This Story is Archived
Who Owns Your Organs? »
Posted by: PinkyPie 1 year, 9 months agoYou're dying of kidney failure, and your wife is dying of massive injuries sustained during a car crash. Just as she passes away, she tells you to take her kidneys after she is gone. She dies. Are the kidneys yours?
Read Full Story at reason.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 99
-
moemebe
Jan. 3, 2007, 1:24 a.m.From the article ((The Colavito case is just one more manifestation of the increasingly bizarre proprietary status of human body parts.))
I'd say so....what a mess!!
-
jeffery1
Jan. 3, 2007, 1:07 p.m.That could change through stem cell research though. The day will come when technologists will be able to either grow a person another one of their own organs or alter the failed one to functional with controlled differentiation. We really need to press for stem cell research because your cells are your salvation and there are not enough replacement organs available for those that need them.
A blastocyst is not a person but a potential anything, including a kidney. Write your congressman/woman to support stem cell research today.
-
jordan11
Jan. 3, 2007, 3:52 p.m.If the spouse can't say who the kidney's went to, how could the spouse donate them through the agency & give them 'custody' of the kidneys? Seems to me, the 'law' is saying no one has a right to claim right, so no one has a say in where they go. Therefore, they go nowhere.
-
-
LonelyPoet
Jan. 3, 2007, 11:22 a.m.I agree with ya.... that is one dummmmmm judge. He/She must be removed for making anymore judgement. Husband or wife have full rights to the body of each other.
-
lfergie812
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:27 a.m.I disagree with the judge too but the judges don't use common sense when they make a ruling, there is that thing called money and power that dictates a judge's decision sometimes and I would bet that the organization knew that the kidney that was sent to Robert Colavito was bad so the person they preferred would have the good kidney. Maybe I'm wrong but the whole thing just doesn't sound right.
-
unorthodoxic
Jan. 9, 2007, 10:18 a.m.You are partially correct, judges do not use "common sense" when they make a ruling if there is law on the issue. A judge is bound by law, and must rule in accordance with law even when common sense would dictate otherwise. Given the fact that common sense is both rare, and frequently capricious, that's not a bad state of affairs. If you disagree with the court's decision, write to your legislators to try to get the law, and future court opinions changed.
-
-
mbkijb
Jan. 3, 2007, 7:25 a.m.I would say they should be yours if they match up to you. After all, I would think she would want you to be the first recip of them, if she loved you that much.
-
deathray
Jan. 3, 2007, 8:24 a.m.Well, not enough people are organ donors to begin with, so I would urge everyone to consider signing up. You could do a lot of good for someone who needs one.
Even if your spouse is not a match, many transplant programs provide for organ pools.
As someone who is on a transplant list, I hope that these issues rise in the consciousness of Netscape members. It is a topic that desperately needs attention.
-
joeeddie
Jan. 3, 2007, 10:20 a.m.Death - I suggest that you start finding and posting articles. Send me a note whenever you do and I'll vote and comment as much as I can. If you are interested, I would be happy to share with you some stories in a PM about my families experiences with organ donorship.
-
Harbor
Jan. 20, 2007, 2:30 p.m.My husband is trying to get me off of the list. He had to personally keep a body functioning manually for an hour while waiting for organ harvesters. This was while he was in the military so he was given an order and expected to follow it. The family was not notified until afterwards and my husband thinks that with medical care that man could have made it. Instead he was taken into a back room and harvested. Doctors were not allowed to work on him.
I think it is a business in which the government is allowed to make money off of our organs. Why else would they not allow us to have legal possession of our own body parts.
-
-
amazed
Jan. 3, 2007, 9:19 a.m.absolutely, organ donation is a good thing -- I've got it on my license and my husband and kids know that I want to do it. Although, as I get older, the likelihood that they'll be any good to anyone else after I'm done with them decreases each year.
BUT and this is a HUGE BUT == if I have someone I care about who needs an organ and I am in in an accident or otherwise terminaly ill in a way that makes my organs suitable for donation, it is ludricris that I (or my next of kin)cannot direct my organs to my loved ones. I believe I should also be able to set criteria for the recipients. I do not give to charities without vetting them thouroughly, why should I literally have to give my pound of flesh to someone of whom I vehemently (theoretically, of course) disapprove or not give it at all?
cont'd
-
amazed
Jan. 3, 2007, 9:19 a.m.I will even go further and state that I cannot quite see the uproar when people sell their "spare" organs for a good price. The doctors, lawyers, hospitals and probably the donor lists are all making tons on these transplants, why not the guy who owns the kidney?
-
-
evelyna
Jan. 3, 2007, 10:13 a.m.My boyfriends drug,alchol-cigarette-pot infested lungs for sale to the highest bidder.
-
joeblowe
Jan. 3, 2007, 10:16 a.m.I want to grow up to be an organ-legger. I'll be rich, I tell you -- RICH!
-
-
-
-
lfergie812
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:57 a.m.native, I think there are plenty of those around so the market for them isn't good. lol
-
-
thomas998
Jan. 3, 2007, 11:04 a.m.And that is a very good reason not to donate. It seems the money grubbing Organ Network doesn't care about people just protecting its market. Let people do as they see fit with the body parts and the networks go out of business while the number of available organs increases... but then the Organ Networks lobby DC so we are stuck with the screwed up system.
-
demonchck04
Jan. 3, 2007, 11:16 a.m.This article is even more proof as to why people need to create living wills. If we want the right to decide who will get our organs after we die then we have to put it specifically in a living will. That way there is no chance of the gov't being able to get involved. A person's living will is like their last rights.
-
joeblowe
Jan. 3, 2007, 11:24 a.m.Being told I don't even own the body I'm walking around in is really disgusting. It's enough to tempt one to specify immediate and total cremation when the time arrives. The problem with that is, that although the "wrong" people may be benefitting financially from donated organs, and sometimes perhaps the "wrong" recipient may also benefit, at least SOMEONE benefits from parts that the donor no longer needs. Why (possibly) sentence someone (or possibly several someones) to death just because the "wrong" people may profit somewhat? My driver's license is signed and my wishes are known to my wife and family. Yours? Quite frankly, I'm hoping my parts are all so well used by the time I no longer need tham that they'll be of scant use to anyone else. But, I'm on the highway every day, so who knows?
-
LonelyPoet
Jan. 3, 2007, 11:24 a.m.Well, this reiterates the need for stem cell research. A living human have every right to continue living. An embryo is not a living human and it must be used to help humans.
-
Bkumm
Jan. 3, 2007, 12:01 p.m.My wife and I are both on the donars list. The court case seems odd, but not the oddest I've seen.
I'm not saying the system doesn't need to be changed, I think it does, but here is the issue as I see it.
Let's say that you die in a traffic accident. One of your kidneys is damaged, but the other is fine. Your 35 year old son is in need of a kidney (he destroyed his with alcohol), but he can last for another 5 to 7 years on dialysis. There is a 16 year old male honor student who is also a perfect match for your kidney, but he won't last two more weeks without a transplant. Your will states explicitly that in the event of your death your kidney goes to your son. If organs are 'property' in the sense that this is meant your kidney goes to your son. The 16 year old dies. Is this right either?
I agree with LonelyPoet, this further underscores the need for 'cloning' and massive research into stem cells.
-
demonchck04
Jan. 3, 2007, 3:45 p.m.I can see your point that the 16 yr old is more deserving than the one who drank or smoked themselves into diseased and failing organs. But let's also see it this way, when the gov't or whoever it is decides who your organs should go to sometimes they decide to send it to an inmate who is on death row and is to be executioned soon. In the end a person who is more deserving of it will still be given a death sentence and weeks or months later the organ goes to waste because the inmate was killed. I don't see that as fair either. It is why I say we should have the right to say where we want our parts to go. Even if it isn't a person we know we could specify that they go to a kid who deserves a chance.
-
-
Bkumm
Jan. 3, 2007, 12:19 p.m.So, take this to the logical next step. If we live in a free society (we don't) and I 'own' my body then I can do whatever I want to it, correct?
If so, assisted suicide is legal and so is abortion while the fetus can not live outside of the womb. Further, that aborted fetus is also property and as such can be sold.
It even goes further than that. A minor (in the legal sense) can not enter into a contract. As such the rights to that child's body would belong to the parents. If the child dies, then the childs organs could be auctioned to the highest bidder. We might see childen killed (even though that is illegal) for their organs.
I don't know, pretty slippery slope.
-
Bkumm
Jan. 3, 2007, 12:44 p.m.If your body is yours then how can assisted suicide not be your right? If your body belongs to you then how can anyone tell you how to treat it?
Similarly, an aborted fetus, of a certain gestational age, would be part of the body of the woman and thus her 'property' to dispose of as she saw fit.
Your family has limited rights on what they can do with your body after you die. For instance, they can't eat you or bury you in the back yard.
It is a difficult issue for me. I think that we ultimately have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does not harm anyone else physically or financially. Therefore, I think a person should be able to sell their organs, kill themselves (with or without help) and sell the remains of an abortion or fertility clinic. But, it is a slippery slope that would have to be carefully monitored.
-
-
bill2936
Jan. 3, 2007, 1:16 p.m.If your organs are not yours to do as you see fit, then who do they belong to, the state?
-
-
-
krayzdrayzor
Jan. 3, 2007, 3:15 p.m.personally, i came into this world with OEM parts. i'll try to keep what i have barring accidents, etc. when i'm done i will not be parted out hither and yon. cremate me, drop my ashes from a hot air balloon, my carbon atoms will mix wherever.
-
Origin
Jan. 3, 2007, 4:26 p.m.i own my organs.. anyone tries to take em they will get hurt. that includes the fascist state of america. time to move.
-
-
saneman
Jan. 3, 2007, 4:40 p.m.This article is misleading people. The case was brought by Colavito not by Ms. Lucia. As a result, no transfer of ownership under common law was made to Colavito. No legal issues concerning Ms. Lucia's right to the organs were even brought before the court. She was not a party to any legal claim by Colavito. There were no written agreements and as a result, the common law of conversion became a central issue in this case.
-
-
saneman
Jan. 3, 2007, 5:33 p.m.The law concerning donations is designed to protect the donors. As a hypothetical, if a donor had promised a donation to the donee, but before the deal could be consummated, the donation was destroyed or lost, the donee is prevented from suing the donor. A donation in such case changes ownership only upon the common law conversion of that property. Common law conversion has been around for centuries.
-
krayzdrayzor
Jan. 3, 2007, 8:53 p.m.Well, I can see if the donation were monetary, like a pledge. However, they'd have one heck of a time sueing me for my [generic translpantable body part].
It's obvious common law conversion has an older than the present day technology. Likely if enough cases occur in medicine this legal concept won't remain the standard way of rectifying such entanglements.
Interesting explaination. Thanks
-
-
kctrixter
Jan. 3, 2007, 5:39 p.m.Body parts aren't legal property to the people born with them
WHAT .. yeah right.. I wouldn't advise anyone to show up at my door and tell me that they are gonna take my leg cus it doesn't really belong to me anyway
The first 72 comments are shown. Show all 99 comments »
Got a Story?
