AquaVita

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...lant_error_121


So sad....

I still can't believe they made such an obvious mistake.

christ-on-a-stick

Her death is indeed very sad, and such a freakin' waste for such a stupid mistake.

One thing in the article that just got my blood boiling though - apparently the family has declined to donate any of her organs? Including the ones she just got (assuming they would be reusable)? WTF?!?!?!?

That really, *really* pisses me off. I would be in favor of some kind of "rule" as far as that goes - if you receive a donation, you agree to BE a donor when you die.

sakrilege

edited to say,
cross post, I was too slow.

christ-on-a-stick

My ten bucks is on "religious reasons" (for not donating).

I'd love to be wrong but I can't think of any other reason they might have.

If so.... :banghead: :banghead:

oriecat

It is sad, but it's possible she would have died anyway even with the correct transplant first.

Personally, I am inclined to think donating organs should be mandatory no matter what. Dead people don't need them and there are lots of living people who do. People might think that would be a violation of some sort of right, but dead people don't have any rights.

clark

I tend to agree. I at least thing organ donation should be the default position, and that if someone had idiotic or religious reasons for not donating, they should have to fill out a non-donate form on the back of their drivers license.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

christ-on-a-stick

Interesting thoughts oriecat.

I think most people *do* automatically think of it as being an infringement on some "right". However, when you consider the following:

A) As you put it succinctly, dead people don't have rights. Although I prefer to be cremated, if my husband/relatives decide to set me up for all eternity in a big ole catacomb it won't be no-nevermind to me and I certainly don't feel that I have a "right" to the disposal method of my choice. I be debris after I die... seems as though the ones who have to "take out the trash" should be able to decide whether to burn it or put it in a landfill.
B) As far as the living relatives - people don't have "rights" over other people's bodies anyway. They don't "own" them. Their objections seem a moot point.

Could be a complicated discussion...lots of variables and issues I'm not thinking of I'm sure... but worth talking about.

On a side note, our local newspaper did an indepth investigative series a while back titled "The Body Brokers" - illuminating the issue of donated tissue, bone etc. being routed to companies that would use them for profit in cosmetic surgery procedures and implants. I can get a link if anyone is interested. It shocked and appalled me... apparently while burn victims wait (and die waiting) for donated skin for grafts, donated tissue is being sold to cosmetic surgery interests for penile extensions and the like.

sakrilege

Ohio makes it easy to designate oneself as an organ donor when getting a driver's license. They put an emblem on the license itself. I don't know how well it works in practice but it should be status quo IMO.

oriecat

Yes, I was thinking the same thing when typing my post, but couldn't come up with the words. The family might object, but what actually gives them the right of say so, because as you said, I don't think the family can claim ownership of the body. You can't own other people when they are alive (slavery!) so why should you be able to own them if they are dead. Sure, we currently give the family the ability to do with the body as they will, for cremation or burial purposes, but they certainly can't do whatever they want with it. What if they wanted to stuff it and sit it by the pool? Or leave it in the backyard to rot? Or give it to their god as a burnt offering? Or eat it?! I don't think we would let them do those things (I hope not!), just as we shouldn't let them not donate those needed organs.

Yes, I am sure I am missing something too. That's what I put I am inclined to think this way.

Jimmy Higgins

This defines the word tragedy.

What's worse is that people donated money so she could have all these procedures done. And for what? A stupid shortcut oversight? I luv Jebus.

What's funny is that Bush keeps on crying about limiting malpractice lawsuit payouts. This shows exactly why they shouldn't exist in the first place! Such a stupid error shouldn't see just a $200k payout. A mistake is one thing. Malpractice is another. The doctor didn't do anything on purpose, but they didn't do their job. OY!