Jade Goody, Shilpa Shetty, Jordan and the kidney.

[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'.

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.

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

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.
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.

[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

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.

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

[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 ). 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

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.