Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 66

Thread: Zionist vortex of money and body parts to bake their matzah

  1. #1

    Default Zionist vortex of money and body parts to bake their matzah

    Okay, so I felt like this was an interesting read about organ donation in the Zionist Entity. Beyond the whole "Jewish body parts co-op" aspect to it, I thought it was really interesting that the Israeli government will compensate organ donors.

    Does anyone else wonder if this represents slowly opening the door to providing peer-to-peer financial compensation for organ donation?

    Separately, if you aren't currently a registered organ donor, and there were such a system in your country, would you sign-up?

    FEBRUARY 16, 2012, 9:00 AM
    In Israel, a New Approach to Organ Donation


    By DANIELLE OFRI, M.D.

    One of the most agonizing spots in medicine is the “transplant list.” When I’ve referred patients for organ transplant — heart, liver, kidney — it is the start of an anguished wait. The clock ticks for my patient as we watch her clinical status decline, all the while harboring that excruciating hope that someone will die soon enough to make an organ available. In the case of kidney donation, which can come from a live donor, it is the desperate hope that someone will decide to make this enormous personal sacrifice.

    Some of my patients have died waiting, which is, sadly, not an unusual outcome. It is estimated that 18 patients on the waiting list in America die every day. In the United States, as in many countries, we rely on a simple system of altruism, or what might be called the opt-in approach. We hope that people will sign organ donor cards because they think it is the right thing to do, or that families will consent to donation after a loved one has had brain death because it will help someone else. But these mechanisms do not result in nearly enough organs for all the patients who need them.

    Other countries, like Spain and Austria, have tried an opt-out approach, called presumed consent. Every patient who dies is assumed to have consented to organ donation, unless they have specifically declined. However, this hasn’t necessarily increased the number of organ donations, in part because doctors find it extremely difficult to go against family wishes if surviving family members are strongly opposed to donation.

    A third way to increase donations is being pioneered in Israel. Until now, Israel ranked at the bottom of Western countries on organ donation. Jewish law proscribes desecration of the dead, which has been interpreted by many to mean that Judaism prohibits organ donation. Additionally, there were rabbinic issues surrounding the concept of brain death, the state in which organs are typically harvested. As a result, many patients died waiting for organs.

    So Israel has decided to try a new system that would give transplant priority to patients who have agreed to donate their organs. In doing so, it has become the first country in the world to incorporate “nonmedical” criteria into the priority system, though medical necessity would still be the first priority.

    Dr. Jacob Lavee
    The Israeli program was initiated by Dr. Jacob Lavee, a cardiothoracic surgeon who heads the heart transplant program of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer. In 2005, he had two ultra-Orthodox, Haredi Jewish patients on his ward who were awaiting heart transplants. The patients confided in him that they would never consider donating organs, in accordance with Haredi Jewish beliefs, but that they had absolutely no qualms about accepting organs from others.

    That Haredi Jews would not donate organs was a well-known fact in Israel. But this was the first time anyone had openly admitted the paradox to Dr. Lavee.

    The unfairness of a segment of society unwilling to donate organs, but happy to accept them, nagged at Dr. Lavee. After he operated on both patients, giving each a new lease on life, he put together a proposal that would give priority to those patients willing to donate their organs.

    Working with rabbis, ethicists, lawyers, academics and members of the public, he and other medical experts worked to create a new law in 2010, which will take full effect this year: if two patients have identical medical needs for an organ transplant, priority will be given to the patient who has signed a donor card, or whose family member has donated an organ in the past.

    A critical component of the law’s success was engaging the country’s highly influential religious leadership, which had long been resistant to organ donation. Even among the half of the country that is devoutly secular, when faced with death and whether to donate organs. “Suddenly the families become very religious,” said Dr. Yael Haviv, the medical director of the organ donation program at Sheba. “Suddenly they ask the rabbis.”

    But in the Talmud, saving a life supersedes most everything, and many commandments may be transgressed if the goal is to save a life. Based on this, the argument could be made that organ donation fulfilled one of the highest religious virtues. The lawmakers also agreed on a definition of brain death that was acceptable to the vast majority of rabbis (though not the ultra-Orthodox Haredi), as well as local imams, making organ donation kosher to a large segment of the population.

    This was accompanied by a huge public awareness campaign about organ donation, with radio, TV, billboard and newspaper ads promoting the new priority system and countering the perception that Jewish law forbids donation. Shopping centers and coffee houses were blanketed with organ donation information. The response was overwhelming, as people registered in droves as potential donors.

    “We were swamped,” says Tamar Ashkenazi, the director of the National Transplant Center of Israel. The machine that prints the organ donation cards usually handles 3,000 a month — 5,000 if two workers are dedicated full-time to operating it. During the 10 weeks of the publicity campaign, 70,000 Israelis registered for organ donation cards.

    The consent rate from families has already increased, and the number of organs available for patients has increased in parallel. Transplants have so far increased by more than 60 percent over all this year.

    Other aspects of the new law provide “fair compensation” for living donors that covers 40 days of lost wages, plus expenses related to the donation. “This serves to remove the disincentives to donation,” Dr. Lavee says. Kidney transplants from live donors — nearly always from family members of patients — increased dramatically.

    The new system, though, is not without its critics. Many say that any “nonmedical” factors in organ allocation are inherently unethical. Some say that the law enshrines religious discrimination, since Haredi patients decline to donate based on their religious beliefs.

    But many feel that the new law adds a measure of fairness to the process, and now there are more organs available for everyone. It will be interesting to see how things play out when the priority system goes into effect on April 1.

    Danielle Ofri is the author of three books, including “Medicine in Translation: Journeys With My Patients.” She is an associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine and editor in chief of the Bellevue Literary Review.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...rgan-donation/

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Separately, if you aren't currently a registered organ donor, and there were such a system in your country, would you sign-up?
    No, but I don't imagine my organs would fetch high price in the free market place anyhows
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  3. #3
    I generally think it's a good idea, but doesn't it effectively rule out organ transplants to the Haredim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    No, but I don't imagine my organs would fetch high price in the free market place anyhows
    Maybe in a museum of alcohol?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Maybe in a museum of alcohol?
    Let's be fair, I'm still in the junior league; there's people out there who've been alkies for many decades. But if someone wanted an organ to use for themselves, surely they would purchase from athlete or at least lean work-man? Conversely, I wouldn't be inclined to part with organ without compensation I'd see worthy, and so long as I remain with employment, in my case product does not meet consumer demand.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I generally think it's a good idea, but doesn't it effectively rule out organ transplants to the Haredim?
    In some respects, yes. Though it sounds like some religious authorities were consulted. Maybe some of them are willing to twist the interpretations to see signing-up as a form of charity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Let's be fair, I'm still in the junior league; there's people out there who've been alkies for many decades. But if someone wanted an organ to use for themselves, surely they would purchase from athlete or at least lean work-man? Conversely, I wouldn't be inclined to part with organ without compensation I'd see worthy, and so long as I remain with employment, in my case product does not meet consumer demand.
    Think of it as an insurance policy. If you think there is a high likelihood that your liver will give out, you're basically saying you're willing to play the odds a bit. If you don't die in a car accident that leaves certain organs harvestable, but need a new liver at some point, you'll be put in the front of the line for a new one.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Think of it as an insurance policy. If you think there is a high likelihood that your liver will give out, you're basically saying you're willing to play the odds a bit. If you don't die in a car accident that leaves certain organs harvestable, but need a new liver at some point, you'll be put in the front of the line for a new one.
    Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking; do you suppose I would have money to purchase a liver?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  7. #7
    I've considered this for a long long time... The idea of favoring those who donate blood for blood transfusions, and for those who donate organs with organ donation. I think mathematically the system should work out well, and on the moral front while I find the criteria unjust my suspicions is that nearly everyone who would have been saved by the current system will still be saved, and plus some.

  8. #8
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    <shrug>

    How about I just allude to the libertarian-themed sites that keep a tally of people who've died waiting for a kidney transplant since that 1984 [US] law that banned financial compensation for organ donation?

    Shit, if I could get about ten grand for my kidney, I'd schedule a surgery to cash in on that, post haste. Not like I need the second one, and that's hardly the only part of my body I'd be willing to part with if the price was right. (I could get by with 75% less lung, and I got a big ol' liver that's not 100% utilized either...)

    Our legal code, killing tens of thousands since 1984... and still counting.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    <shrug>

    How about I just allude to the libertarian-themed sites that keep a tally of people who've died waiting for a kidney transplant since that 1984 [US] law that banned financial compensation for organ donation?

    Shit, if I could get about ten grand for my kidney, I'd schedule a surgery to cash in on that, post haste. Not like I need the second one, and that's hardly the only part of my body I'd be willing to part with if the price was right. (I could get by with 75% less lung, and I got a big ol' liver that's not 100% utilized either...)

    Our legal code, killing tens of thousands since 1984... and still counting.
    I know the reason over here getting money for blood/organs is mostly that people would lie about their current health to get the money. Let's face it, a bunch of those who would sell organs/blood for money are junkies and addicts, who are not allowed to donate because of infection risks. Currently there is no incentive whatsoever for lying, which is for the best if you ask me.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #10
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Well sure, but you can do health screens and tests to determine if someone has AIDS or cancer or a high concentration of opiates in their bloodstream, etc.

    It seems like it ought to be a criminal offense to prevent people from saving others lives in exchange for money, just because government is too stupid or too lazy to establish standards and safety procedures for this market (or more likely, allow some private company to do that, and then take credit).
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking; do you suppose I would have money to purchase a liver?
    No, but that's the point. You could join a Suomistan version of this Zionistic/socialistic cooperative. In which you would basically be willing to donate a body part if something terrible happened to you, in exchange for being able to receive a needed body part if something terrible happened to someone else in the cooperative.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    <shrug>

    How about I just allude to the libertarian-themed sites that keep a tally of people who've died waiting for a kidney transplant since that 1984 [US] law that banned financial compensation for organ donation?

    Shit, if I could get about ten grand for my kidney, I'd schedule a surgery to cash in on that, post haste. Not like I need the second one, and that's hardly the only part of my body I'd be willing to part with if the price was right. (I could get by with 75% less lung, and I got a big ol' liver that's not 100% utilized either...)

    Our legal code, killing tens of thousands since 1984... and still counting.
    Nothing is stopping you from finding a broker for your kidney, in another nation. You can make more than 10k profit, get a couple of months recovery time in a warm climate, stay in a 4-5 star hotel with a personal nurse, and fly first-class round-trip....if you play your cards right.

    Let us know when you've made the arrangements so we can give you a proper forum Bon Voyage.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    No, but that's the point. You could join a Suomistan version of this Zionistic/socialistic cooperative. In which you would basically be willing to donate a body part if something terrible happened to you, in exchange for being able to receive a needed body part if something terrible happened to someone else in the cooperative.
    I don't understand how this differs from the status quo.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  14. #14
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Nothing is stopping you from finding a broker for your kidney, in another nation. You can make more than 10k profit, get a couple of months recovery time in a warm climate, stay in a 4-5 star hotel with a personal nurse, and fly first-class round-trip....if you play your cards right.

    Let us know when you've made the arrangements so we can give you a proper forum Bon Voyage.
    Please, I don't like warm climates, and I really don't think it's a great idea to leave irrefutable physical evidence behind when committing felonies, for the first of many problems with your "idea."
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I don't understand how this differs from the status quo.
    The status quo is that there is no connection between donating and receiving. I.E. There's no incentive to donate because it doesn't increase your odds of getting an organ if you need one later.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The status quo is that there is no connection between donating and receiving. I.E. There's no incentive to donate because it doesn't increase your odds of getting an organ if you need one later.
    Ohh.

    But wait, isn't the status quo more in line with FYGM?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #17
    It prevents you from getting yours. Anyway, the proposed change would have no compulsion involved. No one forces you to donate, and no one's obligated to get you an organ. If you want the benefit, you pay the price.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    I'm not sure I see the mechanism which'd provide me "mine" any faster than the FYGM system; is the idea that we'd have an order of magnitude more people donating organs under the -stan system?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I'm not sure I see the mechanism which'd provide me "mine" any faster than the FYGM system; is the idea that we'd have an order of magnitude more people donating organs under the -stan system?
    Yes, and the data coming out of Israel seems to support that hypothesis.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Please, I don't like warm climates, and I really don't think it's a great idea to leave irrefutable physical evidence behind when committing felonies, for the first of many problems with your "idea."
    Then stop complaining, or blaming US law, just because you can't figure out how to get that 10k for one of your kidneys.

  21. #21
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The status quo is that there is no connection between donating and receiving. I.E. There's no incentive to donate because it doesn't increase your odds of getting an organ if you need one later.
    And more importantly, there's incentive not to donate, in that if you donate a kidney or a lung (etc) now, it hurts your friends' and family's chances of getting an organ if they need one in the future, because you no longer have a spare to offer.

    Open up a market or a co-op option, and that incentive to horde your spare organs goes away, or is at least mitigated.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Then stop complaining, or blaming US law, just because you can't figure out how to get that 10k for one of your kidneys.
    Thank you for that particularly stupid and inane contribution. Was there a point in there, or were you just being an awful human being, relishing in tens of thousands of preventable deaths because... whatever insane reasoning you had for your train [wreck] of thought there?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Yes, and the data coming out of Israel seems to support that hypothesis.
    Okay, but if Dread gets to "blame" the success of the Nordic model (relatively speaking, shut up shut up shut up) on us being blonde Aryan übermensch, why can't I say this works in Israel because Jews like to play with Jews?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Okay, but if Dread gets to "blame" the success of the Nordic model (relatively speaking, shut up shut up shut up) on us being blonde Aryan übermensch, why can't I say this works in Israel because Jews like to play with Jews?
    If that were the case, they wouldn't need this at all.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon View Post
    I've considered this for a long long time... The idea of favoring those who donate blood for blood transfusions, and for those who donate organs with organ donation. I think mathematically the system should work out well, and on the moral front while I find the criteria unjust my suspicions is that nearly everyone who would have been saved by the current system will still be saved, and plus some.
    And, to pick one example completely at random representing no personal biases, gays will always be on the bottom of recipient lists since laws regulating blood donation won't let anyone engaging in MtM sex donate? No thanks.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  25. #25
    Out of curiosity, isn't it possible to freeze blood for a year and then check whether HIV is present in it (since the virus tends to take 6-9 months to develop)?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Okay, but if Dread gets to "blame" the success of the Nordic model (relatively speaking, shut up shut up shut up) on us being blonde Aryan übermensch, why can't I say this works in Israel because Jews like to play with Jews?
    Because of your dislike of me, you're trying to make this into a socialism vs. capitalism thing. It's not. I've never been against voluntary cooperatives. Which is basically what this system is.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Okay, so I felt like this was an interesting read about organ donation in the Zionist Entity. Beyond the whole "Jewish body parts co-op" aspect to it, I thought it was really interesting that the Israeli government will compensate organ donors.

    Does anyone else wonder if this represents slowly opening the door to providing peer-to-peer financial compensation for organ donation?

    Separately, if you aren't currently a registered organ donor, and there were such a system in your country, would you sign-up?
    I think this is a bit overblown - it has been the case for quite a while that people who donated blood or blood products to the Israeli version of the Red Cross (MDA) would receive one years worth of 'blood insurance' for their immediate family - they would be guaranteed priority access to blood banks in an emergency. I have no idea if this is actually implemented at all in Israel, but that's at least the gimmick they get to make people donate. This is just extending the same logic to organ donation as a whole.

    I personally think this is the wrong way to go about it, though I understand the motivation behind the initiative. IMO decisions on transplant priority should always be made on the basis of need, not anything else - this is really a fairly sacrosanct component of triage. Medical considerations should trump so-called 'fairness' - though I do think people who have already received a transplant and have not followed doctor's orders on how to treat their new organ should be refused future transplants, even if they have dire medical need (this just being a simple matter of throwing away bad 'money' after good). IMO doing anything else is tantamount to denying someone medical care, which should not be done irrespective of their own convictions.

    That being said, it's an absolute travesty that Israel has such an organ shortage. IMO it should be leading the world in organ donation rates, with both secular and religious Jews wholeheartedly endorsing organ donation. More on this later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    In some respects, yes. Though it sounds like some religious authorities were consulted. Maybe some of them are willing to twist the interpretations to see signing-up as a form of charity?
    That's not viable at all. The article is wrong when it suggests that a main problem is 'desecration of the dead' - in matters of life and death like organ donation, such issues can easily be avoided. No, the issue is a question of brain death. Jewish law traditionally considered the irreversible cessation of breathing/heartbeat to be 'death'; since the vast majority of organs are harvested while the body is still breathing and the heart is still beating, that means that to harvest vital organs is tantamount to murder, and donating or accepting such organs would be strictly forbidden, lifesaving procedure or not - certainly appealing to charity isn't going to work.

    Now obviously the reality is that nowadays a number of major Jewish religious leaders - including the Israeli rabbinate back in the 70s and the most prominent American religious decisor of the 20th century - have endorsed conclusive brain death as an acceptable definition of death, subject to certain tests, paving the way for widespread organ donation. The decisions have not been without controversy, but many religious Jews (mostly of the more modern/nationalistic variety) have accepted these conclusions and are happy to donate organs. The issue is that Haredim have never accepted these decisions and view organ donation of vital organs as murder. Those Haredim who accept vital organ donations without agreeing to donate them are guilty of vast hypocrisy. Similarly, those secular Jews who tend not to sign up for organ donation puzzle me - they have no ethical/religious issues with it, ostensibly, and even if they did there are plenty of religious authorities for them to rely on who find the practice not only acceptable but laudatory. I can only assume it is based on some cultural notions of respect for the dead which are utterly at odds with other Jewish cultural values (e.g. the value of life above all).

    I think the solution to this is not to enact morally questionable initiatives, but to change the culture through aggressive education and the mobilization of right-minded Jews of all stripes to convince the waverers (some organizations like HODS attempt to do this already, though their scope and reach could be greatly improved). Some people will never donate their organs - most Haredim are probably included - but their hypocrisy is not a reason to deny them medical treatment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Okay, but if Dread gets to "blame" the success of the Nordic model (relatively speaking, shut up shut up shut up) on us being blonde Aryan übermensch, why can't I say this works in Israel because Jews like to play with Jews?
    Because Israel still has a depressingly low organ donation rate, and it ranks among the lowest in the developed world. It's a travesty that does not make Israel look very good - or Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by LF
    And, to pick one example completely at random representing no personal biases, gays will always be on the bottom of recipient lists since laws regulating blood donation won't let anyone engaging in MtM sex donate? No thanks.
    There's actually ways around this issue - essentially, people can sign up for donation irrespective of who they are, but if they are turned away during screening, it doesn't affect their eligibility to receive organs/blood/etc. It's definitely not the primary problem with this kind of policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    Out of curiosity, isn't it possible to freeze blood for a year and then check whether HIV is present in it (since the virus tends to take 6-9 months to develop)?
    I'm afraid not. HIV won't replicate in frozen blood, and regardless, blood is incredibly expensive to freeze. Normal whole blood can be stored for up to about 6 weeks refrigerated. Obviously they do HIV tests on blood, but if you've been infected in the last ~3 months the standard tests won't pick up HIV.

    BTW I can't emphasize enough how imperative it is for everyone here - assuming they are not excluded due to various criteria - to donate blood products regularly. You are literally saving lives if you do.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I think the solution to this is not to enact morally questionable initiatives, but to change the culture through aggressive education and the mobilization of right-minded Jews of all stripes to convince the waverers (some organizations like HODS attempt to do this already, though their scope and reach could be greatly improved). Some people will never donate their organs - most Haredim are probably included - but their hypocrisy is not a reason to deny them medical treatment.
    That's rather optimistic, verging on naive. There are some people who can be persuaded entirely by moral arguments. Most people, on the other hand, are better persuaded by incentives. There is no incentive to donate, which is why most people don't. No education campaign is going to change people's underlying interests.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That's rather optimistic, verging on naive. There are some people who can be persuaded entirely by moral arguments. Most people, on the other hand, are better persuaded by incentives. There is no incentive to donate, which is why most people don't. No education campaign is going to change people's underlying interests.
    It won't convince people who have a vested interest in not donating (e.g. Haredim), but it can change the minds of people who haven't really thought about it much but who don't feel it's very 'Jewish'. I don't have a problem with paying people some incentive to donate - though it shouldn't be so much that it makes people lie about their health in order to get the money - generally, paying for lost work time, medical costs, and a small honorarium is reasonable. Perhaps for people who die and donate (live donations only really work for kidney and liver), the state and help defray their funeral costs, or give them a cut on estate tax?

    But to deny medical care to someone as an incentive is wrong, plain and simple.

    And I think you underestimate the ability of propaganda/'PR' to change a culture. Smoking is much less common nowadays in the US because of a concerted education campaign - it took decades, but it worked to a large degree. I don't think it will be easy, but I think it's a better alternative than either morally questionable initiatives or doing nothing. Providing some better structured 'moral' incentives would be a reasonable idea as well.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    It won't convince people who have a vested interest in not donating (e.g. Haredim), but it can change the minds of people who haven't really thought about it much but who don't feel it's very 'Jewish'. I don't have a problem with paying people some incentive to donate - though it shouldn't be so much that it makes people lie about their health in order to get the money - generally, paying for lost work time, medical costs, and a small honorarium is reasonable. Perhaps for people who die and donate (live donations only really work for kidney and liver), the state and help defray their funeral costs, or give them a cut on estate tax?
    Most people do not like going to surgery, and this is particularly true when they don't actually need the surgery. It is incredibly naive to assume that the only or even the biggest "cost" of donation is time off work and medical costs. The reality is that people don't want to go under the knife, and you're going to have to appropriately compensate them for doing otherwise. And I can safely say that most Americans would need something in the high thousands to do this. So what you're stuck with is appealing to people's morality and ignoring the physical and psychological cost of a voluntary surgery. It might make for a great logic in shul, but it's not going to convince people in the real world.

    There is a better argument to be made about educating people to donate when they die. But even then, people don't want to be cut up, even after death, and there's very little you can do to change those feelings. Monetary incentives will only get you so far in this scenario because the donor won't be in a position to use the money (I'm not ruling out the idea that people care about their relatives, but it's unreasonable to assume they care more about them than about their own interests). The only sure-fire way to get people to donate upon death is to provide them some reward when they are alive.

    And I think you underestimate the ability of propaganda/'PR' to change a culture. Smoking is much less common nowadays in the US because of a concerted education campaign - it took decades, but it worked to a large degree. I don't think it will be easy, but I think it's a better alternative than either morally questionable initiatives or doing nothing. Providing some better structured 'moral' incentives would be a reasonable idea as well.
    Think about what the anti-smoking campaign emphasized. Was it how quitting would help society or how quitting would prevent cancer and respiratory illnesses? Sorry, but the appeal of this campaign was entirely to the smokers' own interests.
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •