Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse (slate.com) 295
One of the many ways self-driving cars will impact the world is with organ shortages. It's a morbid thought, but the most reliable sources for healthy organs and tissues are the more than 35,000 people killed each year on American roads. According to the book "Driverless: Intelligent Cars and the Road Ahead," 1 in 5 organ donations comes from the victim of a vehicular accident. Since an estimated 94 percent of motor-vehicle accidents involve some kind of a driver error, it's easy to see how autonomous vehicles could make the streets and highways safer, while simultaneously making organ shortages even worse. Slate reports: As the number of vehicles with human operators falls, so too will the preventable fatalities. In June, Christopher A. Hart, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said, "Driverless cars could save many if not most of the 32,000 lives that are lost every year on our streets and highways." Even if self-driving cars only realize a fraction of their projected safety benefits, a decline in the number of available organs could begin as soon as the first wave of autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles hits the road -- threatening to compound our nation's already serious shortages. We're all for saving lives -- we aren't saying that we should stop self-driving cars so we can preserve a source of organ donation. But we also need to start thinking now about how to address this coming problem. The most straightforward fix would be to amend a federal law that prohibits the sale of most organs, which could allow for development of a limited organ market. Organ sales have been banned in the United States since 1984, when Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act after a spike in demand (thanks to the introduction of the immunosuppressant cyclosporine, which improved transplant survival rates from 20-30 percent to 60-70 percent) raised concerns that people's vital appendages might be "treated like fenders in an auto junkyard." Others feared an organ market would exploit minorities and those living in poverty. But the ban hasn't completely protected those populations, either. The current system hasn't stopped organ harvesting -- the illegal removal of organs from the recently deceased without the consent of the person or family -- either in the United States or abroad. It is estimated that, worldwide, as many as 10,000 black market medical operations are performed each year that involve illegally purchased organs. So what would an ethical fix to our organ transplant shortage look like? To start, while there's certainly a place for organ donation markets in the United States, implementation will be understandably slow. There are, however, small steps that can get us closer to a just system. For one, the country could consider introducing a "presumed consent" rule. This would change state organ donation registries from affirmative opt-in systems (checking that box at the DMV that yes, you do want to be an organ donor) to an affirmative opt-out system where, unless you state otherwise, you're presumed to consent to be on the list.
Free Motorcycles (Score:5, Funny)
They can compensate by giving out free motorcycles. And keeping helmets expensive, of course.
Re:Free Motorcycles (Score:4, Interesting)
I've said for years that helmet laws probably costs lives. One healthy young male with a head injury is a source of several potentially life-saving organs. I don't think that it's of such value that helmets should be banned, but just that it shouldn't be mandatory. That plus the "presumed consent" mentioned above would help the organ shortage a bit.
Re:Free Motorcycles (Score:5, Interesting)
As being on the organ transplant list myself, I'm all too familiar with the reality of receiving an organ, and it's not exactly what pop culture makes it out to be. Transplanted organs typically don't last as long as the rest of your body and are actually a somewhat crappy form of treatment to an even crappier disease. It varies by organ, but you can expect around a 10 year half life for most transplants (meaning if you took 100 patients that received an organ, after 10 years check back with them, only 50 of them will still have that organ.)
And then of course, being on anti-rejection drugs is high maintenance and it just plain sucks.
But this isn't the worst part of it: If you live in the US, often times your wait can exceed 7 years due to the way individual transplant networks are segmented. If you happen to live near two hospitals that cover two different transplant networks (and thus can list twice) your odds are better. If you're like Steve Jobs and you have your own private jet and can fly anywhere in the country within an hour, then you can list everywhere and have an organ in no time.
Still though, it's better than nothing. I personally do like the idea of people being able to sell their organs, which would definitely level the playing field, just so long as it's done as a single buyer system with a fixed price. Countries that do it this way have practically zero organ shortage, and even if you were to pay $100,000 per patient, you'd still save a crapload money over what medicare pays for treatments like dialysis (the average dialysis patient costs medicare roughly $100,000 per year, whereas with a transplant it's a low, low price of $5,000 a year for the maintenance medication.)
Re:Free Motorcycles (Score:5, Insightful)
However, even if people were permitted to sell organs, as part of their estate, then the money would be part of the estate. It would then be attached by the hospital that created the availability in the first place, as compensation for the medical expenses.
The result would be a morbid incentive to the hospitals while providing, essentially, no remuneration to the family of the deceased.
. . . it is a good idea, but the presence of people in the system will screw it up.
Re: (Score:2)
It would then be attached by the hospital that created the availability in the first place, as compensation for the medical expenses.
The result would be ... no remuneration to the family of the deceased.
This would only be true if there was zero competition, and the donor's family had no other choice but to accept whatever price the monopsony buyer offered.
Re: (Score:2)
There's near zero competition with any time-sensitive medical procedures. I don't see why organ donation would be any different.
If there was $100k on the table, I am sure plenty of people would shop around for a better place to die.
Or, if the hospital doesn't give them a good deal, the family can just refuse and let the body rot. The hospital can harvest a heart for about $5k, and then turn around and sell it for over $100k.
Re: (Score:2)
However, even if people were permitted to sell organs, as part of their estate, then the money would be part of the estate. It would then be attached by the hospital that created the availability in the first place, as compensation for the medical expenses.
If it's done as single buyer, then hospital wouldn't be the buyer and wouldn't be involved financially, other than charging the recipient for the cost of the harvesting, which is something they already do.
This idea would also be for living donors, as what is currently done in Iran, so it wouldn't necessarily be for a deceased donor. Though I think $100k is excessive, rather I just gave it as an example, and something like $25,000 would be more realistic.
Re: (Score:3)
Countries that do it this way have practically zero organ shortage
Can you provide a citation for this? I am unaware of any countries that allow donors to be compensated. Most, including America, allow the buying and selling of organs, and hospitals make a lot of money doing that, but it is currently illegal for any of that money to go to a donor or a deceased donor's family.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's an NIH paper on how Iran does it, and their model seems to work particularly well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
This will probably never happen in the US though. Too many people have this idea that it will lead to widespread organ theft, thanks to an old urban legend promoted by an episode of Law and Order where a dude woke up with a missing kidney. So far, there haven't been any actual confirmed cases of organ theft anywhere in the world, only unproven rumors.
The truth is, harvesting organs is no
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to the law against "sexual tourism", where it's illegal to travel to another country for the purposes of sexual acts that are illegal in the USA, but legal in the visited country.
I'm curious how that works, because those laws aren't at all uniform in the US. Most states have the legal age of consent at 16, some at 17, and some at 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing you bravely put your name on this moronic comment. Go back to church and ask them to flog you for being a hateful bastard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One healthy young male with a head injury is a source of several potentially life-saving organs.
Indeed. We not only get the organs, but the mean intelligence of humanity goes up every time an idiot is removed from the gene pool. We need to repeal helmet laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we might also be able to stave off the Idiocracy future for maybe a few generations more. However with this new president-elect, that future may already have arrived.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cause you know, fuck those evil young men amiright?
Re: (Score:2)
Registering for the draft is optional. However, you are ineligible for a lot of financial aid for college if you don't register.
Re: (Score:3)
That SCOTUS case is nearly 100 years old at this point. Actual honest to goodness slavery was only gone for ~60 years prior to that ruling. There's no guarantee (and I'd think it possibly even likely) that a modern court wouldn't differ in their ruling.
Then it's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
we're closer and closer to organ cloning.
Re:Then it's a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
So your'e saying the real question is organs or synthesizers?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm registered to donate my Farfisa Combo when I die.
https://youtu.be/nXtXo7_C-d4 [youtu.be]
Re:Then it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's China who's at the forefront of innovation here: there's more Falun Gong people than road fatalities, and they can be kept alive in prisons until their organs are actually needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then it's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Larry Niven (sci-fi writer) had a series of stories about a near future society that did just that. Starts off with just harvesting based on existing capital punishment, but of course the demand exceeds the supply, so capital punishment gradually gets expanded. After all, everyone wants an organ when they need it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just about to post on that. Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is Repo! The Genetic Opera
Re: (Score:2)
Fake News.
oh no (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of all those people who are going to die because of all those other people who aren't going to die!
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. Software errors will compensate for the "good driving".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes! (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean healthy people will keep their healthy organs, instead of dying and giving them to unhealthy people?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Oh noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it's outside of their control. If you need an organ, you are unhealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Organ failure (that doesn't result in immediate death) due to external trauma is relatively rare. If organs were only going to relatively healthy people, there wouldn't be a shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
Imrik is right AC. Nice, good people can be unhealthy people and they want to live too. That doesn't mean they aren't unhealthy and probably form a large part of the demand for organs.
Re: (Score:2)
When a healthy person gets shot and the injury is so bad that they need an organ, they become unhealthy, naturally.
It's not a value judgement, it's just a description of their physical condition.
Re: (Score:3)
What about somebody that gets shot? Perhaps in the liver? You don't think that person might be healthy? Hell, they could be an olympic gold medalist. Prime condition.
I think the term you are looking for is "otherwise healthy". The healthiest person in the world who then gets shot and is dying is no longer healthy, he is otherwise healthy. Being healthy is being generally free of disease, weakness or malfunction. No one with a failing organ which is killing them can claim to be healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing this lowers the likelihood of them passing on their bad organ failing genes.
Think of all the future generations you'd save.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example. People with a genetic condition like that are unhealthy. Perhaps a better example would be people that were the victims of war, crime, or accident that they were not at fault. This could leave them blinded, maimed, etc. and in need of a tissue or organ transplant to restore their health fully.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthy people don't need their health restored!
Unhealthy isn't an accusation or a value judgement, it's a state of being.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or perhaps it will just create more incentive for the Chinese to more aggressively harvest organs from their prison populace.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a bad idea....... Let's compel all prisoners to submit their organs in the event they should be executed Or die.
Step up the number of offenses that will be given the death penalty in order to help with the shortages, And make sure the manner of death preserves the organs.
More than one count of 1st degree murder = Automatic death penalty for 90% of cases.
Being convicted a second time dealing hard drugs or narcotics after serving Jailtime, or a 3rd time for any illegal substance = Automatic de
Re: (Score:2)
Also, this is going to create a perverse incentive to immunize yourself against organ harvesting by picking up the latest incurable disease being spread through the prison population like AIDS or Hepatitis C currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, this is going to create a perverse incentive to immunize yourself against organ harvesting by picking up the latest incurable disease
Disincentivize catching one of those by having required testing And assigning a more painful method of execution and expediting the executions of prisoners found to have them.
Re: (Score:2)
Disincentivize catching one of those by having required testing And assigning a more painful method of execution and expediting the executions of prisoners found to have them.
Well, another serious problem solved by Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than enough people being caught doing these crimes to be taken out of society make up for the shortfall that safer cars' bettering society will cause.
Bettering society? All I see in your remarks is advocating for people with power to leverage it against others to benefit themselves. This isn't how you better society it is how you rot it out.
We have already seen what happens when you breed corruption in the legal system. Government now steals more shit from people without even bothering to charge or convict than sum total of everything reported stolen.
During my lifetime the rate at which cases have gone to trial has dropped by an order of magnitude. P
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget pirating music, hacking, possessing an unlicensed debugger or suggesting that people be killed for their organs.
Shit with enough capital crimes, we can finally have the perfect society, especially when the other team gets elected and changes the list of capital crimes. The left will execute you for saying a bad word and the right will execute you for saying a bad word
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's great news (Score:4, Insightful)
If less people are dying on the road (resulting in organ shortage) those lives are already saved. Can't say I support people dying for the sake of their organs. Hopefully through, it will accelerate artificial organ (biological or chemicoelectrical) development.
This! REading some of these posts, it would seem that some folks here want to go out and kill others to harvest their internal organs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't support people dying from traffic accidents either. If one were to take the route of "for the benefit of the many" morality one could argue a dead teen in a traffic accident can save more lives and improve the lives of many. Death by head injury can leave two kidneys, two lungs, liver, heart, and other tissues and organs. If no serious injuries to appendages, and transplant technology advances a bit, then we'd have two arms, and two legs for veterans injured in war, as an example.
This "benefit fo
Re: (Score:2)
so you are arguing for the right of the obscenely wealthy to become fuck-all obscenely wealthy? Wealth disproportion is what leads to gas chambers or more likely guillotines. We need to tax the holy fuck out of the wealthy because they have all the wealth. Wanting to take it from the poor and middle class is to want to squeeze blood from a turnip. A nice punitive 90-99%% tax rate for incomes/wealth over $2 million dollars would do a lot to reduce ridiculous executive compensation.
We, the middle and work
Bicycles to the rescue! (Score:2)
and when the software F* up's and starts killing (Score:2)
and when the software F* up's and starts killing at first we need to stock up. Also maybe we can go to war and get some from that.
Problem solved! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What with complete total corporate tracking of individuals including their DNA, why random. Do it via a rich corporate executive designed method. Simply track down matching DNA and then, well, tailor and automated accident to ensure the safe delivery of the required organ, you know, you just know, that is exactly what many psychopathic corporate executives are dreaming of, along with harvesting children for the fresh blood. Nothing to low for those that turned NATO, the North American Territorial Occupation
Re: (Score:2)
You could link up the geo-location too, and if the accident wasn't too severe, have the car auto-drive to the hospital to deliver the organ(s).
Re: (Score:2)
Or just auto-drive to the hospital to deliver the person that died of a malfunctioning seatbelt that constricted their breathing.
Organ donor shortage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one car accident victim, chopped up properly, may save a dozen lives. A net bonus.
Self Driving Cars Don't Solve Transportation (Score:3)
There is so much coming out about self driving cars, even through the tech is years away from mass use. We may never seen consumer owned self driving vehicles either, just due to security and safety issues. I wrote a post on this recently:
http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/
It goes into many of the hardware, software and general transportation issues with self driving cars. I don't think they'll be a reality in the near future. They're a good 6 ~ 8 years off at a minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
...how to identify dangers, how to respond to traffic cops, how to navigate complex parking structures.
When did Slashdot accrete such a large contingent of morons? These are engineering problems. Solvable engineering problems. First, "how to identify danger". Uuh, don't hit things? That's half the job of making a self-driving car in the first place, and radar, lidar, and what have-you are being used for precisely that purpose. Is it simple? No. Does it require a sapient AI? Not even close.
How to navigate a complex parking structure? Really? You're asking this while using a computer network to pos
An unasked question (Score:4, Interesting)
What percentage of the people who need organ transplants are in that condition because their organs were damaged in an automobile crash? Is it significant, or is it tiny?
Re: (Score:2)
Most permanent organ failures occurs due to genetic diseases, substance abuse, Or more rarely cancer, damage done by accidental poisoning, Or an infection.
I know this is kind of harsh.... but perhaps regarding the genetic defects, evolution will take its course if it is a shortage of
transplantable organs, and these mutated genes causing the problem will get obliterated from existence instead of continued
to the next generation by having a donor recipient continue to live and then pass on the gen
Re: (Score:2)
You can always do this now, just by sterilizing the patient before implanting the new organ.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe ...
It's not a matter of faith.
Dead humans are supposed to be in the food chain just like other dead animals.
However, humans are buried where scavengers can't go, some are treated, postmortem, to be inedible, or they are cremated.
Did you ever think of that?
No.
You only think of yourself.
--
There are a lot of illnesses that Mother Nature provides for the purposes of creating misery for humans.
Mother Nature also provided humans with the intelligence to combat those illnesses.
It's us vs her.
Did you ever think of tha
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe self-driving cars will reduce the need for organ transplants because there will be fewer people with damaged organs. How many people turned to drug or alcohol abuse after being involved in a car accident?
Ehh more death penalty crimes (Score:2)
Less appeals. Problem solved and we can finally be rid of those pesky Jay Walkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw. The Yoo Ess is leading the world in obesity. True that the heart won't be very good but some of the other organs might be usable after too much TV, chips, pizza and microwave dinners.
All at once! (Score:4)
Seriously though, we're closer to lab-grown organs [popsci.com] than we are to self-driving cars. This is a problem that is (fortunately) well on the way to being solved.
Pigs to the rescue (Score:3)
It seems that science is close to being able to grow human organs in pigs [cnn.com]. So maybe we don't have to worry so much about losing transplant organs because fewer people are dying in car crashes.
A "limited market" of organs for sale (Score:2)
Sounds like a really, really, really bad idea.
An easily solved problem (Score:2)
What the fuck (Score:2)
Make ORGAN SHORTAGES worse? Holy moly the utilitarians are out in fucking FORCE. Way to spin a positive into a negative.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder in next the original poster will posit that the surge in contraception and abortions are depriving childless couples of the opportunity to adopt unwanted babies? That every abortion deprives a homosexual couple of a baby...
Cue fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Organ market (Score:2)
Organ market looks a very bad idea: "got a bad debt? Megacorp Inc. can help you - in exchange for a kidney."
I understand it exists as a black market, but making it legal is not a step in the right direction to curb it down.
The next step of anti-efficiency rhethoric (Score:2)
Usually, when a new — more efficient — way of doing things arrives, a sizeable number of people complain about the poor souls used to making a living doing things the old — less efficient — way. If we seriously listened to these people, we would've still survived on hunting and gathering — in perfect harmony with nature.
That we listen to them at all is why our progress is slower, than it should be. Such people — who are convinced, factories exist to provide employment
Re: (Score:3)
Such people â" who are convinced, factories exist to provide employment â" are, to put it mildly, cretins.
Of course factories exist to provide profit for the rich factory owners. What the people (who are not factory owners) should do is every so often stage a revolution, round up a lot of the factory owners and kill them, then redistribute their wealth. After that, go back home and wait for a new crop of rich factory owners to grow. This would be so much better than working in a factory. And this is what you would get if there were a lot of unemployed hungry people and some rich people in the same country.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you illiterate cretin, factories exist to make goods. Whoever owns them — be it the Glorious Collective or a greedy capitalist — that's their purpose...
You can shove the rest of your Bolshevik apologia to where it would do the most good...
How many car accident people, ... (Score:3)
... who survive, are in that population of people who need organs?
How About Just Growing Organs (Score:2)
Iran has a legal market for kidneys (Score:3)
Iran has a legal (and regulated) market for kidneys [wikipedia.org]. Donating a kidney is a mild risk, but frankly less of a risk than many professions.
I need a kidney and still think this is good. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are lots of things wrong with our organ policy, but the way to fix it is NOT to continue (or increase) dangerously stupid activities in the hopes of getting donors.
Instead we can fix the "no compensantion laws" that are ridiculously tight, and do simple things like:
1) Have tax credits that cover things like a) travel and housing costs for donors, b) unemployment payments if you have to take more than 2 weeks off to donate,
2) Require all government ID's (except passports) to have a field for organ donation yes/no, on the front of the ID. You want to drink, drive, etc. you have to at least think about being a donor.
3) Fix the opt - in system - either 1) Legally enforce opt in for donations so if you sign permission for organ donation, your heirs can not over-ride it) and/or 2) allow states to use an opt-out system, so people have to consciously say no thanks to avoid being listed as an organ donor, rather than go out of their way to sign up.
Simple Solution (Score:2)
1 of 5 organ transplants are the result of auto accidents, most of which are caused by driver error. OK, two points for realizing that driverless cars will lead to fewer driver error accidents, but this isn't the real problem - the real problem is that people are reluctant to sign up as organ donors. For example, if we went into the most dangerous neighborhoods around Chicago and had organ donor drives we could see a definite spike in usable organ donations.
I suspect (I'm guessing) that the vast majority of
Not for everyone (Score:5, Funny)
Fewer organs for most of us, maybe. But for Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Travis Kalanick, and the other self-driving car company executives... well, when they need an organ, a perfectly matching donor will have the perfect crash.
lots of blame, no solutions (Score:3)
Priority on the recipient list if the patient had been on the donor list for at least 2 years prior to getting sick
Parents can add their children to the donor list to receive this priority as well
The donor registration can no longer be overridden by the family
A tax break for being a registered donor
attn writers: check defs of potential synonyms (Score:2)
vital appendages
An organ is not an appendage, and appendages are not vital.
So would world peace (Score:2)
If not oneg his head blown off, no more livers, right?
Re:A problem that is worth having (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Three of the five subway lines in Singapore are fully automated with no driver. From what I understand increasing/decreasing service is a matter of someone pushing some buttons in a control center, and more trains make their way to/from the yards. They're essentially horizontal elevators.
Of course this is only possible due to strict control of the right of way - platform screen doors and having the entire route underground allow for this.
If NYCT can do this with the L line (which would mean enclosing the
Re: (Score:3)
First step will be modifying the current hours of service [dot.gov] regulations. I envision the driver doing the pickup, getting the rig onto the highway, then sleeping in back while the truck self-drives overnight. Wake up the next day to fuel up, then bring it in to the next warehouse.
Re:A problem that is worth having (Score:4, Interesting)
It will probably be a long time before truck drivers are completely replaced - take a look at railroads, for example. It would be technically possible to automate railroads right now, but the rail companies haven't done so; having a person onboard is very useful for legal liability, security, and fixing all the minor, odd issues that come up, and so on. I guess that we will probably end up with "freight stewards" in trucks, where the computer does most of the driving, but the steward takes over for odd cases, and gets out and fixes minor issues to keep the truck on the road, provide physical security to the freight, and help with loading/unloading at the end points.
That sounds very inefficient. I'm thinking it will go in three directions:
1) Remote operation, we do it with drones so why not trucks? If each truck needs help maybe 1% of the time one operator can support a whole fleet.
2) Location-based staff that help trucks in their area, like a tow truck light that either work at a depot or loading/unloading area or are on call.
3) Use armored cars, stronger locks, dye packs if forced entry and have the car report in as often as possible. Miss a checkpoint, alarm goes.
Pretty sure the moment trucks drive themselves the whole "one truck, one man" concept will go out the window pretty quick. That said I think we're still some years away from commercially available self-driving cars.
They've already automated mine trucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be technically possible to automate railroads right now, but the rail companies haven't done so
Companies haven't done so because of perception and legal issues, not because companies themselves aren't driving it.
However the amount of advertising and marketing as well as information on tests, and the amount of testing itself that is being publicised changes this a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be solved with very high tax rates on corporate profits, dividends and income from stock sales.
Companies will be able to replace human drivers with robots, but they will still pay the humans the same money (through tax), just now the humans will be able to stay at home and watch TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how old you are, but in my half-century plus walking around this country I've come to the conclusion that very few problems are solved through higher taxes, at best they create as many new problems as they intended to solve.
I have a file drawer full of stories about states that implemented "millionaires taxes" to combat some certain problem, only to find the millionaires found a way to avoi
Re: (Score:2)
The BIGGEST issue is still the loss of truck driver's jobs.... This will hut the US economy the hardest. Even then... it WILL happen... despite what "truck guys" I know say about the issue (sorry... bringing personal issues into /. comment... but 2 guys I know from high school have said Trucks will 'never' be automated, because 'I' don't know what I'm talking about...) (FYI: My degree(s) are in cyber physical system stability and security...) lol
Yea but on the upside, they will be able to pre-sell their organs to make some cash!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that 1 isn't necessarily true, one dead organ donor can save more than one other person. It's possible that even with the reduction from 2, there could be a larger difference in supply vs demand.
That said, the argument has little merit unless you're the sort that'd be willing to argue in favor of searching for genetic matches and killing them to harvest their organs.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to factor in all the free condoms and birth control pills and IUDs high school kids have access to now, that cuts down on the number of teen pregnancies...
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real miracles are in fetal stem cell research - why, they can whip up a cure for nearly any disease or malady that ails you, thank God the Democrats put that miracle-creating technology eligible for federal funding - remember that stupid political circle-jerk where the left told everyone that the cures for cancer, MS, epilepsy, Luo Gherig's disease (ALS), etc. were just around the corner, but GEORGE BUSH blocked funding!