do not. Either way you're disrespecting someone's rights, so we just have to choose whose we chose. Am I disrespecting someone's right to refuse medical care when I treat them and they are unconscious? No, because the assumption is that the majority of people desire such treatment, and to deny care would be disrespecting their rights. You would still fully have the right to determine what happens to your body after death, just in an opt-out rather than opt-in fashion. I fully believe it would hold up to a legal court challenge.

Oh, and there are limits to the whole "determining your right to do with your body as you please" thing. We've removed life support on plenty of patients in my prior career that were legally braindead but whose wishes had them request everything be done, because once you're legally braindead, you're dead, period. Even if you want us to keep your body alive, our right to refuse care to a corpse takes precedence.

 

[Mad Jack]

So what's the flaw that opens with my response?

That you're disrespecting the rights of more people that would want their organs donated than those whose rights to not donate that you are respecting by making donation a default opt-in.

 

[May real name is...]

That you're disrespecting the rights of more people that would want their organs donated than those whose rights to not donate that you are respecting by making donation a default opt-in.

The successful majority should keep in mind that while their will is to prevail, for it to be right, it must be reasonable.

Getting your body donated because you desire it is not a right. That is why you have the right to deny care. I deny nobody any defined right if they choose not to opt-in. To take someones body without affirmative consent would deny that person their rights as defined by mcfall v shimp and, as I conjected, Roe v Wade. There is no double standard here. We have rights, and you cannot take them away without due process of law unless we voluntarily waive them.

 

[Lucca]

Uh, dude, if it's that important to you you would have opted out. It's implied consent, just as occurs when someone is found unconscious and it is implied that we should treat them. >80% of people support donating their organs, while only 45% have actually opted in to the system. An opt-out system preserves the right of the small minority that want to opt out, while ensuring that half of potentially donated organs aren't wasted because a person was too lazy to check a box. It basically ensures that zero lives are lost needlessly, and, in fact, many are saved.

As to how much a doctor gets for an organ transplant, it isn't a whole hell of a lot. Transplant surgery isn't very popular amongst physicians because it doesn't reimburse well, the patients ultimately will either die or have to have their organs replaced (as they don't last forever), and you have to follow your patients forever post-transplant. "Sticking skin on people," or plastic surgery, is much better reimbursing but uses autografts, not allografts, and doesn't reimburse all that well either (hence why the guys who want the big bucks in plastics do cosmetic, rather than reconstructive, surgery). You can't transplant skin from person-to-person, but skin can be used as a temporary covering for burn victims.

I'm saying instead of giving people parking tickets we take their kidneys.

 

[Lucca]

KIDNEY TAX

Tired of paying that income tax? Just give a kidney to the government...one time deal!

Wow actually beat me to it lmao

 

[Mad Jack]

The successful majority should keep in mind that while their will is to prevail, for it to be right, it must be reasonable.

Getting your body donated because you desire it is not a right. That is why you have the right to deny care. I deny nobody any defined right if they choose not to opt-in. To take someones body without affirmative consent would deny that person their rights as defined by mcfall v shimp and, as I conjected, Roe v Wade. There is no double standard here. We have rights, and you cannot take them away without due process of law unless we voluntarily waive them.

Except you haven't lost any right. You have the right to deny your organs be donated at literally any time, that hasn't changed, so no rights are being violated. You could throw in a caveat for allowing family to overrule in the case of people who did not explicitly make their wishes clear as a compromise, which is pretty much what we do today anyway but with assumed consent.

 

[ScottTenorman54]

You're saying that if someone has not gone in to opt out of this, their body can be taken so that a doctor can perform medical procedures? How serious should a medical procedure be to justify taking a body from an accident? I know you guys get thousands for sticking skin on people. How much skin do you get for taking someone's son from them? How many vital organs can you sell to random people by stealing my body? How much plasma can you harvest if you keep me half alive for a while?

You realize that they take the body right? Then they put it on a ventilator for as long as a paid medical doctor deems necessary in order to fulfill the "wholehearted wish" of the donor to help some random dude out. So in an opt out scenario, i your son forgot to check that box and died in a car crash, they would take him from you and do all that bull****.

No need to get hysterical. Implying that there's no threshold for determining when someone is dead and a viable organ donor, and that doctors will just make the call based on how much cash they'll make is a totally baseless emotional attack. It suggests you have no idea what the organ donation procedure actually involves.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm saying instead of giving people parking tickets we take their kidneys.

I think we could really simplify the system with one change: if you aren't a registered organ donor for X months prior to needing an organ, you cannot receive one. Obviously this excludes children, who would be automatically allowed to receive organs. Couple that with opt-out donation, and I bet we'd see most of the organ crisis solved.

 

[Goro]

Not sharing!!!

So what's the flaw that opens with my response?

 

[May real name is...]

Except you haven't lost any right. You have the right to deny your organs be donated at literally any time, that hasn't changed, so no rights are being violated. You could throw in a caveat for allowing family to overrule in the case of people who did not explicitly make their wishes clear as a compromise, which is pretty much what we do today anyway but with assumed consent.

This is ridiculous. There is no point arguing as you have no idea how rights are held in the united states. My rights are held except by due process of law or by my waiving of the right. That's how it works here.

 

[Mad Jack]

No need to get hysterical. Implying that there's no threshold for determining when someone is dead and a viable organ donor, and that doctors will just make the call based on how much cash they'll make is a totally baseless emotional attack. It suggests you have no idea what the organ donation procedure actually involves.

Yeah, we literally couldn't care less whether a person donates or not. It's totally up to the family, we don't even talk to them (that's up to the organ donation nonprofits). If they tell us they want to donate, then we do all the testing to see if they're a viable candidate, if they don't, we don't. So not only do we not care, but we don't even ask one way or the other. It's almost as if, and this is going to sound shocking, but it's almost as if we respect the wishes of the family either way. Judging the will of the family or trying to sway it isn't our job. Hell, I've been a part of keeping alive hundreds of people in whose states I would have wished to die, some of which begged me to let them die, but whom I was doing my duty to whomever had the health care power of attorney. The people in the ICU would just as soon see you live, die, or donate your organs, whatever the hell you want, so choose wisely.

 

[May real name is...]

No need to get hysterical. Implying that there's no threshold for determining when someone is dead and a viable organ donor, and that doctors will just make the call based on how much cash they'll make is a totally baseless emotional attack. It suggests you have no idea what the organ donation procedure actually involves.

All persuasion comes with hyperbole. There's nothing wrong with it. My previous statement about digging up graves was much more innacurate. I may not be "half alive" by your definition, but you still have taken possession of my body and hooked it up to a machine until you can sell my parts.

 

[May real name is...]

Yeah, we literally couldn't care less whether a person donates or not. It's totally up to the family, we don't even talk to them (that's up to the organ donation nonprofits). If they tell us they want to donate, then we do all the testing to see if they're a viable candidate, if they don't, we don't. So not only do we not care, but we don't even ask one way or the other. It's almost as if, and this is going to sound shocking, but it's almost as if we respect the wishes of the family either way. Judging the will of the family or trying to sway it isn't our job. Hell, I've been a part of keeping alive hundreds of people in whose states I would have wished to die, some of which begged me to let them die, but whom I was doing my duty to whomever had the health care power of attorney. The people in the ICU would just as soon see you live, die, or donate your organs, whatever the hell you want, so choose wisely.

There is legal precedent in the united states that choosing to be an organ donor is a wish that is to be respected even if the family does not consent.

EDIT: The general practice may be friendly currently, but when you want an opt out policy change you need to be sure that you adhere to other policies. The opt out solution violates more rights than the opt in solution while assuring an opportunity to be in the system is also available. My policy is better than yours.

 

[ScottTenorman54]

All persuasion comes with hyperbole. There's nothing wrong with it. My previous statement about digging up graves was much more innacurate. I may not be "half alive" by your definition, but you still have taken possession of my body and hooked it up to a machine until you can sell my parts.

Lol none of what I quoted was hyperbole. It was just flat out wrong. Like, you really have no idea what the organ donation procedure actually is.

 

[Mad Jack]

This is ridiculous. There is no point arguing as you have no idea how rights are held in the united states. My rights are held except by due process of law or by my waiving of the right. That's how it works here.

Except in situations where it doesn't. Public health is one of those situations where we've chosen to disregard rights. That's the basis of quarantines, for instance. I think it would be fully debatable at the SCOTUS level and would prevail due to both the respect of rights for those that are donating and the public health aspect of preventing needless deaths. Per the findings of Gibbons v. Ogden, it might have to be enacted on a state-by-state level, but it's fully within Constitutional bounds.

 

[libertyyne]

This is ridiculous. There is no point arguing as you have no idea how rights are held in the united states. My rights are held except by due process of law or by my waiving of the right. That's how it works here.

Bro, you are providing consent by not clicking "no" on the form. And your family can still stop the donation if you forget to click on the no. Presumed consent can be adopted by states.

 

[Mad Jack]

There is legal precedent in the united states that choosing to be an organ donor is a wish that is to be respected even if the family does not consent.

You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. In cases in which the intent of the patient is unclear, we defer to the family's wishes. In cases in which it is clearly communicated by the patient, we defer to the family. Your reading comprehension must be failing you though, as the point of my statement was to demonstrate that in the former case, we do not care. And if we do not care in the former case, we clearly do not care in the latter case, as we don't care to influence minds to be changed, so we clearly don't care when a patient's mind is made up.

 

[Mad Jack]

Bro, you are providing consent by not clicking "no" on the form. And your family can still stop the donation if you forget to click on the no. Presumed consent can be adopted by states.

Just make it a mandatory part of the several major government forms, such as tax forms, the Selective Service, or FAFSA. "I consent to donate my organs unless the following box is selected." Boom, you've got several opportunities each year to assert your consent.