Horrifying organ donation article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Her heart was beating because she had to be on a ventilator, that’s standard of care for a brain dead person. So of course she was “breathing”. The question should be: was she brain dead? That is a very regulated and absolute declaration involving multiple doctors, criteria, etc.

There are not enough brain dead people to supply organs for all the people who need one.
The newer standard being discussed is a person on life support who is not brain dead. They pull the plug, wait for them to die naturally (heart stops)and immediately grab the organs (they have 5 minutes before their condition deteriorates). The problem occurs when they don't die naturally and put a wrench in it.
So now the ghouls who wrote this op-ed want to skip the dying naturally part and declare people dead for practical purposes if they have poor quality of life. Then they can get the organs while they're still useful. This is a violation of the hippocratic oath that might fly in the third world but not here.

Do you really think there are a ton of organ transplants happening in the third world? They barely have vaccines and antibiotics in many places. I get it though, you are a racist who thinks "third world" doctors working here in the US are monetizing your organs for personal gain.

I personally am not comfortable with the idea of harvesting the organs of not-brain-dead people not because keeping moribund people alive for a few more days is difference-making, but because incompetence with the determination can leads to the kinds of mistakes seen here. IMO this procedure done correctly is not "changing the definition of death," but rather "utilizing the circumstances in which a minimally living person can be withdrawn from life support" which frankly happens ethically all the time outside of the setting of organ donation, and always has. Tons of people decide every day that "so and so would not want to live this way" (which to be clear, is usually bed bound and completely dependent, sometimes not even conscious, in a nursing home, connected to a ventilator forever) and decide to withdraw life support. The procedure described in the article is (supposed to be) specifically about using that circumstance to also harvest organs so that their death is not a complete waste. Apparently there are incompetent people out there who do not understand how to correctly associate these two things. That does not mean the entire process is wrong. But if misapprehension it is going to lead to people not donating, even in cases of brain death, then they may have to draw a bright line around it and stop until it can be better accredited and regulated.

This type of donation btw is possible in Europe because the same system that pays to keep moribund people alive pays for the organ perfusion and also for the transplant, and benefits from the extending life and working years of the person saved by the organs. It is much more possible in a single-payer system than in the USA, where the costs and profits of dying people are not going into the same pocket. Even outside of organ transplant, they are much less likely to provide extreme or aggressive end of life care in Europe, as it is not cost effective to the population overall.

As for the Op-Ed, it is three people's opinion. These are people who run a heart failure unit which means that every single day they see people who need hearts dying because there are none available and/or they are not usable. They are not correct that brain death is rare. Brain death is not uncommon, but unfortunately the circumstances of death frequently render the organs unusable and besides there is a shortage of declared donors. They are making an argument about how that could be changed. It is one perspective. It is not current practice in this country. Another perspective floated about 20 years ago was that donation in brain death circumstances should be the default, with an opt-out system. That never became practice here either. Lack of science literacy in this country has been one of the main obstacles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As if people don't profit off donation! Unless you donate directly to someone you know, someone is profiting off that donation. Gofundme and Salvation Army are just two examples of companies that make a fortune off of your donations. I never donate through Gofundme because I want every cent of my donation to go to helping a person I know - rather than having 3% go to funding some CEO's boat.

This is so deeply sad. If you cannot see past the administrative costs of the organizations that facilitate organ donation (which does not include ANY profit on the part of doctors who take care of dying donors) to the endpoint of a successful life-saving transplant I do not know how to help you. These donations are literally life-saving. Of course the system should operate with 100% perfection and efficiency but how could you even think of throwing out the baby with the bathwater on something so important.

Ummmmm...
Center For Organ Recovery And Education net assets: $136,532,009; Salary: Susan A Stuart (President/Ceo) $626,331+$97,307
Lifegift Organ Donation Center: Net Assets: $72,813,566; Salary: Kevin A Myer (President And Ceo Lifegift) $631,239+$41,59
Indiana Organ Procurement Organization Inc: Net Assets: $65,832,825; Salary: Kellie Tremain (Ceo/President) $728,573 +$55,747

So go after the CEOs. Not the procedure. I assure you that's more than even many transplant surgeons are making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Her heart was beating because she had to be on a ventilator, that’s standard of care for a brain dead person. So of course she was “breathing”. The question should be: was she brain dead? That is a very regulated and absolute declaration involving multiple doctors, criteria, etc.

There are not enough brain dead people to supply organs for all the people who need one.
The newer standard being discussed is a person on life support who is not brain dead. They pull the plug, wait for them to die naturally (heart stops)and immediately grab the organs (they have 5 minutes before their condition deteriorates). The problem occurs when they don't die naturally and put a wrench in it.
So now the ghouls who wrote this op-ed want to skip the dying naturally part and declare people dead for practical purposes if they have poor quality of life. Then they can get the organs while they're still useful. This is a violation of the hippocratic oath that might fly in the third world but not here.

Do you really think there are a ton of organ transplants happening in the third world? They barely have vaccines and antibiotics in many places. I get it though, you are a racist who thinks "third world" doctors working here in the US are monetizing your organs for personal gain.

I personally am not comfortable with the idea of harvesting the organs of not-brain-dead people not because keeping moribund people alive for a few more days is difference-making, but because incompetence with the determination can leads to the kinds of mistakes seen here. IMO this procedure done correctly is not "changing the definition of death," but rather "utilizing the circumstances in which a minimally living person can be withdrawn from life support" which frankly happens ethically all the time outside of the setting of organ donation, and always has. Tons of people decide every day that "so and so would not want to live this way" (which to be clear, is usually bed bound and completely dependent, sometimes not even conscious, in a nursing home, connected to a ventilator forever) and decide to withdraw life support. The procedure described in the article is (supposed to be) specifically about using that circumstance to also harvest organs so that their death is not a complete waste. Apparently there are incompetent people out there who do not understand how to correctly associate these two things. That does not mean the entire process is wrong. But if misapprehension it is going to lead to people not donating, even in cases of brain death, then they may have to draw a bright line around it and stop until it can be better accredited and regulated.

This type of donation btw is possible in Europe because the same system that pays to keep moribund people alive pays for the organ perfusion and also for the transplant, and benefits from the extending life and working years of the person saved by the organs. It is much more possible in a single-payer system than in the USA, where the costs and profits of dying people are not going into the same pocket. Even outside of organ transplant, they are much less likely to provide extreme or aggressive end of life care in Europe, as it is not cost effective to the population overall.

As for the Op-Ed, it is three people's opinion. These are people who run a heart failure unit which means that every single day they see people who need hearts dying because there are none available and/or they are not usable. They are not correct that brain death is rare. Brain death is not uncommon, but unfortunately the circumstances of death frequently render the organs unusable and besides there is a shortage of declared donors. They are making an argument about how that could be changed. It is one perspective. It is not current practice in this country. Another perspective floated about 20 years ago was that donation in brain death circumstances should be the default, with an opt-out system. That never became practice here either. Lack of science literacy in this country has been one of the main obstacles.

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said anything about the race of the doctors harvesting the organs. The fact that you started there really undermines the rest of your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As if people don't profit off donation! Unless you donate directly to someone you know, someone is profiting off that donation. Gofundme and Salvation Army are just two examples of companies that make a fortune off of your donations. I never donate through Gofundme because I want every cent of my donation to go to helping a person I know - rather than having 3% go to funding some CEO's boat.

This is so deeply sad. If you cannot see past the administrative costs of the organizations that facilitate organ donation (which does not include ANY profit on the part of doctors who take care of dying donors) to the endpoint of a successful life-saving transplant I do not know how to help you. These donations are literally life-saving. Of course the system should operate with 100% perfection and efficiency but how could you even think of throwing out the baby with the bathwater on something so important.

Ummmmm...
Center For Organ Recovery And Education net assets: $136,532,009; Salary: Susan A Stuart (President/Ceo) $626,331+$97,307
Lifegift Organ Donation Center: Net Assets: $72,813,566; Salary: Kevin A Myer (President And Ceo Lifegift) $631,239+$41,59
Indiana Organ Procurement Organization Inc: Net Assets: $65,832,825; Salary: Kellie Tremain (Ceo/President) $728,573 +$55,747

So go after the CEOs. Not the procedure. I assure you that's more than even many transplant surgeons are making.

The point is these organizations are pushing the transplant surgeons to harvest organs earlier and from people who are not dead. Because the organizations - not the surgeons - are making big money from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See propublica for asset and salary information. The Ways and Means Committee has also found these ghouls using planes purchased for organ transplants as private planes for their holidays. Doc, I appreciate your work and I'm sure you are well-meaning, but organ donation is a very dirty business. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/RFI-on-Organ-Procurement-Organizations-1.pdf

The USG spent a lot of money trying to understand the Organ donation business - when rumour was that Serbs were taking Kosovaran organs and Chinese were taking Uyghur organs and selling them. In fact, it is happening here too.

I recently watched a National Geographic documentary about this. Middle men are getting $20,000. per organ for this racket. Organ donation is a massive scam. The only person donating is the dead person, while the system is making out like dirty bandits.

Why aren’t our doctors teaching people how to keep their HEALTHY organs???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait a minute. Her heart was beating because she had to be on a ventilator, that’s standard of care for a brain dead person. So of course she was “breathing”. The question should be: was she brain dead? That is a very regulated and absolute declaration involving multiple doctors, criteria, etc.

There are not enough brain dead people to supply organs for all the people who need one.
The newer standard being discussed is a person on life support who is not brain dead. They pull the plug, wait for them to die naturally (heart stops)and immediately grab the organs (they have 5 minutes before their condition deteriorates). The problem occurs when they don't die naturally and put a wrench in it.
So now the ghouls who wrote this op-ed want to skip the dying naturally part and declare people dead for practical purposes if they have poor quality of life. Then they can get the organs while they're still useful. This is a violation of the hippocratic oath that might fly in the third world but not here.

Do you really think there are a ton of organ transplants happening in the third world? They barely have vaccines and antibiotics in many places. I get it though, you are a racist who thinks "third world" doctors working here in the US are monetizing your organs for personal gain.

I personally am not comfortable with the idea of harvesting the organs of not-brain-dead people not because keeping moribund people alive for a few more days is difference-making, but because incompetence with the determination can leads to the kinds of mistakes seen here. IMO this procedure done correctly is not "changing the definition of death," but rather "utilizing the circumstances in which a minimally living person can be withdrawn from life support" which frankly happens ethically all the time outside of the setting of organ donation, and always has. Tons of people decide every day that "so and so would not want to live this way" (which to be clear, is usually bed bound and completely dependent, sometimes not even conscious, in a nursing home, connected to a ventilator forever) and decide to withdraw life support. The procedure described in the article is (supposed to be) specifically about using that circumstance to also harvest organs so that their death is not a complete waste. Apparently there are incompetent people out there who do not understand how to correctly associate these two things. That does not mean the entire process is wrong. But if misapprehension it is going to lead to people not donating, even in cases of brain death, then they may have to draw a bright line around it and stop until it can be better accredited and regulated.

This type of donation btw is possible in Europe because the same system that pays to keep moribund people alive pays for the organ perfusion and also for the transplant, and benefits from the extending life and working years of the person saved by the organs. It is much more possible in a single-payer system than in the USA, where the costs and profits of dying people are not going into the same pocket. Even outside of organ transplant, they are much less likely to provide extreme or aggressive end of life care in Europe, as it is not cost effective to the population overall.

As for the Op-Ed, it is three people's opinion. These are people who run a heart failure unit which means that every single day they see people who need hearts dying because there are none available and/or they are not usable. They are not correct that brain death is rare. Brain death is not uncommon, but unfortunately the circumstances of death frequently render the organs unusable and besides there is a shortage of declared donors. They are making an argument about how that could be changed. It is one perspective. It is not current practice in this country. Another perspective floated about 20 years ago was that donation in brain death circumstances should be the default, with an opt-out system. That never became practice here either. Lack of science literacy in this country has been one of the main obstacles.

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said anything about the race of the doctors harvesting the organs. The fact that you started there really undermines the rest of your argument.

I am responding to the poster above who keeps insinuating that these are “third world doctors” who are applying their third world standards here in the USA. See posts re: who do you think is working in these hospitals, look at who wrote the op-Ed, etc.

[Anonymous]

The best way to keep your healthy organs is to eat better, exercise, not smoke, not abuse alcohol, not do drugs, not get shot and not get hit by a car.

Doctors have been saying this for a very long time. The American public could do better with listening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best way to keep your healthy organs is to eat better, exercise, not smoke, not abuse alcohol, not do drugs, not get shot and not get hit by a car.

Doctors have been saying this for a very long time. The American public could do better with listening.

Liar. Most doctors are NOT promoting health. The latest example is:

On Capitol Hill, the American Heart Association is FIGHTING the administration’s efforts to eliminate poisoned food from the SNAP program.

The American Heart Association is actively paying its lobbyists to KEEP poor people SICK by eating garbage like Lays Potato Chips and Pepsi. How evil is that, to keep our most vulnerable people suffering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best way to keep your healthy organs is to eat better, exercise, not smoke, not abuse alcohol, not do drugs, not get shot and not get hit by a car.

Doctors have been saying this for a very long time. The American public could do better with listening.

Liar. Most doctors are NOT promoting health. The latest example is:

On Capitol Hill, the American Heart Association is FIGHTING the administration’s efforts to eliminate poisoned food from the SNAP program.

The American Heart Association is actively paying its lobbyists to KEEP poor people SICK by eating garbage like Lays Potato Chips and Pepsi. How evil is that, to keep our most vulnerable people suffering?

What are you talking about? Link/source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As if people don't profit off donation! Unless you donate directly to someone you know, someone is profiting off that donation. Gofundme and Salvation Army are just two examples of companies that make a fortune off of your donations. I never donate through Gofundme because I want every cent of my donation to go to helping a person I know - rather than having 3% go to funding some CEO's boat.

This is so deeply sad. If you cannot see past the administrative costs of the organizations that facilitate organ donation (which does not include ANY profit on the part of doctors who take care of dying donors) to the endpoint of a successful life-saving transplant I do not know how to help you. These donations are literally life-saving. Of course the system should operate with 100% perfection and efficiency but how could you even think of throwing out the baby with the bathwater on something so important.

Ummmmm...
Center For Organ Recovery And Education net assets: $136,532,009; Salary: Susan A Stuart (President/Ceo) $626,331+$97,307
Lifegift Organ Donation Center: Net Assets: $72,813,566; Salary: Kevin A Myer (President And Ceo Lifegift) $631,239+$41,59
Indiana Organ Procurement Organization Inc: Net Assets: $65,832,825; Salary: Kellie Tremain (Ceo/President) $728,573 +$55,747

So go after the CEOs. Not the procedure. I assure you that's more than even many transplant surgeons are making.

The point is these organizations are pushing the transplant surgeons to harvest organs earlier and from people who are not dead. Because the organizations - not the surgeons - are making big money from it.

All the doctors I know are quite wealthy, with multiple properties, luxury cars, trips abroad to luxury resorts. Surgeons are among the highest compensated specialists. You can stop your propaganda, my friend. We can see what’s been going. Fess up.

[Anonymous]

I had the oppposite experience with a family member who we had to take off the ventilator because we were told there was no way of coming back from their brain injury. We wanted them to be an organ donor but the hospital said they didn’t meet the criteria because they were not “brain dead enough” due to some eye response at light or something. This was a family member who had cardiac arrest and was brought back by EMT’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had the oppposite experience with a family member who we had to take off the ventilator because we were told there was no way of coming back from their brain injury. We wanted them to be an organ donor but the hospital said they didn’t meet the criteria because they were not “brain dead enough” due to some eye response at light or something. This was a family member who had cardiac arrest and was brought back by EMT’s.

He was alive, but you wanted to donate his organs? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As if people don't profit off donation! Unless you donate directly to someone you know, someone is profiting off that donation. Gofundme and Salvation Army are just two examples of companies that make a fortune off of your donations. I never donate through Gofundme because I want every cent of my donation to go to helping a person I know - rather than having 3% go to funding some CEO's boat.

This is so deeply sad. If you cannot see past the administrative costs of the organizations that facilitate organ donation (which does not include ANY profit on the part of doctors who take care of dying donors) to the endpoint of a successful life-saving transplant I do not know how to help you. These donations are literally life-saving. Of course the system should operate with 100% perfection and efficiency but how could you even think of throwing out the baby with the bathwater on something so important.

Ummmmm...
Center For Organ Recovery And Education net assets: $136,532,009; Salary: Susan A Stuart (President/Ceo) $626,331+$97,307
Lifegift Organ Donation Center: Net Assets: $72,813,566; Salary: Kevin A Myer (President And Ceo Lifegift) $631,239+$41,59
Indiana Organ Procurement Organization Inc: Net Assets: $65,832,825; Salary: Kellie Tremain (Ceo/President) $728,573 +$55,747

So go after the CEOs. Not the procedure. I assure you that's more than even many transplant surgeons are making.

The point is these organizations are pushing the transplant surgeons to harvest organs earlier and from people who are not dead. Because the organizations - not the surgeons - are making big money from it.

All the doctors I know are quite wealthy, with multiple properties, luxury cars, trips abroad to luxury resorts. Surgeons are among the highest compensated specialists. You can stop your propaganda, my friend. We can see what’s been going. Fess up.

Gee, and how many of them are transplant surgeons which is the subject of the thread?

So now you have a beef against doctors and surgeons specifically earning more than you. Well, good luck with your outcomes when you pay these people minimum wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had the oppposite experience with a family member who we had to take off the ventilator because we were told there was no way of coming back from their brain injury. We wanted them to be an organ donor but the hospital said they didn’t meet the criteria because they were not “brain dead enough” due to some eye response at light or something. This was a family member who had cardiac arrest and was brought back by EMT’s.

Exactly. This is much more common and the reason there are not enough organs to go around. The standard for donation is historically quite strict.

[Anonymous]

Please be sensitive, this is her loved one. He was alive, but with a brain injury so significant that he had no hope of meaningful recovery. This is actually the scenario in question. They would remove him from life support if that was his or his designated surrogate’s wish, allow him to expire, and then harvest the organs. In the scenario the oped describes, the organs would be perfused by machine while the heart ceases to function naturally.

The problem is the human factor, there is potential for error or abuse when people lack the expertise to make the prognostication about whether the person has any hope of meaningful recovery. That is why these donations were not allowed, not because they are a bad idea themselves but because errors could taint the whole system even for brain dead people.