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

[GUH]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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.

Even quarantines are subject to due process of the law.

 

[Mad Jack]

Even quarantines are subject to due process of the law.

Yeah, but the law generally favors the interest of the quarantining body in all cases but those in which they have falsified the reason for quarantine. I mean, I once had a poor patient that was quarantined for the better part of a year, I'm sure he'd write you a wonderful letter about how much his rights mattered at that point.

 

[May real name is...]

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.

I mean at least you're defining organ transplants as commerce. I'll give you face for that. Quarantines are a prevention of natural epidemics. You'd be hard pressed to link that to organ transplants, especially thinking about the number of lives saved in both scenarios. I haven't read a single quarantine law. I was trained before I worked at a medical school, but that's about it. Do you have any documents on it? Gibbons v ogden was a nice refresher on interstate trade.

 

[Mad Jack]

I mean at least you're defining organ transplants as commerce. I'll give you face for that. Quarantines are a prevention of natural epidemics. You'd be hard pressed to link that to organ transplants, especially thinking about the number of lives saved in both scenarios. I haven't read a single quarantine law. I was trained before I worked at a medical school, but that's about it. Do you have any documents on it? Gibbons v ogden was a nice refresher on interstate trade.

Did you even ****ing read it? It doesn't just cover commerce, it was one of the defining cases that defined where the Federal Government ends and the State Government begins. It was within that case that it was decided that quarantine laws fall outside of Federal purview, which is why it is important. It is under this basis that public health is precisely not commerce. Enjoy a read, if you care to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1

These restrictions, then, are on the taxing power, [p203] not on that to regulate commerce, and presuppose the existence of that which they restrain, not of that which they do not purport to restrain.

But the inspection laws are said to be regulations of commerce, and are certainly recognised in the Constitution as being passed in the exercise of a power remaining with the States.

That inspection laws may have a remote and considerable influence on commerce will not be denied, but that a power to regulate commerce is the source from which the right to pass them is derived cannot be admitted. The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labour of a country, to fit them for exportation, or, it may be, for domestic use. They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or of commerce among the States, and prepare it for that purpose. They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.

 

[Mad Jack]

Anyways, this conversation is over, as it is derailing to the thread. If you wish to continue it, start a new thread in the SPF. I will not be discussing it here any further.

 

[May real name is...]

Anyways, this conversation is over, as it is derailing to the thread. If you wish to continue it, start a new thread in the SPF. I will not be discussing it here any further.

I didn't remember 3 or 4 lines from a 240 page supreme court opinion on waterway disputes caused by the creation of better boats. Cry a river why don't you. I've only skimmed it a couple times in high school. It's mostly about waterways and commerce, I PROMISE

 

[May real name is...]

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.

And you didn't read mine. I said that the current practices of private individuals do not matter. When we are talking about policy, current policy matters. If non affirmative consent exists, there is legal precedent to take a body on the basis that they have not gone to the government to say no.

 

[DoctHouse]

Guess i'm the only one that doesn't understand what the hell the title is saying.

 

[Mad Jack]

I didn't remember 3 or 4 lines from a 240 page supreme court opinion on waterway disputes caused by the creation of better boats. Cry a river why don't you. I've only skimmed it a couple times in high school. It's mostly about waterways and commerce, I PROMISE

And you didn't read mine. I said that the current practices of private individuals do not matter. When we are talking about policy, current policy matters. If non affirmative consent exists, there is legal precedent to take a body on the basis that they have not gone to the government to say no.

Anyways, this conversation is over, as it is derailing to the thread. If you wish to continue it, start a new thread in the SPF. I will not be discussing it here any further.

 

[vellez]

Just out of curiosity, why don't you want it on your DL?

I'm totally probably paranoid, but I always wonder if, for instance, I was in an accident and the docs looked at my wallet for ID, and saw I was an organ donor, if that would affect how they treated me/attempted to resuscitate me. Again, totally unreasonable, but if they're gonna take my organs, I'm gonna at least make them look me up in a database.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm totally probably paranoid, but I always wonder if, for instance, I was in an accident and the docs looked at my wallet for ID, and saw I was an organ donor, if that would affect how they treated me/attempted to resuscitate me. Again, totally unreasonable, but if they're gonna take my organs, I'm gonna at least make them look me up in a database.

The protocol is the exact same regardless of your donor status in my state. Doctors don't talk about donation status or address it, because it could have changed and there are experts that handle all of that. They are contacted for every potential death, not just ones that might result in donation. And they do all of the talking, without consulting physicians until the family has made a decision about things or the patient's wishes are known.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I'm totally probably paranoid, but I always wonder if, for instance, I was in an accident and the docs looked at my wallet for ID, and saw I was an organ donor, if that would affect how they treated me/attempted to resuscitate me. Again, totally unreasonable, but if they're gonna take my organs, I'm gonna at least make them look me up in a database.

That's not how it works, and it's sad that media and other outlets perpetuate these stereotypes.

Here's what happens if you're in a serious accident (to both you and your wallet):

The second you arrive in the ED triage bay, we start cutting off all your clothes. We do this to expose any hidden injuries and assess you fully and quickly. 100% of our focus and effort is on trying to ensure your safety. We won't even know your name at that point, unless you are awake enough to tell it to us. We treat everyone the exact same.

Your clothes and belongings will be put in a bag and given to hospital security. If you have an ID on you, the social worker on call will use that to identify you and start working on figuring out how to contact your family. These social workers, by the way, are miracle workers at finding and contacting people quickly. I have no clue how they even accomplish it half the time. If you are an organ donor, that would get noted in your medical record.

Meanwhile, we are still working on you. No thought, consideration, or pause is given to organ donation status by the providers caring for you.

The ONLY time we handle a patient differently is when we receive clear and immediate information that a patient is, say, on comfort care or DNAR/DNI.

Organ donation status has zero impact on the quality of care you receive or on the intent of treatment. We literally don't even think about it.

 

[vellez]

That's not how it works, and it's sad that media and other outlets perpetuate these stereotypes.

Here's what happens if you're in a serious accident (to both you and your wallet):

The second you arrive in the ED triage bay, we start cutting off all your clothes. We do this to expose any hidden injuries and assess you fully and quickly. 100% of our focus and effort is on trying to ensure your safety. We won't even know your name at that point, unless you are awake enough to tell it to us. We treat everyone the exact same.

Your clothes and belongings will be put in a bag and given to hospital security. If you have an ID on you, the social worker on call will use that to identify you and start working on figuring out how to contact your family. These social workers, by the way, are miracle workers at finding and contacting people quickly. I have no clue how they even accomplish it half the time. If you are an organ donor, that would get noted in your medical record.

Meanwhile, we are still working on you. No thought, consideration, or pause is given to organ donation status by the providers caring for you.

The ONLY time we handle a patient differently is when we receive clear and immediate information that a patient is, say, on comfort care or DNAR/DNI.

Organ donation status has zero impact on the quality of care you receive or on the intent of treatment. We literally don't even think about it.

Like I said probably paranoid. Still an organ donor. Just don't need to advertise it to anyone who looks at my DL.

 

[Geo16]

Hey guys, quick question. How about blood donation?
Do you think it's worth mentioning how many times you've donated blood or Platelets?

 

[aalamruad]

Hey guys, quick question. How about blood donation?
Do you think it's worth mentioning how many times you've donated blood or Platelets?

Mention it where? On your app? In an interview?

Either way, no.

 

[Geo16]

Mention it where? On your app? In an interview?

Either way, no.

Yeah.. thought so 🙁

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

What do? Am I finished?

Tell them it's against your religion. Problem solved.

 

[Geo16]

*Flips out the phone*
"I'm a gold donor for SDN..."