- 8comments
- 256comments
- 376comments
- 25comments
- 77comments
- 167comments
- 28comments
- 15comments
- 16comments
- —discuss
- 489comments
- 73comments
- 46comments
- 44comments
- 3comments
- 9comments
- 108comments
- 206comments
- 176comments
- 243comments
- 6comments
- 228comments
- 8comments
- 162comments
- 7comments
- 16comments
- 88comments
- 52comments
- 30comments
- 32comments
Disgusting.
Yeah, way to make people want to be organ donors. I'm willing to help someone who's got a bad kidney, but that? No way.
There's a big difference in giving up some body parts to save someone's life once you don't need them and getting sent to the glue factory to feed someone's vanity.
I mean, for a lot people, I imagine there isn't a difference. I'm going to remain an organ donor. It is said that Diogenes, when asked how he wished to be buried, left instructions to be thrown outside the city wall so wild animals could feast on his body. When asked if he minded this, he said, "Not at all, as long as you provide me with a stick to chase the creatures away!" When asked how he could use the stick since he would lack awareness, he replied "If I lack awareness, then why should I care what happens to me when I am dead?" At the end, Diogenes made fun of people's excessive concern with the "proper" treatment of the dead.
How we treat the dead has a profound effect on those that are still living.
If we just ground up your loved ones on death and turned them into fertilizer or corn feed for cows you might have a very dim view about life.
Funerals aren’t for the dead, they are for the living.
What is the flow of reasoning here? What does “dim view about life” mean?
Actually, I think I would choose to be ground up for fertilizer if I had that option.
There are burial options where they plant a tree (non fruit bearing) on top of your body if you really want to opt for something like that.
Why not a fruit bearing tree?
Is it a prion risk or other health concern? or just people being squeamish / worried about misuse e.g. "haha that apple you just ate was made out of my grandpa" type thing.
Honestly, I'd be a lot more okay being tossed to wild animals than being ground up and turned into butt implants.
Yeah, I don't care how it's used but I want my family to be the beneficiary, not some fat cat running an org that has government monopoly to gut me.
The silent component of the disgust behind what's happening in articles like this is the fear that medical professionals will see greater profit from letting you die than from saving your life.
I bet there are already cases like this, either in the US, or in the dystopia that is China.
Fuck, I mean, there's already people out there who drug people and harvest their kidneys in a bathtub of some dirty motel somewhere. If there are people doing this shit on the black market, then there's definitely sociopaths that would do this shit in the hospitals if they thought they could get away with it, which is just what the organ donor checkbox opens the door to.
Yes, the incentives are very perverse. What an average person considers 'dead' and what the organ harvesters consider dead are two completely different things [1].
Organ-carving doctors are desensitized to death. They don't care if you live or die, but they do care if they get to harvest your organs because those are worth a ton of money. I'm sure there's 100's if not 1000's of people getting carved up every year that could have been saved, but the incentives are to let the person die to harvest their organs.
1: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/patient-wakes-doctors-remove-o...
Wouldn't the solution be to allow the family to get payments when the donated body was used for cosmetic surgery? Couldn't laws state that the donated bodies must go first to those in need, second to medical schools and science, and lastly to cosmetic procedures?
Besides, a small portion of those procedures are for valid purposes. Accidents, birth defects, and so forth.
Cosmetic surgery isn't necessarily a bad thing because you associate it with the word vanity. I hope you realize that appearance can be just as important psychologically in a life as a person that's needing surgery for other reasons.
There's a difference between burn victim "vanity" and Kardashian vanity. One isn't a bad thing, and the cosmetic surgery to relieve the physical and emotional trauma associated with such is necessary. The latter, however, is a sideshow brought to us via Comcast and Instagram.
Pretty much this. I didn't feel it needed to be stated because obviously that's different.
Why are medical examiners the ones making these decisions?
You body is worth a lot of money to your estate. By donating it someone in the medical industry gets to steal that money from your family then profit handsomely from it. That’s why I choose no for organ donation, the whole industry is corrupt and I don’t want to support it, even if it means that some unfortunate sick person is unable to buy my donated kidney for 50-100k in processing fees.
What a terrifyingly capitalistic view.
What’s terrifying about it? That it shatters your previous understanding of the industry or that it implies some medical dystopia?
Would you prefer to instead called it a terrifyingly rational view?
Here in the UK healthcare is seen as a right. Hospitals and recipients of organs don't pay for them, and nobody is making money off of donated bodies.
The idea that access to life-saving treatment is based on ability to pay, and that there are corporations making profit at the expense of people's health and well-being is pretty terrifying to me. There's nothing rational about such a system.
Ability to pay dictates all aspects of life. Whether the individual pays or their country, at the end, no one works for free.
That is why poor people in poorer countries than the U.K. don’t have access to life saving treatments. I’m sure even poor people in the U.K. don’t have access to the same care that rich people do.
Only under capitalism. That's precisely why this is terrifyingly capitalistic. Societies ability to produce dictates all aspects of life. But not necessarily ability to pay.
Not if you're really rich (a millionaire). But even rich people in the UK will usually go for the NHS first. The care's pretty good.
All aspects of life are ultimately dictated by something. If not by the ability to pay, then it will be by other things out of your control or your ability to curry favor with those who can get you what you want.
I’d prefer it just be dictated by pay and skip the bullshit.
That's not what capitalism is. It's an economic system and has absolutely nothing to do with governance, policies, and the greater good.
You mean like these people in the article who turn donated bodies into cosmetic lip and penis filler?
Perhaps that's the case in USA and a few other countries.
But AFAIK on some countries of EU and Brazil, receiving organs is either free or inexpensive.
Do you know any doctors or medical school students? Ask them how well they would have learned about the human body if they didn't have cadavers to learn with.
The medical school is paying anyway for that body, $50k or whatever. So why not directly pay the family if the deceased instead of a middle man?
If that’s the case the money can go back to a pool of resources like healthcare and whatnot IF it’s not privatized like the USA. Otherwise, it’s designed to line the pockets of investors, etc.
No, because the body was never theirs, no one can steal it or it's value from them. You might choose to give it to them (including by leaving the matte to the default inheritance rules of your jurisdiction), you might choose to give it someone else, but until you do and it is transferred according to that decisions, it's no one’s but yours.
We aren't property of other people, whether of the same, past, or subsequent generations.
How come you can only be an organ donor or nothing at all? Why is it not possible for your family to sell your body? I'm positive that it would flood the market with bodies and drive the value of your body down, but would at least still cover funeral services.
It would be nice if you could even select what you want to donate and sell, such as sell your skin and donate your organs.
Because it's your body, not your families body. A law allowing the family to do this against your wishes will never pass.
That's not why.
You also not allowed to sell your own body.
A dead person can't own property, which is why wills, trusts, and laws of intestate succession exist.
I'm not saying I like this current system either, I but I could definitely see some downsides to letting people legally sell bodies for profit. It certainly seems chilling to me that people could have serious conversation about "what to do with grandma" if you have to consider not only how much it costs to take care of her, but also how much you could stand to be paid for her. It opens up a lot of unpleasant doors, but I guess its up for debate whether anyone thinks that's worse that what we have.
What stops a medical provider right now from letting someone die because they stand to profit more than if care is given to keep the patient alive?
On top of fear of malpractice suits and general well intention of doctors and nurses, medical providers make a lot more money from the provision of services than from being corpse brokers.
The article discusses a system where it is often difficult determine cause of death due to the harvesting of parts and preservation processes employed for harvesting activities. With this being the case, there are many instances where unscrupulous actors can have a reduced chance of being discovered.
Depending on who is paying the bills, it may not be very profitable, if at all, to provide services. Especially after cost of money considerations are factored in due to how long it can take to actually receive payment.
Have you ever researched the outcome of malpractice suits? People almost never win nowadays, usually because doctors must testify against other doctors. It is impossible to hold them accountable and now there are usually caps on damages.
It's so frustrating to see people deny truths because they don't like them. I know what you say to be true. I have experienced it and have seen many other victims of medical malpractice experience it. Money always wins and doctors and their insurance companies lobby for laws and establish facilities in areas with a more friendly jury pool (higher financial classes and peers). But I constantly hear how "people are just out for a payday" and how "easy" it is to sue and win from people who have no idea. Medical mistakes are the THIRD leading cause of death. They ruined my life. But every time the topic comes up and people speak about it like you did they are downvoted, ignored, dismissed. The same as the victims. People are just terrible so much of the time. No empathy or ethical/moral center.
My ex-wife's family use to argue about who gets what when grandma dies in front of grandma all the time. In other words there is already money involved in grandma's death whether or not her body is also worth something.
I'd think it'd be similar to the current situation where the (eventually dead) person has to opt-in. It can also be put in the will so that family members aren't aware of it and kill you for profit.
The exemption for celebrities is especially troublesome. Who determines if you are a celebrity or media interest.
What if a celebrity had an organ donor citation on their drivers license. Do they still exempt them?
I might remove my organ donation status after reading this. It is a distortion of what I assumed occurred.
It would have been helpful to list the states where this is allowed. "California and many other states" is not very informative.
Harvesting body parts for profit is obscene.
When I saw that one, it became clear the companies involved in this know they are operating on shaky ground.
There is a perfectly valid concern of rich/eccentric/stalky people paying a lot of money to be fitted with bodyparts of their idol. I get that.
But even then the primary motivator can only be pre-emptive avoidance of PR backlash. Harvesting cadavers for big profits feels creepy enough. But just imagine the media storm if a celebrity's family goes on national TV, complaining how their plans for open-coffin funeral were ruined because the national treasure's body had been taken apart and sold for very high-value scrap. Possibly (and quite literally) even before the corpse had got cold.
Optics are important. Checks the price of cornea.
That was a disturbing read.
I'm wondering how they would handle the bodies of those who have signed up for cryonics... Is there even a way to notify these companies that someone has signed up for that?
I don't mind my body being ground up and used for penis plumper.
I do want my family to get a big cut of that if it's selling for a grand per teaspoon.
This is fine with me too.
Federally there are laws against profiting off of organ trade, which is possibly why the company listed is registered as a nonprofit. You as an individual are operating for profit and would not qualify for an exemption.
It goes deeper, too, with bodily tissue not being recognized as property for some reason. This makes it hard to sue doctors and hospitals for misusing your medical waste, etc.
http://archive.is/tdZfF
Perhaps there needs to be an additional option; eg a) Organ Donor vs b) Science Donor, and some redefinition of the former to preclude post mortem pecuniary feasting. Most certainly, strict policy is needed to prevent harvesting without consent, which may be an issue more often than expected [1].
I must say, that the utilitarian views on corpse harvesting are to me, appalling. The thought of someone I cared profoundly for, having their form indifferently, irreverently butchered for anything other than pure, noble science or directly life-critical purposes is wretched, and even then... It appears that an argument is being made that such procedures benefit some, who even if able to survive without, are entitled and that it fills a market niche and therefore it's perfectly fine. If a case can be made for justifying cosmetic harvesting beyond the will of the departed, it doesn't seem drastically more extreme to propose an industry for necrophilia or necro-voyeurism or any other taboo having only ideological consequences. The same reasoning could be applied, with arguments both for and against being mostly of subjective values. I'd rather not.
I hope those who view existence and its every detail from macro to micro exclusively through the lens of cold science and economy can pause to consider either that some others don't, or find a suitable formulaic substitute for empathy. Assuming ownership and control of someone's (formerly) most intimate personal property, ie body, might not be as agreeable as you think.
1. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-nov-02-mn-49420...
Then I hope you never learn of Chinese organ harvesting farms.
I'm well aware of the issue and it isn't only China. The black market for parts is ubiquitous and illicit organ brokers are everywhere, etc, etc. Need a kidney? Someone knows a homeless guy pining for cash..[1]
We may not be as different from China as we prefer to think. Rather than state sanctioned, ours will be corporately so. Social credit system is coming here soon too.
1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cash-connections-can-get-a-kidn...
Call me naive but I was unaware that there were companies benefiting from harvesting my organs. I signed up to help people in need, not to help corporations. Especially corporations with a too-cozy relationship with the coroner's office. I'm revoking my organ donor status until this changes.
I wouldn’t overindex on this. I think this article is talking about biorepositories, which have a fair bit of work to do in storing organs in good condition and matching the donor data to clinical trials. More critical organs like hearts or kidneys are probably being sent to patients without much of a middleman
For those of you in CA similarly disturbed by this story, a side link in this story talks about how to put limitations on your organ donor status. I did not know this was an option.
I don't know how helpful this will be - for example, there's an option to restrict donations to only non-profits, but OneLegacy (from the story) is one of the four nonprofits in CA that procure organs and runs the registry.
There's also limitations per organ/tissue option, and for research. Also for "life-saving and reconstructive purposes" only.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/about/donatelife/do...
+1
Good work! This is important information and I hope it stays at the top of the comments. I'll be looking for a FL version.
Edit note: With privacy and security in mind, I'm not 100% sure how comfortable I am with enrollment and modification ability thereof occurring directly through the internet.
Short of saying no to heart valve/skin/bone donations, I find it unclear how this will play out in practice though. Like, OneLegacy is a nonprofit so if I select the nonprofit-only box, what happens? Or, how do you determine that a heart valve donation isn't life-saving?
This is really frustrating to me, even as my dad is on a transplant waiting list. The Donate Life page does give me an idea though: I can specify directed donations through an advance healthcare directive. I'm pretty tempted to leave my kidneys to my father and then find a way to explicitly donate my body to an organization that won't leave me with as many questions as these organ procurement nonprofits do.
From the research I did as an Illinois resident: Your body is divided into organs (heart, kidneys, liver, etc.) and tissues (skin, cornea, tendons, etc.). Organs are the real life-saving donations and they must be transplanted fresh within a few hours of death. Tissues like skin and bones get ground up/processed and sold - occasionally for really great purposes like helping burn victims or people with torn ligaments/tendons or cornea transplants, but also for things like making penises & lips bigger. Dunno where heart valves fit into this... maybe the entire heart is an organ but if they cut it up and only take the valves those count as tissues?
The chart in the article with prices of body parts only lists tissues - probably because it is illegal in the US to buy/sell organs; organs go to a match through the central first-come-first-serve registry. It does mention instances of organs also being harvested and the negative externalities of that, but at least those organs had a large effect on someone else's life. The same often can't be said about tissues.
I have taken myself off of the state's 'organ donor' list, which is actually for both organs and tissues. IL also seems to have a harvesting racket like CA; there are two harvesting ('procurement') organizations that have computerized access to morgues and coroners. I'm going to find a way to specify that I only want organs to be donated, and perhaps tissues but only to an organization that I trust.
This is the CA donation limitation list: https://i.imgur.com/T6mWt3g.png
The valves are broken out separately from the heart for purposes of donation, and the story also discusses a case of valve harvesting causing a problem.
I'm struggling to figure out where to draw the line until I can update my advance healthcare directive... all these tissues, as you say, can still be valuable. I mostly just hate the lack of transparency in these relationships, and that these organizations seem to be hiding this tissue use behind the actual process of organ donations...
Umm... good? Didn't see anything wrong in the article. If people make money in the process it means it everything goes smoothly.
Also, I'm pretty sure it confused costs with prices. You may pay $x for medical grade skin prepped for the operating theatre. It doesn't mean the same skin still attached to a dead body is worth $x. It's like going to a restaurant and trying to pay for 1% of a cow's market value. You want to pay that money, better be ready to kill, cut and cook a cow.
When you donate blood to an organization like the American Red Cross, they sell that blood for around $200 per bag. But, they have to hire qualified and well-trained people and set up facilities with medical equipment to collect your blood. From the research I've done, they don't seem to be making much money off of your blood - it's reasonable for them to sell the blood to hospitals, otherwise blood supplies would be extremely limited.
This does not seem the same. It seems like companies are running around sending people to harvest as much tissue as fast as possible because they make tons of money. Note that the picture in the article only lists prices of skin, cornea, tendons, etc. That is probably because it is against US law to buy/sell actual organs like a heart or a kidney. But these companies are clearly making a profit on everything else if they're so obsessed with getting all the tissues they can, even at the cost of murder investigations.
The Red Cross marketing team calls me to get me to try to sign up for more blood donations. But they don't lobby the government for laws that hook them into the coroners and morgues so they can harvest all the blood the second that someone dies.
Thanks. I've opted out of organ donation and I'm informing everyone I know to do the same.
I will not likely be around much longer and there seems to be no way to ensure my remains are used for good or just flushed and not lining someone's pocket. You cannot even just be disposed of...you have to pay four figures at least just for a simple cremation where someone profits from just burning you up. I cannot even escape capitalism's nonsense in death. I had my end of life documents made up not long ago and had noted scientific donation as my preference, but after this article and looking into it more, I don't want some greedy jerkwad selling my bits. My life was ruined by greed and people choosing profits over life...and I hate the idea of those same sort of people "winning" in my death.