1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

hey! i had sexx like a week ago!     

I was there, I can vouch.

4 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Unless they’ve clamped off the blood flow to your brain, you can answer your own question.

Or maybe we just have different perceptions of what an attack is.

41 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10798503/

"Persistent cerebral blood flow occasionally confounds confirmatory tests for brain death and results in the anguish of delayed diagnosis, unnecessary use of expensive resources, and loss of transplant opportunities.”
 

 

Right, they're killing it before they know for sure.  Because it's quicker, easier, and cheaper.

37 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I hope they harvest my D.  It's a magnificent piece and somebody else should enjoy it when I'm gone.

Speaking of reproductive transplants, uterine transplants are actually a kind of interesting ethical dilemma. 

Because they're not life saving they're not covered procedures. They require immunosuppression, cesarian section delivery, and removal once a person is done having kids. So going through it is a large risk to take on compared to surrogacy, requires at least 3 surgeries, but allows a person to carry their own pregnancy.  

3 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Right, they're killing it before they know for sure.  Because it's quicker, easier, and cheaper.

Who is killing what? 

If you're not a donor there is no incentive.

28 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Speaking of reproductive transplants, uterine transplants are actually a kind of interesting ethical dilemma. 

Because they're not life saving they're not covered procedures. They require immunosuppression, cesarian section delivery, and removal once a person is done having kids. So going through it is a large risk to take on compared to surrogacy, requires at least 3 surgeries, but allows a person to carry their own pregnancy.  

SHUT UP NERD!

2 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

SHUT UP NERD!

Sorry sorry. If you want to make that transplant a reality I know plenty of pediatric surgeons that could find a match for that baby dick of yours. 

20 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Is this OK?  Let's decide this for society right here.

 

Serious question, I’d like you to explain the difference between this and a "normal” organ transplant procedure. 

53 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Serious question, I’d like you to explain the difference between this and a "normal” organ transplant procedure. 

These are terminal patients.......but consent should be given by the family or the patient.......

I can't imagine that there are not legal ramifications to this......even if the patient dies, but the doctors revive them, it's not to prolong their lives but to create a organ supply?  Even a DNR would not allow them to revive them. 

I think many families would have serious concerns about this being done without consent.

4 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Ffs…..you said you’re interested in a discussion, so let’s have a discussion.  Explain the difference between a "normal” transplant procedure and what’s being described in the article here.

 

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ffs…..you said you’re interested in a discussion, so let’s have a discussion.  Explain the difference between a "normal” transplant procedure and what’s being described in the article here.

 

Ffs, ‘if you aren’t an expert on a subject you can’t discuss it’ is one of the dumbest attempts to shut down discussion. You aren’t an expert either. Serious question, how useful do you think your obsessive, arrogant attempts to shut down any and all discussions of ‘’science’’ actually is to science? Serious answer, it’s the opposite of useful. Scientists and doctors get it wrong all the time. When we’re talking about them possibly, intentionally, causing brain death in patients that might not be brain dead, we need to discuss that. 

16 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Ffs, ‘if you aren’t an expert on a subject you can’t discuss it’ is one of the dumbest attempts to shut down discussion. You aren’t an expert either. Serious question, how useful do you think your obsessive, arrogant attempts to shut down any and all discussions of ‘’science’’ actually is to science? Serious answer, it’s the opposite of useful. Scientists and doctors get it wrong all the time. When we’re talking about them possibly, intentionally, causing brain death in patients that might not be brain dead, we need to discuss that. 

Where did I say you have to be an expert?  What on earth are you talking about?

HOW AM I ATTEMPTING TO SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION BY ASKING YOU TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION?   Holy sh-t……

"When we’re talking about them possibly, intentionally, causing brain death in patients that might not be brain dead, we need to discuss that. ”

Holy sh-t that’s literally what I asked you to do, to discuss it with me.  And your responses were to 1) post an eye roll emoji and then 2) post this word vomit of a post where you claim I’m trying to shut down discussion by asking you a follow up question in an attempt to engage in discussion.   
You have to be trolling at this point

22 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Ffs, ‘if you aren’t an expert on a subject you can’t discuss it’ is one of the dumbest attempts to shut down discussion. You aren’t an expert either. Serious question, how useful do you think your obsessive, arrogant attempts to shut down any and all discussions of ‘’science’’ actually is to science? Serious answer, it’s the opposite of useful. Scientists and doctors get it wrong all the time. When we’re talking about them possibly, intentionally, causing brain death in patients that might not be brain dead, we need to discuss that. 

Let’s see if I can help jumpstart a dialogue here Zuker, since you claim to be interested in having one (despite you ignoring my previous attempt).

So based on the article, what we are dealing with here is the case of terminally ill patients who are on life support, which is the only thing keeping them alive.  And then a decision is made to remove life support, which results in them dying.  A procedure is then undertaken to restart cardiac activity, while clamping off potential blood flow to the brain to ensure no resumption of brain activity.  And then the organs are procured. 
So long as the next of kin has signed consent forms to allow their loved one to be taken off life support, I have no issue with this. 
If I was terminally ill and on life support, I wouldn’t want my loved ones to have to languish by my bed side for weeks just waiting for me to become brain dead.   After they’ve had their time to say their good byes and were ready, I’d want them to take me off life support and let me pass.

And since I’m an organ donor, this would then allow for my organs to be procured using this procedure. 

16 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Where did I say you have to be an expert?  

Quibble all you want to, you’re the security guard who deems themselves qualified which doctors are really qualified to attend a medical conference. Try discussing the article I posted instead of deflecting to discussing me.

Serious question, I’d like you to explain the difference between this and a "normal” organ transplant procedure.

25 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Quibble all you want to, you’re the security guard who deems themselves qualified which doctors are really qualified to attend a medical conference. Try discussing the article I posted instead of deflecting to discussing me.

 

 

I have no clue what you are talking about.  I wasn’t trying to discuss "you”.  There was no deflection.  I literally asked you a follow up question PERTAINING TO THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. 
I have since made another post to you giving you my breakdown and opinion on the issue.  So if you want to engage in a dialogue, then do it. 

8 hours ago, birdman#12 said:

These are terminal patients.......but consent should be given by the family or the patient.......

I can't imagine that there are not legal ramifications to this......even if the patient dies, but the doctors revive them, it's not to prolong their lives but to create a organ supply?  Even a DNR would not allow them to revive them. 

I think many families would have serious concerns about this being done without consent.

Considering that we are dealing with the case of patients that are not brain dead, the hospital can't take the patient off life support without the family's consent.  

On 10/1/2022 at 7:17 PM, Phillyterp85 said:

Let’s see if I can help jumpstart a dialogue here Zuker, since you claim to be interested in having one (despite you ignoring my previous attempt).

So based on the article, what we are dealing with here is the case of terminally ill patients who are on life support, which is the only thing keeping them alive.  And then a decision is made to remove life support, which results in them dying.  A procedure is then undertaken to restart cardiac activity, while clamping off potential blood flow to the brain to ensure no resumption of brain activity.  And then the organs are procured. 
So long as the next of kin has signed consent forms to allow their loved one to be taken off life support, I have no issue with this. 
If I was terminally ill and on life support, I wouldn’t want my loved ones to have to languish by my bed side for weeks just waiting for me to become brain dead.   After they’ve had their time to say their good byes and were ready, I’d want them to take me off life support and let me pass.

And since I’m an organ donor, this would then allow for my organs to be procured using this procedure. 

So much for @The_Omega wanting to engage in a dialogue about the subject.   Please please please don't ever talk about how you're interested in real discussion Zuker.  It's clear that you're not. 

On 9/30/2022 at 3:51 PM, Tnt4philly said:

I am an organ donor and couldn’t care less what they do with my body when I’m dead. 

What is dead though

18 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

What is dead though

Good question that we should each cover in an advanced directive.

2 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Good question that we should each cover in an advanced directive.

Is what he said enough to be used, if only because we lack better guidance,  as such