Printable View
I keep reading and re-reading this to see if it is a Joke. If it's real is it reality TV gone too far?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm
Personally I think it is wrong for the donor to be able to allocate their organs on a preference basis themselves, rather than a medical team allocate to the most needy at that particular time.
I also think it is wrong to make a show for public entertainment where there is a very real risk of the losers loosing their lives.
It is rather weird. However, those 3 contestants have a better chance of getting a kidney than many others.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrabGirl
Things I don't like:
1. It seems that one person gets both kidneys when usually it would be 1 kidney per person.
2. These 3 people jump ahead of many others on "the list".
3. How is the show tastefully going to handle the reactions of the people that lose.
Other than that, the donor can give her kidneys to whom she wants.
:dabs:
i've just learned something about myself. i actually feel disgusted, not just saying it. i didn't even read it all. the idea of the two losers getting a surprise life/death sentence on stage at the end of it is fucked up. :dabs:
I totally agree.:) I think it is disgusting. Whatever happened to patient confidentiality. Except for family donors it should be decided by the doctors. The donation should be 'banked' and used at the doctors discretion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrabGirl
On the other hand what if you got a chance to leave a lot of money to your loved ones? I think I am starting to complicate things again.:rolleyes:
Although I think it's totally the wrong way to go about it, I understood the idea was to raise awareness of the shortage of donor organs.
Another example where the end does not justify the means.
Patient confidentiality went where the patients told it to go. Also donations should go where the donor wants them to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabI totally agree.:) I think it is disgusting. Whatever happened to patient confidentiality. Except for family donors it should be decided by the doctors. The donation should be 'banked' and used at the doctors discretion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrabGirl
On the other hand what if you got a chance to leave a lot of money to your loved ones? I think I am starting to complicate things again.:rolleyes:
You would have a point if these folks were forced.
Patient confidentiality goes where the patients told it to go. When it suits them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Patient confidentiality went where the patients told it to go. Also donations should go where the donor wants them to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
You would have a point if these folks were forced.
Forced to do what?
....give up their confidentiality and/or donate to a person that they didn't want to donate to.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabPatient confidentiality goes where the patients told it to go. When it suits them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Forced to do what?
They agree to donate their organs to an organ bank. If you sway from this policy then you create the selling, or stealing of organs. Doctors should only operate if the organ comes from an organ bank, or relatives or the result of a donor search.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™....give up their confidentiality and/or donate to a person that they didn't want to donate to.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Says you. What about a friend? What about a stranger?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabThey agree to donate their organs to an organ bank. If you sway from this policy then you create the selling, or stealing of organs. Doctors should only operate if the organ comes from an organ bank, or relatives or the result of a donor search.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
It was a hoax.:)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...677544,00.html