More Canadians die awaiting organ transplants than are murdered

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by 11mile

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.

Then the onus is on you to prove Jeremy Beaty wrong.

[Reggie Dunlop]

A little background on the author

[11mile]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Sure they are. You're comparing numbers.
How are they different? A stiff on the slab is still a stiff, is it not?

Fine. You're right.

Tsunami in india/indochina - Thousands.
World War 2 - Millions.
Krakatoa the volcano - many, many people.
People not signing - fewer than the above.

Maybe we don't have a problem at all.

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

why not? do you know how many people are on asprin 81 mg, have a relative with CAD, had an MI at some point? This is one that can be argued.

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

So how do you summate multifaceted information, some of which can only describe qualitatively, and come up with one "true" statistic? That's right... you can't.

Then the end justify the means.

FINALLY WE CAN AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!!!!!! yeah!


I'm 2 time zones ahead of ya... I'll check back tomorow after work. Cheers.

[Reggie Dunlop]

And you need a brain transplant, because your arguments are sophoric at best.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by 11mile

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

Because a bad heart is only one of the organs that are available for transplant.

That's like saying more people eat fruit; including apples, than people who only eat apples.

Or more people die in car crashes than are killed in car accidents involving Hondas.

[Frank the Tank]

I think you guys need to focus on the bigger issue and not bicker about who is comparing which stats to which stats. Organ donation needs to increase in Canada. From awareness from the general public and through changing legislation.

Just keep your eyes on the bigger picture instead of fighting.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I think you guys need to focus on the bigger issue and not bicker about who is comparing which stats to which stats. Organ donation needs to increase in Canada. From awareness from the general public and through changing legislation.

Just keep your eyes on the bigger picture instead of fighting.

Agreed Tank. But doesn't it also seem that the problem is less about the number of people willing to donate and more about the fact that the regulations re. acceptable donations are so stringent.

It seems to me that awareness is not the problem, we need to do something about the policies in place.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Agreed Tank. But doesn't it also seem that the problem is less about the number of people willing to donate and more about the fact that the regulations re. acceptable donations are so stringent.

It seems to me that awareness is not the problem, we need to do something about the policies in place.

Thats why I mentioned changing legislation as well. A lot needs to happen and the more awareness brought up about it, the better.

[NuclearFart]

I think this article is a good thing, especially for raising awareness about the issues. True, the comparison used is very sensational, but it does give a sense of crude relativity to the general public. Take it as a sign of the times if this is what it takes to get the average joe to read it and then remember it.

And if you do wish to donate your organs, make sure your family knows your intentions!! Once you have expired, they actually have the right to refuse your own donation wishes, even if you signed the card.

To the ignoramus who justifies not donating their organs on the grounds that his organs are likely going to fat, drug users, where do you get your facts? Many kidney recipients that I have met were born with genetic diseases such as polycystic kidney disease or type 1 diabetes. You think you know who gets precedent over donated organs? I can tell you right now you have no idea, seeing as how the transplant surgeons often dont even know. The decision of who lives and who does not is made by a select group of community leaders (Most of whom are not physicians). And they do factor in who is more "deserving", presumably based upon reason, curability, mortality and future contribution to society.

I am not saying you should donate your organs, as I respect either decision. But do not try and justify it with self righteous "facts" that you have contrived.
________
LovelyWendie99

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by 11mile

Fine. You're right.

Tsunami in india/indochina - Thousands.
World War 2 - Millions.
Krakatoa the volcano - many, many people.
People not signing - fewer than the above.

Maybe we don't have a problem at all.



why not? do you know how many people are on asprin 81 mg, have a relative with CAD, had an MI at some point? This is one that can be argued.



So how do you summate multifaceted information, some of which can only describe qualitatively, and come up with one "true" statistic? That's right... you can't.



FINALLY WE CAN AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!!!!!! yeah!


I'm 2 time zones ahead of ya... I'll check back tomorow after work. Cheers.

Dude you clearly don't get it.

1) Why shouldn't the author compare murder rates to the rate at which people are dying waiting for organ transplants.

The point of this comparison is to show that a problem with a very complex solution, if one even exists at all, ie murder, is responsible for the premature deaths of fewer people than a problem that could have a relatively simple and easy solution (ie signing your donor card).

2) Saying you can't compare donor rates of different countries because there are different circumstances is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. The differences is what MAKES IT A COMPARISON!!!! Do you seriously think we should only compare numbers that are obtained from identical sets of circumstances, which would probably mean the numbers are exactly the same?

For example by your logic here are a list of numbers we can't compare
a) Murder rates in Canada and the US
b) Traffic accident rates in Calgary vs Edmonton
c) Goals scored by the Oilers and the Flames

See, in each of those sets of numbers there are factors for each one that will make the unique, such as toatl crime rate, numer of snowy days, or style of hockey played, but according to you, these differences mean they are invalid comparisons.

So here is a list of numbers that I beleive according to you shold be valid comparisons

a) The number of sides on one dice vs another
b) the number of kings in one deck of cards vs another deck
c) the number of sides of one coin vs the number on another

Differences are what make a comparison a comparison, if you were comparing numbers with no differnt contributing factors then you would just be counting.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

My last post being done with, I think Frank is right, it's not a big deal to sign your donor card, and I really don't get the point of not signing it because you think that the it might end up in someone who has abused themselves.
I see a few problems with this

1) You are eliminating the possibility that your organs could do some good based on the improper assumption that it is likely your organs will go to someone who has harmed themselves. Basically I see this as being the exact opposite of what someone with a decently develped conscience would say, that being "Despite the possibility of my organs going to someone who I think doens't deserve them, the possibility that my organs can help save the life of an innocent person is reason enought to disregard my unwillingness to help the person who has done it to themsleves"

2) Denying someone the use of an organ that you no longer have a use for, you know, cause you're dead, simply because you think they are unworthy of it because they caused their own problem is a fantastic example of 2 wrongs not making a right. Seriously that is like throwing out a throwing away a sandwich that you don't want, and can't eat instead of giving it to the homless guy in front of you because you think he made himself poor.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I think this article is a good thing, especially for raising awareness about the issues. True, the comparison used is very sensational, but it does give a sense of crude relativity to the general public. Take it as a sign of the times if this is what it takes to get the average joe to read it and then remember it.

Excellent summary. I wish I had the enough common sense to say this instead of getting into a debate that cannot be won under these circumstances.

At the request of some posters, I will not continue this debate. Twas fun while it lasted.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

To the ignoramus who justifies not donating their organs on the grounds that his organs are likely going to fat, drug users, where do you get your facts? Many kidney recipients that I have met were born with genetic diseases such as polycystic kidney disease or type 1 diabetes. You think you know who gets precedent over donated organs? I can tell you right now you have no idea, seeing as how the transplant surgeons often dont even know. The decision of who lives and who does not is made by a select group of community leaders (Most of whom are not physicians). And they do factor in who is more "deserving", presumably based upon reason, curability, mortality and future contribution to society.

This is correct. There are an enormous number of factors that play into who gets the transplant... far beyond meeting countless criteria to be on the list.

To further this point, it's not unusual for some "perfect" transplant candidates to opt out of the list. In some cases, the patient just doesn't want to deal with a major surgery and a not-so-pleasant follow-up. The post-op course for organs usually includes countless coctail mixes... some of which will suppress the immune system to near shut-down levels. This, in itself, pushes people away from the procedure given the potential for postop complications.

NucFart: how hard is it for type 1 dm to get on the kidney list up there? down here?... oh boy. it's possible... but systemic conditions that can fry kidneys makes it a lot tougher. type 2 dm? even tougher.

[11mile]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Because a bad heart is only one of the organs that are available for transplant.

That's like saying more people eat fruit; including apples, than people who only eat apples.

Or more people die in car crashes than are killed in car accidents involving Hondas.

Sorry, I should've been more specific.

In general, "heart attacks" are usually not an indication for heart transplant. Coronary heart disease can qualify... but it MUST be in the absence of disease in other vessels amongst other criteria... which is pretty unusual. I was referring to "heart attacks" in a general sense.

Edit for punctuation and grammar. Sleeeepy. I hate PST game starts.

[NuclearFart]

Hey 11mile,

Yeah I'm sure our criteria is very similar to yours, particularily with respect to post transplant resilience. I don't know the exact stats on how hard it is for systemic disease patients to obtain a kidney, but I suspect they are quite hesitant. In experience I only met a few IDDM patients on the transplant ward, and all of them were quite young. As for the others, the majority of them were not "sin related" etiologies, but I limited my examples only to the diseases that the average reader has heard of (rather than mentioning the obscures).

PS: Interesting you live in Michigan, how ever did you stumble upon the CP forum? I'm gonna guess you're a red wings fan
________
Mary jane

[11mile]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Hey 11mile,

Yeah I'm sure our criteria is very similar to yours, particularily with respect to post transplant resilience. I don't know the exact stats on how hard it is for systemic disease patients to obtain a kidney, but I suspect they are quite hesitant. In experience I only met a few IDDM patients on the transplant ward, and all of them were quite young. As for the others, the majority of them were not "sin related" etiologies, but I limited my examples only to the diseases that the average reader has heard of (rather than mentioning the obscures).

PS: Interesting you live in Michigan, how ever did you stumble upon the CP forum? I'm gonna guess you're a red wings fan

Yeah, every kidney transplant I've seen with IDDM has been in <30y/o too. I'm honestly not too fimiliar with transplantology... I scrubbed a couple in residency, but nothing beyond that. In my opinion, it's far and away the most mysterious and complex field in how it's administered.

How did I stumble on CP? I'm a NW Calgary boy. I only moved out here for school/residency/fellowship. I'm only 8 months out though.