Jade Goody, Shilpa Shetty, Jordan and the kidney.

[InsaneApache]

I was going to post this in the News of the Weird but it disgusted me so much I decided it needed a thread of it's own.


No reality television programme has played for such high stakes: three nervous candidates will be competing in front of a prime-time audience this week for a life-saving kidney operation, as the Big Brother format gives way to The Big Donor Show.

The macabre contest will be broadcast in the Netherlands on Friday. It is produced by Endemol, the maker of Big Brother, which is about to begin an eighth series in Britain. But while the worst that can happen in Big Brother is public humiliation, the Big Donor rivals are battling for their lives.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article1851853.ece

In Oz, at the moment, this same TV production company hasn't told a contestant of their Big Brother that her dad is dead. He's been buried a week.

Not content with inflicting Jade Goody and all the rest of the morons who go on this tripe, they have decided to go one better.

Call me old fashioned but should a kidney transplant only be considered on medical grounds? By that I mean the doctors should decide whom of the candidates has the best chance from the procedure.

[Proletariat]

Utterly revolting.

:no:

[Hepcat]

This is truly sad. How are they going to do dismissals?
"Sorry, but the country wants you to die."

[Gregoshi]

I guess part of the motivation for the show - highlighting the need for organ donors - is noble, but the execution is less than ideal. The concept is quite morbid. The Reality show gets a little too real in this case.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[English assassin]

Just when you think we can go no lower...

Can this really be true? How can they have found a doctor to agree to do the op, it could surely never pass an ethics committee?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Where did they actually find the kidney for this? I can't believe that the Dutch health service would just give them one, if this is what they plan to do with it.

[Fragony]

Oh yeah, Endemol who else, if he lived during WW2 he could probably make something out of the selections, I hate his greedy guts. Well BKS, the kidney comes from a terminally ill girl who gets to pick the winner I believe. We aren't exactly happy with John de Mols latest pearl.

See, this is why I don't have TV.

[HoreTore]

All those producing this [insert word violating forum rules here] should have both kidneys donated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All those producing this [insert word violating forum rules here] should have both kidneys donated.

That's a tad mean coming from an avowed pacifist. Still, the whole show concept is repulsive, so I will readily forgive you your "slip."



Organ Receipt (legit issues in order of preference IMVHO):

1. Medical need and survival viabilty.

2. Time waiting for donation.


Note1: Private donation to a specific person sidesteps (legitmately) general donation.

Note2: People selling their organs to another -- though not inherently wrong -- is NOT a practice to be encouraged (too many negative indirect consequences for this to be considered good practice)

[HoreTore]

That's a tad mean coming from an avowed pacifist. Still, the whole show concept is repulsive, so I will readily forgive you your "slip."

I've said I'm a pacifist. I've never stated that I'm nice....:laugh4:

[Fragony]

All those producing this [insert word violating forum rules here] should have both kidneys donated.

Disagree, whatever it is that's in their blood, I don't want it.

More gems from De Mol and BNN,

Big brother
Golden Cage (big brother where you have to terrorise other players)
This is how you screw
Shooting and swallowing (teaches you how to use drugs, yes)
Rembrand, a study in realism

ok, last one is a lie.

[Ronin]

and they wonder why less and less people are watching tv nowadays :inquisitive:

[KukriKhan]

Are they gonna show the operation? Do London bookies take bets on these shows still?

Up next season: the TV audience can "Pick The Donor", the 'winner' being given a free motorcycle (no helmet) and access to the (rain-slicked) autobahn.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Excellent show! It exposes the hypocricy of our societies. :2thumbsup:

Organ shortage, and limited medical means in general , mean that decisions of life and death like this one are made daily. The one difference is that they are usually hidden from the public eye, and that doctors make the decisions.
Refugees wash on the shores of Europe daily. Some are allowed to stay, some not, for pretty much random reasons, by anonymous civil servants. I want them on television too, with audiences getting to pick one winner from every boat who gets to stay while the others are send back.

Decisions like these are being made, all the time. About real people, in matters of life and death. By relegating them to anonymous commisions, civil servants, doctors we relieve ourselves of our responsability, pretending that these decisions are not being made.

[Fragony]

Yeah, it'$ really $omething el$e Louis.

[Adrian II]

Excellent show! It exposes the hypocricy of our societies. :2thumbsup:

Organ shortage, and limited medical means in general , mean that decisions of life and death like this one are made daily. The one difference is that they are usually hidden from the public eye, and that doctors make the decisions.
Refugees wash on the shores of Europe daily. Some are allowed to stay, some not, for pretty much random reasons, by anonymous civil servants. I want them on television too, with audiences getting to pick one winner from every boat who gets to stay while the others are send back.

Decisions like these are being made, all the time. About real people, in matters of life and death. By relegating them to anonymous commisions, civil servants, doctors we relieve ourselves of our responsability, pretending that these decisions are not being made.This is exactly the stated reason why the channel produced this show. They used to have a director who suffered from a congenital disease and at some point needed a kidney transplant. Since no donor (or kidney) could be found, he died. The makers of the program pretend they want to confront the general public with the stark choices often involved in these issues.

I agree that the show is a bad idea.

But for good order it should be stated that on this show, as in every such case, the (live) donor decides to whom she will cede a kidney (the public can only try to influence her decision by sms-ing her during the program).

Only if a declared donor dies without stating a preference, a medical team from the national donor transplant system makes the decision.

Speaking of tasteless, Fragony is right that they produce even worse programs. 'This is how we screw' (yes, you read that right) is so vulgar it makes me roar with laughter. The instalment I watched was presented by a woman so tacky I wouldn't want her anywhere near my dingerling.

[Ironside]

I want them on television too, with audiences getting to pick one winner from every boat who gets to stay while the others are send back.

Decisions like these are being made, all the time. About real people, in matters of life and death. By relegating them to anonymous commisions, civil servants, doctors we relieve ourselves of our responsability, pretending that these decisions are not being made.

Recalls something about "immigrant Survivor: This time it's for real!" comments in the thread about that wall between US and Mexico (or then it was another thread). The survivors winners get citizenship.

There's good ways and baaad ways to illuminate a problem, because can you at any point really determine if they vote on who will stay alive or who will die?
And as allowing one to live you've just condemned 2 others to die, you will quickly build up walls protecting you from the cruel reality and the closr reality are to you, the higher the walls... So it the end you'll be able to see this kind of show without caring and without caring what are you voting for and for what reason?

Edit:


But for good order it should be stated that on this show, as in every such case, the (live) donor decides to whom she will cede a kidney (the public can only try to influence her decision by sms-ing her during the program).

Only if a declared donor dies without stating a preference, a medical team from the national donor transplant system makes the decision.


Not as bad as first expected, but the program is still despicable. And unlike a documetary it still contains the moment of who deserves to live and who doesn't, in it. I would not be wanting to be the donor in any case. It will either cause me great sorrow or cost me a part of my humanity.

[Fragony]

Well even if the show has good intentions, which I doubt, the people watching it are emotion-vultures, it makes me sick. Sobsob, ok what else is on, ahhh gilmore girls. And sms-messages to 'select' who gets to live, since when do emotions count instead of medical science? This is all so wrong on so many levels. As for the guy Adrian refered to, it's all in his name after all, the guys making this program could have given him one of their kidneys if they really cared.

[doc_bean]

I'm actually siding with Louis here. From what i've heard about the Dutch organ donation system people need a wake up call so they can go sign the consent forms.

This might seem low, but I don't think it really is. There's a shortage of kidneys, even if they wanted to they couldn't help all the people participating out. This isn't some reality show for terminally ill people who can't afford treatment and the winner get it for free (expect that soon in the US though, possibly by Endemol too).
This sheds light on a real problem.

Of course, if it was just some documentary about some people waiting for a kidney and only one survives in the end, people would probably call it socially responsible, touching, deeply human, and whatnot. This is the same principle, only the format has changed.


Decisions like these are being made, all the time. About real people, in matters of life and death. By relegating them to anonymous commisions, civil servants, doctors we relieve ourselves of our responsability, pretending that these decisions are not being made.

I think this is why people find it so revolting. It's all great when 'wise men' make the choices, but when they're confronted with their own responsibility (and in a free democracy, you are *ALWAYS* responsible for what is done by authoristies), when they're asked to choose, this is revolting. And then they wonder why politicians sometimes seem to make such 'weird' choices as limititing the budget for healthcare, enforce immigration laws and other things.


Speaking of tasteless, Fragony is right that they produce even worse programs. 'This is how we screw' (yes, you read that right) is so vulgar it makes me roar with laughter. The instalment I watched was presented by a woman so tacky I wouldn't want her anywhere near my dingerling.

I've never seen it, we do have shows with a similar premise here though (which I tend to avoid). I've seen the drug show a couple of times, that was pretty funny, though perhaps not the most responsible program.

[Proletariat]

This might seem low, but I don't think it really is. There's a shortage of kidneys, even if they wanted to they couldn't help all the people participating out. This isn't some reality show for terminally ill people who can't afford treatment and the winner get it for free (expect that soon in the US though, possibly by Endemol too).
This sheds light on a real problem.



After seeing the rest of the lineup this company has come up with, I'm surprised anyone's buying this. Perhaps you could say the show might have an incidental result of awareness being raised on the issue, but you can't possibly believe these guys are sincere in their concern.

I agree much more with Ironside that it's very possible people will give less of a damn about this issue as a result. For the few moments I've been near a tv when Big Brother has been on, I'm usually wondering how long the entire cast, production team and fan base could go without two kidneys.

[Fragony]

I'm actually siding with Louis here. From what i've heard about the Dutch organ donation system people need a wake up call so they can go sign the consent forms.


People need a wake up call. My solution is simple, aren't you a donor? No organs for you then have a nice death au revoir.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Organ shortage, and limited medical means in general , mean that decisions of life and death like this one are made daily. The one difference is that they are usually hidden from the public eye, and that doctors make the decisions.

I can see where you're coming from, but they're normally made on the basis of objective criteria relating to medical need. As opposed to which prospective recipient is the cutest, or which one has the saddest story.

Doctors train for years to make decisions like this without letting emotion come into the equation. It's why we pay them well.

As an aside-my thoughts on organ donation.

-Opt out, rather than opt in system.
-Relatives do not have the ability to veto organ harvesting.
-If you opt out for whatever reason, you become ineligible as a candidate for recieving organs.
-If you choose to opt back in, you have to wait two years before you are eligible to recieve an organ. This would stop people opting back in as soon as they discover that their liver is failing, for example.

I think this would be a much fairer system.

[doc_bean]

After seeing the rest of the lineup this company has come up with, I'm surprised anyone's buying this. Perhaps you could say the show might have an incidental result of awareness being raised on the issue, but you can't possibly believe these guys are sincere in their concern.


I'm not saying they're good samaritans, but their motives are largely irrelevant, it's the result that matters.

[InsaneApache]

Ahhh...the good old 'ends justifying the means arguement'.:shame:

[English assassin]

...
This is how you screw
...

Just to confirm for the benefit of Louis and our other friends on the continent, Endemol have yet to transfer this one to England, although I heard they have an exciting new show on reality tea-drinking coming our way instead.

:clown:

(This joke was brought to you in substitution for one on "shooting and swallowing" which would have certainly got me banned)

[Kralizec]

This is is disgusting.


People need a wake up call. My solution is simple, aren't you a donor? No organs for you then have a nice death au revoir.

Yes.

[Lorenzo_H]

How disgusting.

[AntiochusIII]

"Oh my God he lost!" - American Idol, some wannabe got dropped

Whatever.

"Oh my God he lost!" - Big Donor, a dying man got dropped

Barbaric.

It's for sale for, as Fragony wonderfully termed, emotion-vultures. It's Real It's People Dying It's Ratings Galore Yadda Yadda.

I don't buy the awareness crap.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ah, I just see this from a very post-modern point of view. This show is a brilliant, bitter societal critique disguised as revolting reality television claiming to be a clever societal critique pretending to be sensationalist, exploitative television.

It's brilliance all over. :2thumbsup:



Perhaps you could say the show might have an incidental result of awareness being raised on the issue, but you can't possibly believe these guys are sincere in their concern. But that's what so great about it. This distinction has becomed blurred, nay, is rendered obsolete by it.

[KukriKhan]

This show is a brilliant, bitter societal critique disguised as revolting reality television claiming to be a clever societal critique pretending to be sensationalist, exploitative television.


Careful folks. Next Louis will explain why Jerry Louis puts the 'brill' in brilliant.

(j/k ol' buddy)

[doc_bean]

Ahhh...the good old 'ends justifying the means arguement'.:shame:

Not really, I say motives are largely irrelevant. 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and such. 'the ends' usually involve a motive of some sort.

I don't see the means as something too terrible here: nobody is getting hurt, nobody is forced to watch the tasteless show, someone gets a kidney.

Of course, i mostly agree with Louis,


. This show is a brilliant, bitter societal critique disguised as revolting reality television claiming to be a clever societal critique pretending to be sensationalist, exploitative television.

[English assassin]

I don't see the means as something too terrible here: nobody is getting hurt, nobody is forced to watch the tasteless show, someone gets a kidney.

If I proposed to televise no rules to-the-death cage fighting, would you object? Participants would be consenting adults. No one would be forced to watch. Winner gets a million quid.

Some things we just shouldn't allow. And the "someone gets a kidney" point doesn't stack up, as I assume the donor hasn't said "I will donate my kidney, but ONLY if I am allowed to do so in the reality game show context. Otherwise, my kidney dies with me."

Another aspect of this I don't understand is how the donor is allowed to choose the recipient. I don't think you can in the UK. It seems fundamentally to undermine the idea of a social health care system, where treatment is based on need.

[Husar]

Another aspect of this I don't understand is how the donor is allowed to choose the recipient. I don't think you can in the UK. It seems fundamentally to undermine the idea of a social health care system, where treatment is based on need.
She will naturally feel attracted to the one with the best genes so it's only for the good of mankind and the gene pool.:dizzy2:

If I'd get a million for a show in which I can donate my appendix...:sweatdrop:

Bad thought, but this whole thing just confuses me, I think it's rather tasteless though, if I am expected to make more life and death decisions, I could also join the army or turn into a new kind of serial killer who also lets people live sometimes after kidnapping them, would teach me the whole concept as well I guess and nobody forced me to do it, I got the awareness all on my own.:dizzy2:
Okay, bad comparison, but if they need kidneys that bad, why don't they just take them from people who are not donors? Just don't tell the family, I doubt the dead person will complain. I'm not a donor(yet) but once I'm dead I don't think I'll need my kidneys anymore, you can have all of them, and my appendix as well.:idea2:

[InsaneApache]

I'm no expert but IIRC the donors' organs must be removed immediately death occurs.

[Kralizec]

If I proposed to televise no rules to-the-death cage fighting, would you object? Participants would be consenting adults. No one would be forced to watch. Winner gets a million quid.

Some things we just shouldn't allow. And the "someone gets a kidney" point doesn't stack up, as I assume the donor hasn't said "I will donate my kidney, but ONLY if I am allowed to do so in the reality game show context. Otherwise, my kidney dies with me."

Another aspect of this I don't understand is how the donor is allowed to choose the recipient. I don't think you can in the UK. It seems fundamentally to undermine the idea of a social health care system, where treatment is based on need.

You can donate a kidney during life to whoever you want, if you have some sort of relationship with that person (i.e. not complete strangers willing to pay)

[Ja'chyra]

Personally I find the idea distasteful, a bit too close to the running man for my liking. Don't know that it should be banned though as I am more for the idea of allowing most things on TV and if you don't like it then don't watch.

As for the whole donation issue I think it should be opt in but if you don't opt in you're not eligible for a transplant. Not sure on the whole choosing issue, obviously the choice is yours if you are still alive, I also don't think the family should be able to over rule your choice. As for nominating people if you die, this is a bit tougher for me as the only reason I am on the donators list is in case a member of my family needs it, but the issue here is if I opt in and don't need a transplant does that opt my family in too? On the whole I don't think that being able who you leave your organs to is the best idea but maybe some kind of scheme where if you opt in then that includes your immediate family in being allowed a transplant (ration book anyone?), after all they would get more than one organ from me, although my liver and kidneys might not be the best :thumbsdown:

On a slightly related note, what about blood?

I give blood regularly, again mainly in case someone I know needs it, I don't really care about the rest of the world (Ain't I a bad man). Should blood be similar to organs? If you don't donate you don't get?

[doc_bean]

If I proposed to televise no rules to-the-death cage fighting, would you object? Participants would be consenting adults. No one would be forced to watch. Winner gets a million quid.


Well, the clear difference between your concept and the actual show is that someone *IS* going to get seriously hurt.

Now you can talk about the emotional damage that this show will do to the losers, but I'm not they are as big as what they are already going through with the imminent death and all.

The show is tasteless, I won't argue that, but as a one of 'shock' tactic it might do some good.

[English assassin]

Should blood be similar to organs? If you don't donate you don't get?

I don't think so. Its one step from that to having to "earn" your citizenship rights, eg, you don't pay tax so you can't vote, or get treatment on the NHS.

I don't agree with you on opt in/opt out though. So long as it is advertised well enough, I don't see a problem with making organ donation on an opt out basis. Anyone with any objection, good or bad, can opt out, and if they can't be bothered to tick the box it can't be much of an objection.

Maybe we'd say that anyone over 65 is excluded, in case there are concerns that organ hungry medics would start offing coffin dodgers.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The difference with blood is that there's not such a large disparity between supply and demand. So it's not really the same thing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...you don't pay tax so you can't vote...

I'm not certain that this wouldn't be a good idea. It would help to minimize the ability to vote for largesse for one's-self from the public coffers would it not?

[Don Corleone]

Well, speaking as an officially registered organ donor, I don't think we want to get into a "if you're not one, you can't benefit from those who are", for many of the reasons EA cited.

I do however like the idea of having your right to vote predicated on paying taxes (even a nominal amount).

[Kralizec]

Well, speaking as an officially registered organ donor, I don't think we want to get into a "if you're not one, you can't benefit from those who are", for many of the reasons EA cited.

I do however like the idea of having your right to vote predicated on paying taxes (even a nominal amount).

I'm in favour of an opt-out system, but I also think it's a great idea to bar non-donors from getting organs or at least give priority to registered donors. It will increase the supply and limit the benefits to those willing to support the system rather then cling on to their interiors after they bite the dust.

As to those who oppose donorship on religious grounds, we relieve them of the temptation of hypocricy.

[Ja'chyra]

The difference with blood is that there's not such a large disparity between supply and demand. So it's not really the same thing.

But there is always a shortage

[Ironside]

I do however like the idea of having your right to vote predicated on paying taxes (even a nominal amount).

Citizenship isn't enough? Are all your 18 years old working and have a taxable income? Does all students work on the side?

And I'm not that fond of the idea of an opt-out system on kidneys (removing one doesn't kill you...). Post-mortem is one thing, organs aviable pre-mortem is another.

[Don Corleone]

Citizenship isn't enough? Are all your 18 years old working and have a taxable income? Does all students work on the side?

And I'm not that fond of the idea of an opt-out system on kidneys (removing one doesn't kill you...). Post-mortem is one thing, organs aviable pre-mortem is another.

Note that I said 'nominal' amount. If you're not working and earning an income, you should get a 'tax credit' of sorts for doing public service work instead of sitting around the coffee shop (or pub) all day.

But when people realize that the 'government' isn't a candy store, that WE are the ones paying for everything WE vote to give ourselves, we'll quit giving away millions of dollars for ludicrous stuff, like dipping the Virgin Mary into a jar of urine, or helping that small, local farmer, Archer Daniel Midlands, keep the family farm.

[Kralizec]

And I'm not that fond of the idea of an opt-out system on kidneys (removing one doesn't kill you...). Post-mortem is one thing, organs aviable pre-mortem is another.

Opt-out means that people are donors by default, if they don't wish to be they have to formally request being removed from the database.

...or maybe that's not what it means at all, and I'm confused. It was what I meant anyway when I wrote my previous post.

[Don Corleone]

You're right, Kralizec, and I don't argue with you, in this case, opt-out would be appropriate. Personally, take it all when I'm done with it. I'm just going to have it burned into a pile of ashes anyway. God put me together once from nothing, He can do it again.

[Ironside]

Opt-out means that people are donors by default, if they don't wish to be they have to formally request being removed from the database.

...or maybe that's not what it means at all, and I'm confused. It was what I meant anyway when I wrote my previous post.

Consider what that means pre-mortem... And refusing loses your right to have organs.
But sure, it saves all that would need a new kidney and doesn't get one today, even when they're not enough from the dead ones.


Note that I said 'nominal' amount. If you're not working and earning an income, you should get a 'tax credit' of sorts for doing public service work instead of sitting around the coffee shop (or pub) all day.

But when people realize that the 'government' isn't a candy store, that WE are the ones paying for everything WE vote to give ourselves, we'll quit giving away millions of dollars for ludicrous stuff, like dipping the Virgin Mary into a jar of urine, or helping that small, local farmer, Archer Daniel Midlands, keep the family farm.

I'm still finding it the wrong way of making people aware of that, the consequences of it are, for example, giving the citizen rights on thier financial position and are really the way to go if we see a repeat of the 1930:ies.

[Kralizec]

Consider what that means pre-mortem... And refusing loses your right to have organs.
But sure, it saves all that would need a new kidney and doesn't get one today, even when they're not enough from the dead ones.

I'm not suggesting that we deny people for not donating a spare kidney, just for insisting that they're buried in one piece.
Removing one kidney doesn't kill you, but I doubt that it makes no difference at all- especially if you're a regular drinker.


You're right, Kralizec, and I don't argue with you, in this case, opt-out would be appropriate. Personally, take it all when I'm done with it. I'm just going to have it burned into a pile of ashes anyway. God put me together once from nothing, He can do it again.

:2thumbsup:

There are quite a few people here who insist on being buried intact though, because they take the whole "day of ressurection" quite literally. I think it's pretty absurd, would God punish devout followers who went up in flames, crushed or shredded to pieces? Not to mention that buried corpses don't stay exactly intact either.
I'd still respect their beliefs if they were consistent with it and refused donor organs when they need it, like Jehovahs refuse blood transfusions. I suspect however that a lot of them are not :no:

[Husar]

Citizenship isn't enough? Are all your 18 years old working and have a taxable income? Does all students work on the side?
I'm a student and don't work yet, but be careful to say that I don't pay taxes, I've been paying them as a kid already, all my Playmobil had VAT added to it after all.
There are taxes on so many things, even tourists pay taxes.

[Ironside]

I'm a student and don't work yet, but be careful to say that I don't pay taxes, I've been paying them as a kid already, all my Playmobil had VAt added to it after all.
There are taxes on so many things, even tourists pay taxes.

I was planning to write about that (Define taxes: does VAT count as a tax?), but it fell off when I rewrote it.

[Fragony]

lol, just read that the reciever of the kidney has a pretty high chance of getting cancer. You couldn't make it up.

[Adrian II]

Another aspect of this I don't understand is how the donor is allowed to choose the recipient. I don't think you can in the UK. It seems fundamentally to undermine the idea of a social health care system, where treatment is based on need.BKS took the same line when he stated doctors should take the decision on medical grounds. But there are no medical criteria to decide who should live and who shouldn't. Doctors usually try to establish which potential recipient stands the best chance to survive with the new kidney. But even then, the dilemma remains. In its basic form, the dilemma is that you have two potentially healthy clients who are both going to survive and lead productive lives if they get the one available kidney. Period. No amount of medical expertise is going to inform your decision.

Of course if the donor is alive, he or she decides whether to cede a kidney and to whom. This principle is a legal no-brainer methinks. Whose kidney is it, after all? Doctors who disregard such individual rights on the basis that they 'know best' are strung from lampposts in The Neds.

Foreigners sometimes have the impression that we are just fooling around with human life here - in some American media there is even talk of a Dutch 'culture of death'. I think the opposite is true. On closer inspection all of the related issues (euthanasia, abortion, drug policies, sex education) arise from a keenly felt sense of personal autonomy where the individual decides about their life choices, and doctors, institutions, the medical and pharmateutical industries, lawyers, politicians and society in general take second place.

[English assassin]

Hmm, yes, on further reflection I think the rule in the UK is that a DEAD donor cannot choose the recipient. And there would be good legal reasons for that (one, who would enforce the choice if the doctors ignored it, and two, there is technically no property in a dead body).

By inclination I share your implicit suspicion of doctors who "know best" (the fools ! Everyone knows it's lawyers who know best:clown: ). But even if it is correct that there are no medical criteria for who should receive a kidney (once one has dealt with histocompatibility and the like) there are criteria, and the health care system (whether the doctors in it or more generally) does have to choose.

At present in the UK the approach is not to choose on the basis of what might seem to be rational non-medical grounds (eg your age is ignored, whether you have dependants is ignored, and so on, see for example the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's social values statement). Unless you can cobble up a medical reason (and even this is very controversial, after all, George Best got his new liver didn't he?) this risks leaving the decisions to waiting times, which is "fair" in a sense, but not really rational. (Come on, do we really think the 25 year old mother of two and the childless 70 year old should toss a coin for the kidney?)

In some respects I might prefer the Dutch approach, although I am having to wrestle with whether I really trust my fellow man enough or not. My head says I do, my heart says we'll get a load of donors specifiying that their organs are not to be given to muslims...

[Ja'chyra]

there is technically no property in a dead body

Is that true? If it is I would have thought all bodies would have been harvested for organs.


Come on, do we really think the 25 year old mother of two and the childless 70 year old should toss a coin for the kidney?

Yes, I'd imagine that both people value their lives and who are we to say that the, possibly, 30+ years the older person has to live aren't worth more than the younger persons, or that they wont invent the everlasting loo roll or something. I get your point but I don't think it's as simple as that.


My head says I do, my heart says we'll get a load of donors specifiying that their organs are not to be given to muslims

But wouldn't this be personnal choice? And at least someone would benefit, using this as an excuse smacks of cutting off your nose.


Everyone knows it's lawyers who know best

I'd hope so given how much they charge :no: :beam:

Edit: Maybe an option would be a priority list from the donor, for example mine would read:

1. My family
2. Children
3. Everyone else except rapists/paedo's

But again this wouldn't be perfect but at least it might open up the idea of donating to more people.

[English assassin]

Is that true? If it is I would have thought all bodies would have been harvested for organs.

Its true, in the mind bogglingly technical sense that you cannot own a dead body. That doesn't mean you can do anything you like to them though, its regulated by the Human Tissue Act 2004 (basically, you need consent)


Yes, I'd imagine that both people value their lives and who are we to say that the, possibly, 30+ years the older person has to live aren't worth more than the younger persons, or that they wont invent the everlasting loo roll or something. I get your point but I don't think it's as simple as that.

Well, the NHS agrees with you. I guess there is an obvious danger in deciding that one sort of person is "more worthy" than another.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

BKS took the same line when he stated doctors should take the decision on medical grounds. But there are no medical criteria to decide who should live and who shouldn't. Doctors usually try to establish which potential recipient stands the best chance to survive with the new kidney. But even then, the dilemma remains. In its basic form, the dilemma is that you have two potentially healthy clients who are both going to survive and lead productive lives if they get the one available kidney. Period. No amount of medical expertise is going to inform your decision.

I can think of a number of medical criteria that might inform your decision-

-The likelihood of each recipient surviving the operation.
-How many extra years of life the organ would give each recipient.
-How long the recipient can wait for a kidney.

If thesevalues are the same for each prospective recipient, then I'd imagine flipping a coin would be the fairest option.

[Kralizec]

I admit that I just watched the show despite that I thought it was tasteless.

It was all a hoax - the terminally ill donor was an actress. The show, for over an hour long, showed "her life", that of the three contestants and all sorts of questions to be answered by the contestants. During all this people would send phone text messages to indicate their preferred recipient, though the choice would ultimately lie with the "donor".

When the moment came, the "donor" had to name the first contestant who wouldn't get the kidney. When she was about to name the second (and last) one to dissapoint, the host stepped in and announced that it was a hoax all along. The contestants are real donor patients but were accomplices in the hoax. I feel it's a lot better this way.

Earlier I did have my suspicions that it was a hoax, but when I started watching the show I was just immersed into it. It was moving, and disturbing.

[InsaneApache]

That makes it even more disgusting.

[ShadeHonestus]

Gotta love the hoax! two thumbs up

I wonder when the tin hatters will show up and say that the hoax is a hoax because of pressure from kidney disease treatment centers that want to keep you sick so they keep getting paid. I can hear them now "Dialysis baby, follow the money"...oh where is Zak when you need him. :beam:

[Duke of Gloucester]

That makes it even more disgusting.

That was my initial reaction too, but on reflection I think it makes it (slightly) less disgusting. Those who needed kidneys were less exploited than I thought at the expense of the audience. To me this is more acceptable than exploiting those with kidney disease alone.

[doc_bean]

That was my initial reaction too, but on reflection I think it makes it (slightly) less disgusting. Those who needed kidneys were less exploited than I thought at the expense of the audience. To me this is more acceptable than exploiting those with kidney disease alone.

Of course, if it hadn't been a hoax, one of them might actually survive their illness.


Tough call.

[Spetulhu]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_organ_show

Kidney transplant TV show is a hoax

By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 1, 7:44 PM ET

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A television show in which a woman would donate a kidney to a contestants was revealed as a hoax Friday, with presenters saying they were trying to pressure the government into reforming organ donation laws.

Shortly before the controversial program was to air, Patrick Lodiers of the "Big Donor Show" said the woman was not actually dying of a brain tumor and the entire exercise was intended to put pressure on the government and raise awareness of the need for organs.

The three prospective recipients were real patients in need of transplants and had been in on the hoax, the show said.

The program concept had received widespread criticism for being tasteless and unethical.

But Lodiers said that it was "reality that was shocking" because around 200 people die annually in the Netherlands while waiting for a kidney, and the average waiting time is more than four years. Under Dutch rules, donors must be friends, or preferably, family of the recipient. Meeting on a TV show wouldn't qualify.

"I thought it was brilliant, really," said Caroline Klingers, a kidney patient who was watching the show at a kidney treatment center in Bussum, Netherlands.

"I know these transplant doctors, and I thought they'll never go and actually do it. But it's good for the publicity and there are no losers."

During the show, 25 kidney patients were vetted by "Lisa," and most were quickly dismissed for being too old, too young, smokers, ex-smokers or unemployed. Contestants gave moving pleas for why they should receive the organ.

"It really hurt watching that," said Tim Duyst, whose wife is awaiting a transplant and cannot work. "You're dismissed in a wave of the hand."

Viewers were called on to express an opinion or vote for their favorite candidate by SMS text message for 47 cents.

The show was produced by Endemol, which created "Big Brother" in 1999.

The Royal Netherlands Medical Association, known by its Dutch acronym KNM, had urged its members not to participate and questioned whether the program might just be a publicity stunt.

"Given the large medical, psychological, and legal uncertainties around this case, the KNMG considers the chance extremely small that it will ever come to an organ transplant," it said.

All seven of the country's transplant centers had said they not cooperating with the program, KNMG spokeswoman Saskia van der Ree.

Earlier in the week, the Cabinet declined suggestions from lawmakers to ban the program, saying that would amount to censorship.

[Fragony]

Seems like Louis was on to something here, Frag not angry anymore :beam:

[doc_bean]

But Lodiers said that it was "reality that was shocking" because around 200 people die annually in the Netherlands while waiting for a kidney, and the average waiting time is more than four years. Under Dutch rules, donors must be friends, or preferably, family of the recipient. Meeting on a TV show wouldn't qualify.

From what our Dutch patrons have said, I think this is untrue, you just get to specify which person gets your kidneys, I assume the 'preferentially family' part is because of immunity issues.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Of course, if it hadn't been a hoax, one of them might actually survive their illness.


Tough call.

Of course it makes it so much easier to exploit people if you have something they need.

(If it hadn't been a hoax the "donor" would have died - maybe not such a tough call)

[doc_bean]

Of course it makes it so much easier to exploit people if you have something they need.

(If it hadn't been a hoax the "donor" would have died - maybe not such a tough call)

Well that's true, it's probably slightly better this way.

I just hope the Dutch get their opt-out system.

[Kralizec]

That makes it even more disgusting.

Why? For fooling the public?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wait - not real!?

You mean, this show was just a brilliant, bitter societal critique disguised as revolting reality television claiming to be a clever societal critique pretending to be sensationalist, exploitative television? Who'd have thought, hey? :sweatdrop: