A 10-year-old boy who was swept into a storm drain while helping his family clean up storm debris is being kept on life support so that his organs can be donated, according to his father.
The boy, Asher Sullivan, “officially passed away” on May 18, but remains on life support to facilitate the organ donation process, his dad, Jimmy Sullivan, wrote in a Facebook post.
“It’s 100% an ‘Asher’ type thing to do in continuing to be selfless,” Sullivan shared on Facebook. “He will have an honor walk at the hospital in the next few days and be celebrated as he is, a hero!”
People are convinced that if you are an organ donor doctors let you die on purpose.
People are morons.
It’s kinda the opposite, because for the fire brigade and emergency services the existence of organ harvesting incentives even ‘lost causes’ to be saved.
If you’re in the sort of country where people will kill you for your organs, I don’t think they’re in the habit of asking permission first…
Even dumber when you realize the hospital absolutely doesn’t need a little card to let you die.
Yeah, for decades I’ve heard that theory too. I’ve always thought of it as an urban myth.
Are you in the US? I wouldn’t dissuade anyone from being an organ donor, it’s obviously a great necessity and saves thousands of lives, but I’m always amazed that the bottomless skepticism of our for-profit healthcare system dries up on certain topics.
We all love to moan about greedy health insurance companies and hospital administrations putting profit above the actual health of patients and outcomes of procedures, so why is it taken for granted that, when faced with a decision to go to extraordinary lengths to save a badly injured, uninsured person, or get expensive organs for 3 or 4 insured people at the top of the recipient list, that the responsible parties will make the right decision? Hell, even without a profit motive, that can be a difficult decision that can be influenced by personal beliefs and biases.
I certainly don’t know enough about exactly how these decisions are made to have a strong opinion, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize potentially warranted skepticism as moronic.
There’s just never been evidence to suggest (in any meaningful way) a doctor made a decision compromising the life of the organ donor to make use in other patients, that would be medical malpractice and the first people looking to sue you after a loved one dies are the ones signing the papers giving permission.
Calling the opinion moronic may not be nice, but the idea is something I’d say is foolish. Like if you went through life thinking vaccines are some kind of conspiracy for profit, the evidence just isn’t there and there’s enough of it on the contrary that to suggest it would be foolishness.