I have carried a donor card since I was 16, then it was just to donate kidneys, now it's heart, lungs, kidneys, pancreas, liver, small bowel corneas, skin, bone and heart valves.
I think it's something that every healthy person should do... Did you know that in 2005 the National Blood Service (NBS) of the UK collected 2.1 million donations? *1 Sounds a lot doesn't it? But it only comes from 1.6 million donors, thats about 5% of the population donating two to three times a year. Why do I donate my blood? Simple really, I like to think of others and how I can help them in their time of need, and if their time of need is blood then I've done my bit. And isn't it good to think that if we were involved in an accident and needed blood urgently that there was someone there who was prepared to give it selflessly?
Of course, blood nowadays is only used whole when there is an instance of severe blood loss, most ofthe time it is separated into it's constituent parts;
Red Cells
Used to treat anaemia, sickle cell disease and when red cells break down in newborns.
Platelets
Used to treat bone marrow failure and post transplant and chemotherapy treatments, and leukaemia.
Plasma
Used in during cardiac surgery and to treat loss of blood in childbirth.
Factor VIII
As I'm sure most of you are aware this is used to treat haemophilia, and the albumin within plasma is beneficial to burns patients.
Why blood is vital even for the dying*2
Everyone knows blood is literally a lifesaver for those who’ve been in an accident or need it to help survive treatments and operations. But for some, whose illness has no cure and that last battle they face just can’t be won, a blood transfusion can help to improve their quality of life during their final months, weeks or even days.
Karen Clarke, a Community Nurse who gives transfusions to the terminally ill in their own homes, says, "These vital transfusions give patients a better quality of life. It gives them the energy and ability to enjoy this precious, final time with their families."
But this time is often a gift that only blood can provide. In some serious accidents, its use can mean that a critically ill patient can stay alive long enough for their loved ones to reach the hospital to see them, one last time. Priceless.
Thats a lot of uses for the 470ml of blood that is taken on each visit. A little discomfort in order to help your fellow humans is a small price to pay. At the same time as giving blood it is possible (in the UK) to also ask to be put on the British Bone Marrow Register (I am on the Anthony Nolan Trust Register) as a potential donor of bone marrow.
As for Organ Donation I believe that with the acute shortage of organ donors that it's time the Government changed the law and made it an opt-oput scheme rather than the current opt-in. Of course if you have opted in and joined the Transplant Register*3, make sure your loved ones know of your wishes. At the moment far too many people are dying from a lack of donations, think about helping those less fortunate than yourself, it's a great feeling knowing you are helping someone to have a better quality of life after you die.
*1 National Blood Service figures
*2 www.blood.co.uk
*3 www.uktransplant.org.uk
3 comments:
OK... like I have said elsewhere, I started to think a bit over this. Not that I haven't before ;)
The question of donating (or not donating) organs after your death is one that simply will not be solved by rational argumentation only. We do not have the facts. So, in the end it will boil down to how you feel about it.
You, Baldy, actually argue from emotions when you tell how good you feel about being able to help others, by donating blood now, and by donating organs when you no longer need them yourself. You warm my heart too. :D
You also show respect for people who feel differently. Some people find the idea of being mutilated so horrible they can not stand thinking it would happen to them even after death. Actually, that is not so irrational as it may sound. Few of us can imagine the world without ourselves in it. It is not so easy to imagine not being part.
In fact, some people can not bear thinking about their own deaths at all. And that's where I see a problem. A system where you had to opt out, instead of opting in, is a system that would force people to make these decisions. On the one hand, I can see why it is so important that you would feel it is in order to force people to make an active choice. On the other hand... I can even imagine people who for shame could not bring themselves to opt out, since the reasons for donating are so compelling, but would live with anguish because of it.
There is no easy way out of this. With all respect for life and helping others... I guess part of the answer would be to talk more about these things.
Some people find the idea of being mutilated so horrible they can not stand thinking it would happen to them even after death.
I can totally understand that, but if they died suddenly then (afaik in the UK) they would have to have a post mortem anyway to determine Cause of Death...
Few of us can imagine the world without ourselves in it. It is not so easy to imagine not being part.
Really do agree with that, I find it hard to think of a world without myself in it, but yet I know that it will be an occurrence eventually.
A system where you had to opt out, instead of opting in, is a system that would force people to make these decisions.
I dont see it that way, if anything it takes the decision away from them, the problem I can see with it is that Doctors may keep someone alive from an organ harvesting viewpoint, and that wouldn't do at all. The patients (donor) best interests must come first...
I guess part of the answer would be to talk more about these things.Without a doubt, far too many people are still dying for lack of donated organs...
Now let's see. One reason why I pointed out that these decisions will in the end be based on emotions is that it is so much easier to give seemingly factual reasons why you should donate your organs. Some years ago, I struggled with an article in which a philosopher (the Swede Torbjörn Tännsjö) argued from a hedonistic-utilitarianist point of view. He claimed that we have a moral obligation to donate our organs when we no longer need them, and backed this up with our duty (according to utilitarianism) to promote as much happiness as possible to as many persons as possible, in an impartial way. He did not discuss people who are afraid of mutilation, and not the feelings of anguish such people may feel. Instead, he saw religious people as his “opponents”, and argued that they would have to prove their assumptions that they need their bodies after death to have their wishes respected.
I think that highlights the problem I see with the opt-out system. It places the no-sayer in a weak position. It seems like it is your irrational emotions against over-whelming factual arguments in favour of donating. The fact that there are emotions behind those arguments, too, usually goes undetected. So, refusing donation seems irrational and selfish. Like you had dinner in front of starving people, and refused to even give them the leftovers when you couldn't possibly eat any more.
***
And, yes, then there's the risk that dying patients are kept “alive” so that you can harvest organs from them. To a degree, I think that is done already. Here (like in most western countries, I think), we now have a brain-death criterium. Legally, you are dead when there is no measurable activity in your brain. Still, if you have expressed your consent to donate, the physicians will not switch off life-support systems as soon as they have established that you are (brain-)dead. They will wait until the people who will receive your organs are ready. It may be only a matter of hours or days, but it is done.
In this context, I can't help thinking of that fairly recent case when a (brain-)dead woman in the US gave birth to a child. She had been in a traffic accident, I think, and they kept her “alive” to save the baby. It is possible, and even likely, that she would have wished for them to do so. Still, I think it's somewhat creepy, in the same way the thought of keeping people alive in order to harvest their organs is creepy. Maybe this case is coloured also by the fact that women at times have been treated as mere walking wombs...
***
There is the other side to the problem, too. The risk that phycisians may give up too readily on patients, because they know there are other patients that need their organs. More or less deliberate euthanasia is a risk that shouldn't be over-looked.
*sighs* Lol, here I go again. A looooooooong comment. You should write about less interesting stuff, Baldy! ;)
Note: Not familiar with words like hedonistic and utilitarianism? There's a good philosophical dictionary at http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Post a Comment