Can You Really Stand By and Let Someone Die? February 26, 2008
Posted by Bob Aronson in waiting for organs.add a comment
By not making the decision to donate, you have chosen to let people die. Picture yourself standing by a stranger’s bedside knowing you could save that life and choosing not to. Do you want the responsibility of knowing you stood by and let a person die when you had the power to save that life? Do you?
My story is mild next to some I have heard, but my story is the only story I know. So I want to fill you in on my long journey to get a heart transplant. I died a couple of times along the way.
I used to be a communications consultant. My mom told her friends that, “Bob teaches big shots how to talk.” My job was a little more complex than that but the description made my sweet little Italian mom happy and it was a fun story to tell. As a practitioner of the “teaching big shots how to talk” profession, I traveled a great deal. It was not unusual for me to be on a plane headed for somewhere once a week or more. I became quite familiar with airports, cabs, hotels, meeting rooms and eating out. Eating out regardless of how expensive the restaurant, was not a treat for me. Chef Mario is Chef Mario whether you are in New York City or Duluth, Minnesota. After a while, you would give anything for a taste of mom’s ravioli or my wife Robin’s 108-bean salad.
My transplant journey began with a diagnosis of Cardiomyopathy (a form of heart failure) in 1995. It still has not ended but I got a heart transplant in 2007 — twelve years after my diagnosis. It was twelve years of slowly deteriorating health, more and more medication, several hospitalizations and less and less strength. You see — you have got to be pretty sick before the transplant docs will agree to list you for transplantation. You have to be dying.
By 2005, I was no longer running through airports I was walking very slowly and stopping often. I left more and more time between appointments and my lovely Robin volunteered to give up her life, so to speak, to travel with me and help with bags and carry-on items. I had all I could do to walk through the airport and even that usually left me breathless.
When you have a chronic illness, one you know will only get worse, being sick is always on your mind especially when there are so few “good” days, When 2006 arrived I was “faking it” most of the time with clients and friends. I let my business slowly disintegrate until finally I had only two or three clients but they were clients in the medical field who had more than a passing acquaintance with heart failure and organ transplantation and they were aware of my condition.
2006 was not a good year. Each passing day seemed to bring on more difficulty getting around, more medication changes, more tests and increasing fatigue. When I wasn’t working, and that was often, my whole life revolved around driving, freeways, parking, physicians, nurses, medications, tests, disappointments, small victories, insurance, medical bills etc. Then, like the movie, “Groundhog Day,” it was all repeated the next day.
Finally, one of my greatest fears was realized, I could no longer walk very far. If I flew somewhere to work with a client, I would ask the airline to have a wheelchair waiting for me. Sometimes I even had trouble walking to the wheelchair. Breathing was becoming increasingly more difficult. Sitting still was the only time I was really comfortable and I wondered how long that would last.
Eventually, after endless tests and consultations, Dr. Jeffrey Hosenpud at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida told me I could be listed. That was one of the few highlights in the process. I could actually get listed. Then came the waiting when the days were 48 hours long and the telephone was never for me. In case you haven’t guessed, waiting for an organ is an experience in suffering — physical and emotional suffering. If you think for a minute that you get a diagnosis of heart disease and then all is fine until you get a transplant, think again.
I knew I had a slim chance of getting an organ. I also knew that no one, no member of government, no politician, no one — could do anything that would substantively increase the donor supply in time to save my life especially when you consider that I was 68 years old had COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) and a somewhat rare blood type, B positive. Like many, I was subject to the luck of the draw. The right person had to die in the right place at the right time. I was dying, I knew it and despite being the eternal optimist, I knew my chances of getting an organ were very, very slim. “Frankly,” I thought, “Why should I get an organ when so many people so much younger than me needed organs, too, and they had a lot to more life to look forward to.”
Here’s one of those ugly truths that occurs to you like a bolt of lightning in times of great stress and usually when you need it least, “None of the people who signed organ donor cards can give up their organs to save me — because they are not dead yet!” With the exception of very few living donors for a select few organs, and the heart is not one of them, you have to wait for someone to die. Now isn’t that a reassuring thought.
My family, like any family suffered with the wait, too. “Hi dad…any news yet?” My wife had to live with it daily, she could see my condition deteriorating, she stood by me no matter what my mood, she knew there were no more drugs, I was already taking everything that could help my condition, and months earlier she stood by as I had three surgeries to implant ICDs (Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator — a sophisticated pacemaker). She waited as the doctors struggled to get give me life on two occasions, once they had to use the “paddles” nine times before the flat line on the screen started to jump again. Can you imagine the effect on her after the first time I died – the horror? Yes, the patient suffers, but I didn’t know I was dead until I was alive again. My wife and family had to wait for what seemed an interminable amount of time, waiting for the doors to swing open and a Doctor to pop out with some word of how was doing.
But I digress. Here I am six months after my heart transplant writing blogs about the importance of organ donation. I am absolute proof that there are miracles because after only thirteen days on the national organ waiting list, I got a heart from a generous stranger who is still unknown to me. He was the right man, who died in the right place, at the right time, with the perfect organ for me. I am still overwhelmed and will be eternally grateful to him and his family. I will take good care of your heart sir, I promise!
And so I return to what I started with. If you are on the fence about becoming an organ donor there may be several people who are on the fence about living because of your procrastination. What’s holding you back. Become an organ donor for heaven’s sake…you have absolutely nothing to lose. And — several families have their loved ones to gain. Get off your duff! Become an organ donor and insist that everyone you know do the same. I mean it. I know where you live. J
UNOS Responds — I Think February 22, 2008
Posted by Bob Aronson in Blog responses.2 comments
I have written two blogs on UNOS. 1) addressing their failure to increase the number of organ donors so that it matches the need for organs and 2) their failure to properly communicate the need and to focus their communications.
I should point out that my only goal is to save lives. I work for no organization, company or group that would benefit monetarily or otherwise from anything I say. The only benefit I want is to increase the number of donors. If my thoughts and suggestions are offensive to some, I appologize, but I fail to see how ideas can be offensive when posed in the light of the current organ deficiency crisis. Any idea should be well considered before it is rejected.
UNOS, however, seems to find my quest to increase organ donors as offensive and somehow disloyal. And —in response to what I have written, offer nothing but lame excuses as refutation. They seem to think that because they used to be one of my clients (mid 90’s) I should not be writing blogs that are critical of them. Well, they are not a client now, nor have they been for almost a decade (I don’t suppose they will be anytime soon either). They are not paying me anymore and I certainly owe them no more loyalty than they owe me.
We both want the same thing, “to stop the dying.” The difference is that UNOS is satisfied with the status quo, which is the growing gap between the number of available organs and the number of people who need them. They have advocated the same altuistic program since their first government contract 22 years ago and have ignored the fact that it simply doesn’t work. I, on the other hand, only want to see them show some real concern for the “listed” patients and at least try something new even if it is only a small trial in one small region. Or –how about taking a new position that may need congressional approval and fighting for it. I don’t hear UNOS fighting for anything except, perhaps, their next contract.
Please take the time to again read my Blog, “UNOS — A Failure at Increasing Organ Donantion.” There are several comments on that blog but I would like you to read Joel Newman’s (UNOS communication department) comments and my response. Then I’d like to hear your thoughts. I have seen nothing in Mr. Newman’s comments that even hints at doing something new. What I see is a defense of a broken systm and that they are very busy.
I think we all agree that increasing organ donation is not only necessary it is critical because we are in a crisis where there’s no end in sight for the dying. I think we can also agree that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Right now UNOS respresents the problem and they must begin to seriously consider the many solutions offered by scores of thoughtful well-meaning people. Either that or we will just watch the body count rise.
UNOS — Communication, Still another Failure February 19, 2008
Posted by Bob Aronson in UNOS & Organ Donation.2 comments
UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) keeps records of available organs and those who need them. Then they coordinate the transplantation of the organs. A very valuable and necessary service. Beyond that, they are a data collection agency. They will be happy to tell you the number of people on the transplant list and the number of organs available. They also provide organ and transplant data by race, age, gender and other categories. So far, though, I have been unable to find any evidence of a real, visionary effort to increase the number of organs. It starts with communication and at that UNOS is a failure. All they do is gather information and respond when contacted and they do that poorly.
In this blog, I will discuss UNOS failure number two — addressing the problem of minority organ donation (Don’t let me hear from anyone that it is the fault of minorities. It isn’t!).
How many of you have ever heard of MOTTEP (Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program)? Very few I’ll bet. http://www.nationalmottep.org/ It is dedicated to doing what UNOS ought to do. National Minority Awareness Day originated with MOTTEP at Howard University in Washington, D.C. The event was first recognized in 1996 by President Clinton.
First the problem: The following language is taken from: http://www.organdonor.gov/donor/index.htm) “—- about half of all the people on the organ waiting list are minorities who have a particularly high need for organ transplants because some diseases of the kidney, heart, lung, pancreas, and liver are found more frequently in racial and ethnic minority populations than in the general population. For example, African Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are three times more likely than Whites to suffer from end-stage renal (kidney) disease, often as the result of high blood pressure and other conditions that can damage the kidneys. Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to suffer from diabetes. Some of these conditions that can result in organ failure are best treated through transplantation and others can only be treated by this life-saving procedure. Because certain blood types are more common in ethnic minority populations, increasing the number of minority donors can increase the frequency of minority transplants”. For more information on minorities and organ donation, visit the Web site of the National Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program at www.mottep.org or go to the Data section of the UNOS Web site or the Division of Transplantation in the Health Resources and Services Administration at www.organdonor.gov
The problem I have with UNOS’ effort is that you must go to them to get information. Their attempts to bring information to anyone never mind minorities, is almost non-existent. They depend on others to do that OPOs, Organ Procurement Organizations) with their own money. In order to obtain UNOS information, you must have an intense interest in the subject, a computer and the knowledge to use it. The minority organ donation issue is so important there should be a national campaign aimed at bringing information to the people who need it. Note, though, that while UNOS may provide transplant information about minorities it provides nothing, absolutely no information that addresses genetic, cultural and language differences. Worse yet, I have found no emotion or compassion in any area of the UNOS website. They are like the old “Dragnet” show, “Just the facts m’am, just the facts.” I have never seen or heard of an impassioned plea from UNOS. The OPOs make impassioned pleas but UNOS is far too sophisticated to stoop so low as to show some emotion. The message they send is, “Here is the information. If you choose not to seek it out and use it that is your problem.”
Here’s an example of a cultural problem and one reason African Americans in particular are reluctant to become organ donors. Excerpt from American Renaissance News http://www.amren.com/news/news04/03/30/organdonation.html“The disparity between African-American and white organ donation is rooted in the historical distrust of the medical establishment by African-Americans and the disparity in health care between minorities and whites, doctors say. Dr. Devon John, a black surgeon at New York University Medical Center who specializes in transplanting the pancreas, blames the mystique surrounding the process of organ donation. Many minorities fear that they won’t get the best health care if they sign an organ donor card, or physicians won’t revive them if they are ill because they want their organs, he said. A lot of that wariness is the result of the history of discrimination in health care. In 1932, the U.S. Department of Public Health began the Tuskegee experiment. For 40 years, doctors withheld treatment from more than 600 African-American men suffering from syphilis to study the long-term effects of the disease.”
I find it interesting that UNOS likes to say that the national transplant waiting list is “colorblind,” that race information is not specified in the medical data. Why not? Maybe it should be. Are they so afraid of sounding racist that they would ignore the importance of the racial issue?
The solution to this and other organ donation problems lies in one word — COMMUNICATION. While there is a lot more to good communication than I list here, here’s some advice, UNOS, from someone who has served as a communications consultant longer than UNOS has existed. My eight points on how to communicate more effectively.
- Audience oriented. It must take culture and other elements into consideration.
- Focused messages. Knowing the audience means you know what then need to hear or read. Messages should be repeated and there should be very few of them.
- Funded. You cannot depend on public service announcements to properly address an issue as important as this (even the military services buy advertising).
- Trusted. Well known, respected people must become leaders in the effort. We can’t leave communication to anyone who answers the phone or is available at the moment (regionally your greatest resources are the OPOs, give them some help for heaven’s sake).
- Frequent. One day a year devoted to “awareness” is folly. Every day should be one not of awareness but of increasing commitment.
- Accurate. We must acknowledge fears and concerns and speak to them with consistently factual information.
- Compassion. People must know the communicator cares, really cares. Data communicates data. People must combine that data with compassion.
- Measurement. The feelings and concerns of audiences must be regularly measured so that messages can be adjusted and new issues can be addressed.
As a communications consultant my motto has always been, “If communication is not your top priority, all other priorities are at risk.” That statement has never been truer than it is right now!
UNOS — A Failure At Increasing Organ Donation February 17, 2008
Posted by Bob Aronson in UNOS & Organ Donation.12 comments
UNOS Mission http://www.unos.org/whoWeAre/“Our mission is to advance organ availability and transplantation by uniting and supporting our communities for the benefit of patients through education, technology and policy development”. (UNOS is the United Network For Organ Sharing. They are charged by the federal government with coordinating organ transplants in the United States. In 1986, UNOS got the initial federal contract to operate the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).
There are two parts to the UNOS mission; increase organ availability and advance transplantation. They have failed in increasing the number of available organs to a level that matches the need for them. By UNOS own admission the gap between available organs and the need for them has been widening for years. Their efforts or lack thereof have resulted in the deaths of thousands. Is anyone at UNOS paying any attention to reality? Are they so concerned about keeping their government contract that they refuse to make any waves? To those who award this contract I say, “How about holding UNOS’ feet to the fire before they are granted another contract.”
According to Donate Life America (http://donatelife.net/UnderstandingDonation/Statistics.php) 90% of Americans say they support donation, but only 30% know the essential steps to take to be a donor — 30% after almost 30 years of promotion. It isn’t working UNOS — It isn’t working!!
As of today, there are almost 100,000 people on the U.S. organ transplant waiting list; many of them are going to die. Last year some 7,000 people died while waiting for organs. Since 1995, over 70,000 (could be as many as 85,000) people lost their lives while waiting and if you count those who were taken off the list because they were too sick for the surgery, the number is closer to 100,000. That’s unacceptable and UNOS’ refusal to seriously consider alternative methods of increasing organ donation is to blame. Every time UNOS assembles its bioethics committee to discuss a proposal, the result is the same. They issue a white paper that includes all the ethical reasons the idea cannot work. The topic is then shelved and never again discussed. If UNOS finds these issues important enough to need the attention of the bioethics group, then shouldn’t they bring the same group together to ponder the ethics of 70,000 deaths? I am not an ethicist but I can’t help but believe that 70,000 deaths is unethical, immoral and perhaps even criminal.
I have no favorite method I want UNOS to explore; I just want them to objectively discuss all the alternatives to the present program of “informed consent” from the perspective of stopping the dying, not from the perspective of protecting themselves from controversy. Their intransigence has in itself caused the controversy about which I am writing (I wonder how many attorneys UNOS retains to protect them from themselves).
In the interest of full-disclosure I should point out that I received a heart transplant on August 21, 2007 at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida at the age of 68 and got the organ in only 13 days. Yes, that’s some kind of miracle so I can’t complain for myself. I can complain, though, for the many patients I’ve met who have been on the wait list for years while UNOS finds new ways to preserve an ineffective system.
In my opinion (obviously not a humble one) UNOS has an organ donation leadership vacuum exacerbated by a complete lack of vision that is highlighted by a refusal to accept reality. Real leaders offer solutions, but UNOS bioethical meetings produce only problems, excuses for not changing a system that is not broken — it never worked! Furthermore, their meetings are contained within a narrow paradigm that doesn’t include consideration of the number of people who are dying or who have died while waiting. UNOS acknowledges that the gap between donors and potential recipients grows wider each year, yet they shrug their shoulders and blame people for not being altruistic enough. Have they ever considered that they are the problem, that the system they use is the problem? The message UNOS is sending listed people is, “Sorry you’re dying but preserving our system is more important than you are!”
So, what are some alternatives you ask? There are many and some, like donor compensation, have already been discussed and discarded by UNOS. Others have not yet appeared on their bureaucratic radar. Here are some of the options:
- Presumed consent. A policy where you are a presumed organ donor unless you notify the government that you don’t want to be. This is done is Spain and Belgium and both countries have significantly reduced their waiting list. England and others are moving in that direction. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of Science has supported the concept of presumed consent and proposes that future legislative enactment can increase the organ donor’s pool. A paper on the subject was accepted for presentation at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 36th Critical Care Congress February 17–21, 2007, Gaylord Palms Resort and Convention Center, Orlando, Florida, USA. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/7/14
2. Forced choice. A person has to either opt-in or opt-out when they renew their driver’s license. You don’t have to be a donor but you also can’t not decide.
3. Education and mandated decisions. A New Jersey Senate measure would require organ donor education and mandate decisions before issuing a drivers license.
4. Compensation for organs. Not selling them but perhaps covering funeral expenses for the organ donor. Funerals can be expensive and people just might become donors for that reason (there are many other forms of compensation as well).
5. Only organ donors get organ transplants. (www.lifesharers.org) Give people who are organ donors priority in receiving organ transplants. People just might be motivated to become donors if they know that not making a commitment means they won’t get an organ if they need one.
6. Living donor kidney compensation is being promoted at the University of Minnesota by Dr. Arthur Matas who is also the former president of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, says. “The average wait time for a donated kidney in the early 1980’s was less than a year. Today, it’s more than five years – too long for many.” “Dr. Proposes Sale of Kidneys” http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=2977619&page=1
Are these proposals controversial? Absolutely! But should that keep us from discussing them? Absolutely not! Obviously, they have been designed and considered by highly educated, principled people whose ethical sense is at least as credible as the UNOS bioethics committee. I’m sure that the six options I listed here are a mere tip of the iceberg but they represent a start. If readers have additions, please send them to us.
Now a quick word about OPOs (Organ Procurement Organizations). There are about 60 of them in the U.S. all of which are sworn to promote organ donation according to the woefully inadequate UNOS policy. The OPOs have done wonderful work considering the tools they have to work with. If it weren’t for the OPOs there likely would be no organs at all. I know many OPO people, they get it! Just imagine how many lives OPOs could save if UNOS provided some imaginative leadership. But then, imagination and leadership are not among UNOS’ attributes when it comes to increasing the supply of organs.
One more thing. Have you ever noticed that UNOS has no organ donation spokesperson, one who speaks to the issue with the media and in public forums? Why is that? It’s probably because they would like the issue to have the lowest possible visibility. Or — perhaps it is because no one at UNOS wants his or her name tied to this monumental failure.
UNOS, you are doing us, the very people you contracted to protect, a terrible disservice. As of this writing there are nearly 100,000 people on the transplant list. Give them hope! Help them live! You have the power and the influence to stop the dying. Exercise it!
Readers….let us hear from you. I’ll pass your comments along to lawmakers, regulators and UNOS. By the way, if you are not an organ donor become one today!Since my transplant I have made it my life’s goal to do whatever I can to increase organ donation. If that means stirring up hornets nests — bring on the hornets nests. I will not stop with a couple of blogs.
“When I’m Dead I Don’t Need My Organs Any More” February 11, 2008
Posted by Bob Aronson in Organ donor's spouse.add a comment
Sometimes I’m amazed at just how eloquent people can be in a time of tragedy. The following language was written by the wife of an organ donor and sent as a comment on one of my blogs. I was so moved by it I had to reprint it word for word.
“I have experience being on the donor end of the aspects in life. I was 23 years old when my high school sweetheart husband had been killed at work in a tragic accident. It is ironic when life is thrown at you when you least expect it. My husband and I were talking about a week earlier about his boss who just renewed his driver’s license and chose to be a donor. My husband was due to renew his driver’s license on his birthday, he said I think that I’m gonna sign up to be a donor, cuz when I’m dead I don’t need my organs any more. That phrase he said one week before he was killed stayed with me and changed my life forever. My husband was killed on July 2, 2002 and on July 11th my husband would have turned 24. Because of the conversation that my husband and I had I knew I would change people life through the grief that I was experiencing. My husband was the kindest man that I have ever meet. He was always lending a hand to someone. I now have the satisfaction that my husband’s spirit not only lives on in me and our children but in someone else. Through this, it has made dealing with the loss of my husband much easier. Since then, I have also became a donor. We wear our donor family pins proudly and remember what a great person my husband was and knowing that someone else shares in his spirit is rewarding and comforting.
My suggestion in life to those who have not become a donor , please do you will save someone and it makes the grief process easier knowing your loved one will live on in someone else. It is a very rewarding experience. Through our family’s donation, my husband was able to help over 56 people. Please make the life changing choice to help someone…. As they say leave it here for someone who can use because you’re not gonna need it in heaven…. Life is precious, I have learned to live every day as if it is my last because life is unexpected and make sure the ones that you love the most know how you feel about them.
”My only response to the thoughts of this lovely woman is to echo them.
1. “When I’m dead I don’t need my organs any more”
2. “I now have the satisfaction that my husband’s spirit not only lives on in me and our children but in someone else”
3. “Make sure the ones that you love the most know how you feel about them”
How incredibly eloquent! God bless her and her family. We can all take a lesson from her humility and courage.
Convicts Are Entitled To Your Organs, Shouldn’t You Be Entitled To Theirs? February 11, 2008
Posted by Bob Aronson in Organs from convicted felons.4 comments
As I surfed the web looking for Blog ideas I ran across an old story with as many tentacles as a giant squid. Each tentacle more controversial and thought provoking than the last. Just the two issues I’m covering here generate enough legal and ethical questions to keep law firms, bioethicists, lawmakers and editorial writers busy for hundreds of years.
Issue number one: In December of 2002 a twice-convicted armed robber received a heart transplant at Stanford University Medical Center in California at taxpayer’s expense. Here’s an excerpt of the story from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) (Follow the link for the complete story). http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7341/808/cDeborah Josefson Nebraska April 6, 2002 British Medical Journal “A Californian man has become the first prison inmate in the United States to receive a heart transplant, sparking a debate over the ethics of giving a prisoner an all expenses paid, lifesaving transplant when other citizens without sufficient funds or insurance are denied this opportunity. In spite of the State of California’s expenditures and the Stanford University Medical Center’s expertise, the inmate transplant patient died a year later. California corrections officials admitted he was “not a model transplant patient” and did not follow the strict medical rules laid out for transplant recipients.”
“What?” you say, “How can this happen?” Well, in 1976 the US Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have a constitutional right to equal medical care, stating that “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner’s health problems constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the provisions of the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The incident raises at least one very interesting question: If a convicted felon is entitled to our organs at our expense, should we be entitled to their organs without their permission if they die while incarcerated? If we want to alleviate the organ shortage the argument may have merit. Right now there are about 2,200,000 prisoners in State and Federal prisons and jails. That’s a lot of tissue and organs. So, what’s your opinion?
Issue number two: It has been suggested in several quarters that prisoners condemned to death should be able to bargain their organs for a reduction in sentence or perhaps reducing their death sentence to life without parole. The discussion gained enough visibility to get the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to put the matter before their ethics committee. Here’s an excerpt from the UNOS Ethics Committee: Ethics of Organ Donation From Condemned Prisoners. http://www.unos.org/resources/bioethics.asp?index=3 “Any law or proposal that allows a person to trade an organ for a reduction in sentence, particularly a sentence from death to life in prison, raises numerous issues. Application of the death penalty is spasmodic and seemingly discriminatorily applied, which would suggest that these types of proposals would be coercive to particular classes of individuals–minorities and the poor. Would the reduction in sentence apply to the offer to donate, or would it only be honored if the act of donation took place? If the act of donation would exclusively qualify for the reduction in sentence, then the law or policy would discriminate against individuals found to be medically unsuitable to donate organs.” The committee goes on to say, “Were prisoners allowed to trade a kidney to mitigate a death sentence, it may affect the actual imposition of the death penalty. With greater publicity surrounding these types of proposals/laws, potential jurors could be influenced and ultimately impose the death penalty more often with a potential societal benefit in mind. Jurors might hope that the convicted persons would choose to trade their kidney for their life. This would present a gross inequity for those unable or unwilling to donate a kidney and who might otherwise have not received a death sentence. In conclusion; the UNOS Ethics Committee has raised a small number of the many issues regarding organ donation from condemned prisoners. The Committee opposes any strategy or proposed statute regarding organ donation from condemned prisoners until all of the potential ethical concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.”
Enough food for thought? Obviously we need to increase the number of organs and organizations like UNOS (www.unos.org) and its offshoots; LifeSharers (www.lifesharers.org) and others are doing what they can. But, it’s not enough. Too many people are still dying!!! As a society don’t you think we have a responsibility to explore every available option. Don’t you think we have a responsibility to “stop the dying” as soon as possible? Your opinion is important — please comment and encourage others to read and comment on these blogs.
If you are interested in the number of prisoners in your area and more information on prisons generally visit the Federal Bureau of Prisons site at http://www.bop.gov/locations/weekly_report.jsp
