Donate Organs

[Renee]

Iam going to donate my organs so that I may help save someones life.

[MRCL]

But be careful, you need some of them to live.

[Renee]

MRCL,

Thats cute,, when Iam gone I want need them anymore.

[KieX]

That's a good thing to do. I've not signed up for anything like that yet, but might do when I get older. I still go by the erroneous notion that the body is indestructable until something brakes.

In the meantime I do what I can, which many of us from techpowerup! forum do by joining the World Community Grid (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp). Donates idle computer time to research cures for diseases such as cancer. Others also do folding.

It's important I suppose that we all do what we can, however little, to make a difference for the benfit of humankind. Who knows, in turn we may depend on these acts ourselves someday.

[Renee]

Kiex,

Thank you.

[JC316]

Um, why all the threads with one sentence? I mean, it's just random statements, not much room to debate.

[Wile E]

I'm not listed as an organ donor. If you get seriously injured to the point where they feel it MIGHT be hopeless for you, do you think they are actually going to try their best to save you if they find a donor card on you? I don't. I think they'll be looking for parts.

[JC316]

No donor for me either. Not sure if they would even take anything since I have an "autoimmune" disease.

[DanTheBanjoman]

I would recommend doing so asap. There are many people in need of organs at this very moment. Go for it. Keep the brains though.

[DaveK]

I wouldn't mind giving any useful organs away if I died, as long as I don't have to pay for it. Where do I sign for permission to pull the plug if I become a vegetable?

I'd give blood if I could for the free cookie but I'm not allowed to because I got a blood transfusion before a certain date.

[FordGT90Concept]

I think I am currently a donor but I need to get off the list. I think most people would rather die than have my organs. :p

[pantherx12]

I'd never let my organs been harvested in general to go to strangers, they could go to new Hitler, I wouldn't want parts of my body in some evil bugger.


I'd quite happily set up a list of people that can have my organs though!

[Renee]

I would like to thank you all for your replys.

[Black Panther]

I would like to thank you all for your replys.

Then use the 'thanks button' on the lower right of each post. ;)


Guys, do you get paid for donating blood in your country?

[pantherx12]

Then use the 'thanks button' on the lower right of each post. ;)


Guys, do you get paid for donating blood in your country?


You get biscuits here!

Plenty worth it. :D

[KieX]

Then use the 'thanks button' on the lower right of each post. ;)


Guys, do you get paid for donating blood in your country?

Not in the UK or Spain

EDIT: biscuits? didn't know that

[pantherx12]

Not in the UK or Spain

EDIT: biscuits? didn't know that



Aye they don't tell you about it, you have to ask, its to increase your blood sugar levels again after they've taken a pints worth of blood ( since you'll be loosing any nutrients in the blood too)

They'll give them out to people that get really woozy without asking mind you.

[Steevo]

I won't give blood, or my organs. There are too many people in the world anyway.

Blood is disgusting, think about it like this. They didn't test for the HIV virus in blood banks untill after they know about it. What other new viruses, and genetic disease, or disorders could be passed along?

Plus there are many alternatives for blood, and studies show by the time the blood is stored, checked, transported, delivered and infused it takes HOURS to actually start transporting oxagen again. Thus makign it not the life saver it is deemed to be, instead the immidiate benefit comes from the volume expansion that allows the vessels to stay inflated and the heart to pump.

Plus all the studies show you will recover faster without a transfusion than with, as your body actively attacks the transfusion cells, and the cell destruction causes stress on your liver, pancreas, and lymphic systems as it purges the cells waste.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466831/

[pantherx12]

I won't give blood, or my organs. There are too many people in the world anyway.

Blood is disgusting, think about it like this. They didn't test for the HIV virus in blood banks untill after they know about it. What other new viruses, and genetic disease, or disorders could be passed along?

Plus there are many alternatives for blood, and studies show by the time the blood is stored, checked, transported, delivered and infused it takes HOURS to actually start transporting oxagen again. Thus makign it not the life saver it is deemed to be, instead the immidiate benefit comes from the volume expansion that allows the vessels to stay inflated and the heart to pump.

Plus all the studies show you will recover faster without a transfusion than with, as your body actively attacks the transfusion cells, and the cell destruction causes stress on your liver, pancreas, and lymphic systems as it purges the cells waste.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466831/


Maybe you should get your information from medical sources instead.

We sorted out transfusions going tits up ages ago, its why people have blood types, if the blood type is the same type your body won't attack it.


MSNBC is a useless website lol

[Steevo]

http://www.caring4cancer.com/go/cancer/treatment/blood-transfusions/possible-side-effects-of-blood-transfusion.htm

http://www.marrow.org/PATIENT/Undrstnd_Disease_Treat/Undrstnd_Treat_Opt/Lrn_Other_Treatment/Blood_Transfusions/index.html

http://www.cpmc.org/learning/documents/bloodtrans-ws.html#What Are the Risks Associated with Blood Transfusions?

With this extensive testing, the chance of receiving a unit of blood containing the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus is around 1 in 2 million, and less than 1 in 200,000 for hepatitis B.
You have better chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion than winning the lottery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060319184430.htm

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/413053_5

http://www.anemia.org/patients/faq/

"There is also a concern for human error, which in 1/16,000 transfusions results in a patient receiving a transfusion of blood that is not matched with his/her blood type."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=%22Blood%20Transfusion%2Fadverse%20effects%22 %5BMAJR%5D

Better? I can get hundreds more, or thousands.

[pantherx12]

But what sort of people get transfusions steevo?

People that are fucked up and have a higher chance of dying then living.

Any improvement in chance to survive is still just that, an improvement.

[Steevo]

I personally woudn't take tha chance of some person making a random decision and getting a disease that I will die from later, or pass along to a loved one when there is proof that in a emergency situation that blood available does no good for at least a few HOURS and at the least does BAD to you untill the hemaglobin reactivates and starts to carry oxegen.

Think about it. You are in a car wreck, and bleeding profusely, you have lost 1/2 of your blood. They have to give you something to keep your heart pumping or your circulatory system will collapse and fail.

A) Blood that will do little good, and carries the possible risks of infection, incompatability, immunosuppression, and numerous other problems.
B) Ringers solution that expands the blood you have left and slows the hematocrit loss, poses no threats and will help you heal faster later.

The idea that giving blood on the scene of a accident to save a life is wrong. The science shows that blood given in a emergency situation poses no valuable addition to the life or death equasion beyond volume expansion, well beyond the emergency time limit. In simple terms if twins with identical blood loss and all else being equal, one given blood and one Ringers, the Ringers has a better chance in the long term of living a healthy long life.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4774088.html

"The biochemical processes that occur during blood preservation or storage contribute to the diminution of the post-transfusion viability, i.e. survival of stored rec cells after transfusion to a recipient, and oxygen off-loading capacity of red cells, both of which are statistically correlated with the duration of storage period. Previous studies of stored red blood cells have indicated that intracellular levels of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and 2,3-DPG (2,3-diphosphoglycerate) largely or entirely determine the post-transfusion viability and oxygen off-loading capabilities respectively of the red cell. It is well-established that both of these substances are products of glycolysis, a biochemical pathway that degrades glucose. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567771148801570.html

My daughter was treated with nitric oxide after she was born and intubated for the first two weeks of her life. I spent much time researching blood, the nitric oxide pathway and the effects thy have on our life.

Blood transfusions are dangerous at the least. New evidence reveals that hematocrit as low as .3, can be tolerated with enough volume, nitric oxide treatment, and oxegen treatment combined.

[jmcslob]

You can stock up on your own Blood Before a surgery or something....

I don't give blood myself....

I bet 1 pint of my blood could get 20 people High

[Polaris573]

http://www.caring4cancer.com/go/cancer/treatment/blood-transfusions/possible-side-effects-of-blood-transfusion.htm

http://www.marrow.org/PATIENT/Undrstnd_Disease_Treat/Undrstnd_Treat_Opt/Lrn_Other_Treatment/Blood_Transfusions/index.html

http://www.cpmc.org/learning/documents/bloodtrans-ws.html#What Are the Risks Associated with Blood Transfusions?

With this extensive testing, the chance of receiving a unit of blood containing the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus is around 1 in 2 million, and less than 1 in 200,000 for hepatitis B.
You have better chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion than winning the lottery.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060319184430.htm

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/413053_5

http://www.anemia.org/patients/faq/

"There is also a concern for human error, which in 1/16,000 transfusions results in a patient receiving a transfusion of blood that is not matched with his/her blood type."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=%22Blood%20Transfusion%2Fadverse%20effects%22 %5BMAJR%5D

Better? I can get hundreds more, or thousands.

Your misinterpreting many of your sources. The sciencedaily one talks specifically about patients undergoing angioplasty, which the medical community has apparently considered controversial for a while anyway. The anemia one specifies blood transfusion as a treatment of last resort, which makes sense because getting regular transfusions is definitely bad for you. Cpmc.org is cursory information basically warning that blood transfusion is a risky procedure (duh it's not as simple as taking tylenol). Marrow.org specifically says only 1%-2% of transfusions have any side effects. Caring4caner.org provides another list of possible side effect most of which have "very rare occurrence" in their description and some are just fever or rash. From these you conclude all transfusions are bad? Since you offered. Yes I would like more sources, specifically ones that support the fact that all transfusions are bad. What you did was give a few articles supporting the fact that sometimes blood transfusions make people sick and aren't good in all situations. You can do that with any medical topic. That would be like me saying you should never go into hospitals because everyone who visits hospitals gets a nosocomial infection and then posting 25 journal articles discussing nosocomial staphylococcus aureus infections as evidence for my idea.

I personally woudn't take tha chance of some person making a random decision and getting a disease that I will die from later, or pass along to a loved one when there is proof that in a emergency situation that blood available does no good for at least a few HOURS and at the least does BAD to you untill the hemaglobin reactivates and starts to carry oxegen.

Think about it. You are in a car wreck, and bleeding profusely, you have lost 1/2 of your blood. They have to give you something to keep your heart pumping or your circulatory system will collapse and fail.

A) Blood that will do little good, and carries the possible risks of infection, incompatability, immunosuppression, and numerous other problems.
B) Ringers solution that expands the blood you have left and slows the hematocrit loss, poses no threats and will help you heal faster later.




The idea that giving blood on the scene of a accident to save a life is wrong. The science shows that blood given in a emergency situation poses no valuable addition to the life or death equasion beyond volume expansion, well beyond the emergency time limit. In simple terms if twins with identical blood loss and all else being equal, one given blood and one Ringers, the Ringers has a better chance in the long term of living a healthy long life.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4774088.html

"The biochemical processes that occur during blood preservation or storage contribute to the diminution of the post-transfusion viability, i.e. survival of stored rec cells after transfusion to a recipient, and oxygen off-loading capacity of red cells, both of which are statistically correlated with the duration of storage period. Previous studies of stored red blood cells have indicated that intracellular levels of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and 2,3-DPG (2,3-diphosphoglycerate) largely or entirely determine the post-transfusion viability and oxygen off-loading capabilities respectively of the red cell. It is well-established that both of these substances are products of glycolysis, a biochemical pathway that degrades glucose. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567771148801570.html

My daughter was treated with nitric oxide after she was born and intubated for the first two weeks of her life. I spent much time researching blood, the nitric oxide pathway and the effects thy have on our life.

Blood transfusions are dangerous at the least. New evidence reveals that hematocrit as low as .3, can be tolerated with enough volume, nitric oxide treatment, and oxegen treatment combined.

The wall street journal discusses the difference between fresher blood vs. blood that has been stored longer and give a roughly 1% increase in complications for patients given older blood. Nowhere does it say that blood transfusions should never be used.

The very interesting patent article suggests a way to improve the efficiency of blood transfusions. Not that transfusions are a poor treatment or that red blood cells lose all of their capacity to carry oxygen. I really thank you for posting this one though, I was curious what caused efficiency to be reduced and it did give a basic explanation.

I'm not saying transfusions are perfect or even that they should be used as treatment in every case where they are used. However, for you to say that all transfusions are bad and you should never have one performed is ill-informed. Any medical procedure is dangerous, I guarantee many medicines you're taking or have taken list "death" and other nasty things as side effects. However, next time your doctor prescribes an anti-biotic for your strep-throat I'm sure you'll take it.

If you're worried about picking up a disease like hepatitis from a blood transfusion you may want to re-think eating at restaurants, you do that often I'm sure and that's a common vector for hepatitis. :o

I'll agree with you on one thing though. They're are a lot of great alternatives to traditional blood transfusions beginning to appear and they're a lot more effective. I look forward to when those have better availability. Until then, I'll roll the dice with what I have available.

Anyway I doubt I changed your mind and it wasn't my intent, but I hope you at least take another hard look at your viewpoint of all transfusions being bad and deadly.

I'm sorry your daughter was ill when she was born. Is she doing better now? :(

[Steevo]

Yes she is. Now she is my horrible little angel.


As far as blood transfusions, I have a issues with them from a religious standpoint, and the fact that I don't trust what can or could happen. I don't go to the doctor unless really needed so don't take drugs for everythign under the sun that is much of what doctors get kickbacks for writing. Will I take a antibiotic? Yep, I take the known tested ones, do my own research about the side effects and how it works.


I do believe there are certain chemicals in plants and animals that can be used for the benefit of humans. Like Kava kava for the treatment of social anxiety. etc...

[Polaris573]

Ah well if you don't like it for religious reasons then I'll leave you alone. I can respect that.

[pantherx12]

Yes she is. Now she is my horrible little angel.


As far as blood transfusions, I have a issues with them from a religious standpoint, and the fact that I don't trust what can or could happen. I don't go to the doctor unless really needed so don't take drugs for everythign under the sun that is much of what doctors get kickbacks for writing. Will I take a antibiotic? Yep, I take the known tested ones, do my own research about the side effects and how it works.


I do believe there are certain chemicals in plants and animals that can be used for the benefit of humans. Like Kava kava for the treatment of social anxiety. etc...


Ahh I'm going to have to back down to then, I tend to find when religion comes into the discussion when there's no tone of voice it can get quite heated rather then stick to a discussion.


Will have to agree polaris how ever about eating food anywhere mind you, in fact your more likely to be hit by a car then get an illness via transfusion : ]

[Papahyooie]

In the US you dont get paid for blood, but you do get paid for plasma. Not sure why.