Organ donors

[mar7967]

I was talking with some of my non-EMS friends about organ donating, and they said something that shocked me...

Basically, one of my friends said that he is not an organ donor, because he had heard that EMTs and Paramedics will not do "everything they can to save you" if they see you are an organ donor. He thinks that if he was involved in some sort of accident, or had a medical issue and was unresponsive, someone would look in his wallet for ID and see that he is an organ donor, and not give 100% to help him, but instead let him die so that his organs get donated.

Has anyone else heard this before? Or do you know anyone in EMS who would do something like this?

Personally, I am not any less likely to help an organ donor. I do everything I can for any patient. And its a shame that some people are afraid to be organ donors because they think otherwise.

 

[Shishkabob]

Yes, and it's actually a fairly common (and untrue) concern.




Just ask them why we would let one person die to save another when we can save the first person?

They won't come up with an answer.

 

[firetender]

That is the first time I've ever heard of something like that. I have yet to see a medic arrive at the scene of a motorcycle vs. truck and tell his partner to grab the ice chest!

 

[akflightmedic]

Pure urban legend-ish.

If someone is that seriously injured, the last thing I look for is an organ donor card. You simply do not have time as you are doing everything you can to help that patient in front of you at that time.

It is more the hospital's job (by default) to make those determinations and see what they can do once you arrive with the patient.

Most of us do not even look for a license when someone is severely injured for the same reason as above. It simply is not the time or place for me to do so unless I happen to have a lot of extra hands on scene. Even then, their organ donor status is irrelevant to the care they are going to receive.

It is foolish to think a Medic or EMT would ever make that distinction as there are so many variables that must be considered when possible organ donation cases arise which are way beyond the scope of your average prehospital worker.

The only time I could see an organ donor status coming into play prehospitally would be if a patient was possibly not "workable" but the medic sees the donor status and decides to try and give it his best with rapid transport.

This works in the patient's favor as his organ donor status is prompting the medic to work him when usually he wouldn't, plus if that last hail mary does not work out for the patient, then his organs may possibly be harvested for someone else, so either way it is a win win situation and there is nothing negative about it.

The medic MUST do everything to save the patient in order for the organs to be harvested...

 

[EMTtoBE]

I hear it all the time..its not true plus if your dying we need to keep the organs alive until we get to the hospital..so its the doctors that will let you die lol jk

 

[mar7967]

Pure urban legend-ish.

If someone is that seriously injured, the last thing I look for is an organ donor card. You simply do not have time as you are doing everything you can to help that patient in front of you at that time.

It is more the hospital's job (by default) to make those determinations and see what they can do once you arrive with the patient.

Most of us do not even look for a license when someone is severely injured for the same reason as above. It simply is not the time or place for me to do so unless I happen to have a lot of extra hands on scene. Even then, their organ donor status is irrelevant to the care they are going to receive.

It is foolish to think a Medic or EMT would ever make that distinction as there are so many variables that must be considered when possible organ donation cases arise which are way beyond the scope of your average prehospital worker.

The only time I could see an organ donor status coming into play prehospitally would be if a patient was possibly not "workable" but the medic sees the donor status and decides to try and give it his best with rapid transport.

This works in the patient's favor as his organ donor status is prompting the medic to work him when usually he wouldn't, plus if that last hail mary does not work out for the patient, then his organs may possibly be harvested for someone else, so either way it is a win win situation and there is nothing negative about it.

The medic MUST do everything to save the patient in order for the organs to be harvested...

Thats true...I guess I should just try explaining that to them

 

[TransportJockey]

This myth has always seemed retarded to me, since to harvest organs we need to patient to technically be alive anyways.

 

[Sassafras]

I haven't heard this about EMS, but I have heard it about hospitals. Still sounds foolish to me. Why waste the money keeping you alive long enough to determine if your organs are going to be viable to anyone on the list when saving you may get you out of the hospital quicker and cheaper.

 

[mycrofft]

If you get enough kidneys you get a new coffee maker.

They used do that for placentas...

 

[Foxbat]

Just ask them why we would let one person die to save another when we can save the first person?

Why, that's easy!
a) because you can save more than one patient with all the organs from another (a problem commonly used in ethics class to show that utilitarianism kinda sucks);
b) because wages in EMS are small and kidneys on a black market are expensive

This myth has always seemed retarded to me, since to harvest organs we need to patient to technically be alive anyways.

That depends on the organ. Heart is more time-sensitive, liver is less, and some tissues (cornea is one example) are even less sensitive to time spent w/o oxygen.

On a more serious note, in EMS I wouldn't worry about this. In hospitals though, there have been cases when physicians, let's say, accelerated patients' passing to harvest organs. I vaguely recall reading about a case in California where a doctor gave pt. a lethal dose of morphine to make him die faster so the organs could be harvested. That patient would've die anyway, but nevertheless.

Not that I think it's very common, at least in the US. Personally, I'm still an organ donor.

 

[Aidey]

This is what I tell people who say that;

"In order for your organs to be usable, I have to do everything I can to save you. They have to be working in order to be transplanted, and not treating you so you die means that they stop working and are useless to you or anyone else."

Some of these conspiracy theories are ridiculous...the government medical people want to kill you so they can save other people...yeash. I know I've had 3 patients (that I know of) that ended up being organ donors, and they were all delivered to the ED with a pulse. They only became donors a week or so later when it was determined they had no brain function (2 GSW and a OD).

 

[Meursault]

Wired published a price guide for organs last issue. That's going on my clipboard, once I actually buy one.

Why, that's easy!
b) because wages in EMS are small and kidneys on a black market are expensive

Another good reason to bring your lunch in a cooler!

I imagine it's hard to tell how often procedural violations, let alone unethical behavior, happen in organ harvesting. The only claims of significant abuse or a slippery slope I've heard are from someone who believes that brain death isn't legitimate, so I feel quite comfortable discounting his analysis.