More Canadians die awaiting organ transplants than are murdered

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I know this is a sensitive issue, but I must admit that I actually laughed out loud when I read this response.

Are you joking?

Overeaters, smokers and drinkers: the doctor won't see you now

Meanwhile, Dr. Paul Salo, a Calgary orthopaedic surgeon, says he's reluctant to proceed with surgery on "inveterate" smokers or the "massively overweight." Nicotine impairs bone healing, Salo explains, before adding that the failure rate in operations where bone must heal to bone is five times higher among smokers.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Overeaters, smokers and drinkers: the doctor won't see you now

Thats interesting and all but it is, umm, is it relevant?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Thats interesting and all but it is, umm, is it relevant?

well um...of course it is Mr Underoos! I mean using all those legal products is a BAD thing and they should be penalized for using them!!

Im sure in another 50 years or so when all the BAD people on this earth are dead and theres nothing but steroid filled aerobics instructors, the world will be a better place....LOLOL

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Globe and Mail

This is quite the interesting read. However, it's far too sensationalistic to pack any punch.

When did homicide become the gold-standard by which we guage our transplant rates? How are these two concepts even remotely related (other than to plant a seed of suggestion)? Moreover, how is it appropriate to guage transplant rates vs Spain, Belgium, US, Norway, and Italy? The vast differences in healthcare resources/availablility, culture (including legal climate), and generalized mindset variations render this comparison useless. This is also without getting into the post-transplant setting. Perhaps they should discuss the 5/10 year survival rates status post transplant in the other areas in relation to the rates?

Edit: for tone. i still havent figured out smileys yet.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by 11mile

When did homicide become the gold-standard by which we guage our transplant rates? How are these two concepts even remotely related (other than to plant a seed of suggestion)?

Because when somebody gets murdered; it's a tragedy and gets played on the news. Stations even go so far as to announce "this is the city's 5th murder this year."

But more lives are being lost to another cause, and it's getting more attention. If the article ends up reminding 100,000 people to sign their cards and talk to their family; then it has done its job. Odds are one of those people will eventually have their organs available for transplant, and a life can be saved.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Because when somebody gets murdered; it's a tragedy and gets played on the news. Stations even go so far as to announce "this is the city's 5th murder this year."

So to get attention by playing off knee-jerk emotional responses is the reason? Ensnare people in their moment of universal love of humanity to sign their cards... Shady... but valid AND for a good cause. I just hope that people signing their cards is the true bottleneck in the system.

I wish respected sources like the globe would exercise more discretion in printing this stuff.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by 11mile

I wish respected sources like the globe would exercise more discretion in printing this stuff.

Why?

It was an opinion piece. It created discussion. That's what opinion pieces are supposed to do.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Why?

It was an opinion piece. It created discussion. That's what opinion pieces are supposed to do.

A deeper education and understanding of the issues at hand will, in the long run, far outperform a short-term kneejerk. People aren't dumb these days.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by 11mile

A deeper education and understanding of the issues at hand will, in the long run, far outperform a short-term kneejerk. A backlash against the article may be a possiblility when folks realize the complete lack of content/intent to manipulate.
With that said, I didn't realise it was an opinion piece.

The feller who wrote it has an emotional stake in the issue. Of course he's going to have a strong opinion. Given his background, I'm sure he's penned other educational pieces like policy papers and such. You have time to wade through all that? I know I don't.

Many media outlets don't have the space or time for ten-part series filled with pictures of sad-eyed little gaffers and their solemn parents at their bedside.

Sometimes an advocate has to be blunt to get his point across.

[JiriHrdina]

I learned a bit more about this tonight.
The issue is less about having enough people willng to donate their organs and more about the strict regulations regarding when organs can be donated. From my admitedly limited understanding of the issues, if you croak of a heart attack at your home or at the hospital - no good. If you die of a brain injury - then you can do it.

The point is - lots of people who are willing to donate, never end up doing so.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Sometimes an advocate has to be blunt to get his point across.

Invalid comparisons, half-stories, and outrageous innuendo are not examples of being blunt.

But, I do see your point as to why this should be in print.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by 11mile

Invalid comparisons, half-stories, and outrageous innuendo are not examples of being blunt.

But, I do see your point as to why this should be in print.

People are dying. There is no nice way to put it.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

People are dying. There is no nice way to put it.

Now that's blunt. Throw a few supporting facts and figures in there and, presto, a much better write up than what was published... no need to talk about murder or transplant rates in Spain... but that's just me.

I gotta work on my emotes. I hope you're not put off by this obnoxious cf refugee. i so enjoy these convos.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by 11mile

Now that's blunt. Throw a few supporting facts and figures in there and, presto, a much better write up than what was published... no need to talk about murder or transplant rates in Spain... but that's just me.

What would you like instead? Deaths attributable to the Edmonton Oilers' Even Strength Save Percentage?

People die of murder.

People die awaiting organ transplants.

Those are two very apt comparables.

And why shouldn't Canada's transplant donation numbers be compared to other industrial nations?

All of your points are unfounded.

[Jake]

Reg, I think you're over simplifying this. There are many other factors to consider, which 11mile has covered well.

Comparing the amount of people dying each year waiting for organs to those that are murdered may make a deeper impact on some people, but just saying that and not giving any more information is stupid.

First, what is the murder rate in Canada?

Second, the comparison is just not logical... some of the people waiting for organs may have lived another 2-3 months. I had an Uncle with liver cancer. He could have had a liver transplant that would have extended his life another 2-4 months but he couldn't get one. He told us he wasn't that upset. Your statistics likely include people like him, which happens to be a fairly large amount of people as cancer either is the leading cause of death in Canada or will be soon.

I hate comparisons that many people use to try to make their point have a larger impact. The number of people murdered has no corrolation to the number of people that die waiting for an organ transplant.

In the future just say "(this number) of people die each year waiting for organs". Not only does it give more information, but it doesn't mislead those who do not think through the comparison.

Sorry, this is just one of my biggest pet peeves I'm all for signing your donor card (personally I would love an extra few months alive if I needed one), but completely against invalid comparisons.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Jake

Reg, I think you're over simplifying this.

It's not oversimplication at all. The numbers are the numbers.

Unless you can prove the numbers wrong.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

What would you like instead? Deaths attributable to the Edmonton Oilers' Even Strength Save Percentage?

People die of murder.

People die awaiting organ transplants.

Those are two very apt comparables.

And why shouldn't Canada's transplant donation numbers be compared to other industrial nations?

All of your points are unfounded.

As I have already mentioned briefly in my initial post:

People dying of murder and waiting for organ transplants comparable? I disagree. One involves a malicious act with ill intent, the other involves a person who is going to die anyways, but the resources aren't there to save them. The differences are blantent. Why not write it up with a comparison to heart attack death rates? at least there's some common ground because someone has a health problem. By your logic, you could also compare transplant deaths to WW2... in that light, the lack of donors is not an issue at all.

Why shouldn't they compare to other industrialized nations? As I mentioned earlier, there are differences in the health care systems, the administrations, the standard of care in the community, prevalent mentality. Different countries (heck, different cities within the same province) have different capacities to operate and make a surgery successful (I don't live in Alberta anymore, but I guarantee that all the different hospitals are griping for an upgrade in equipment or personel). Where, within that write-up, was there any mention of what procedures they were doing? Transplanting a cornea is a very different game than transplanting a liver which is also different than transplanting a lung. Furthermore, they did not mention the success rates of anything. You can do 123098 transplants a year if you want. If 2 of those transplant patients live beyond 5 years, is that any better than transplanting 13 people a year and have all 13 make it to the 5 year mark?

There is absolutely no defense for that writeup. The only redeeming feature is that it is for a good cause and the rhetoric is effective in getting people to sign their cards.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's not oversimplication at all. The numbers are the numbers.

Unless you can prove the numbers wrong.

Those numbers were used with the intent to lead the reader. They are worthless without context, how they were derived, population they were taken from. The onus is on the author of the paper to support their validity. You know that stat about how a car is stolen every 5 seconds? What they don't tell you is that a high percentage of cars are stolen in the city... you can prolly leave your car unlocked in Lac La Biche all day long and nothing will happen... even in 10 seconds.

[Coolsurfer79]

I don't think the only problem isn't just people signing their cards. Even if you sign the card I would say your organs are likely never going to be used. If you die in old age they won't want them. If you have certain bad habits it may make them useless. Accidents may end up making them useless too. I would need to know of all people that do sign their cards, how many actually end up being donors.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by 11mile

People dying of murder and waiting for organ transplants comparable?

Sure they are. You're comparing numbers.

Originally Posted by 11mile

One involves a malicious act with ill intent, the other involves a person who is going to die anyways, but the resources aren't there to save them.

How are they different? A stiff on the slab is still a stiff, is it not?

Originally Posted by 11mile

Why not write it up with a comparison to heart attack death rates?

Well that wouldn't evoke the same emotional response, now would it?

Originally Posted by 11mile

Why shouldn't they compare to other industrialized nations? As I mentioned earlier, there are differences in the health care systems, the administrations, the standard of care in the community, prevalent mentality.

And it's the results of those differences that are being compared.

Originally Posted by 11mile

There is absolutely no defense for that writeup.

The man is dying.

Originally Posted by 11mile

The only redeeming feature is that it is for a good cause and the rhetoric is effective in getting people to sign their cards.

Then the end justify the means.