Social Justice Warrior would rather let someone die than donate her organs, because they might go to rich or “overeducated” people

Well, I’ll be! I’ve never heard a believer, especially one concerned with social justice, be this dumb and this petulant. I’m referring to Kristel Clayville, who wrote a new piece at Religion Dispatches, “Why I’m not an organ donor“.  First, let’s establish that Clayville is indeed a Christian; her bio says this:

Kristel Clayville is a visiting assistant professor of religion at Eureka College and a fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago. She is also ordained in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

The University of Chicago?  That’s my school, and she apparently got her Ph.D in the Divinity School here. And indeed, she is at the MacLean Center for Medical Ethics at the U of C. But her article is an embarrassment to herself, to my University, and to the faith she purports to hold. Her Eureka College biography also notes that Clayville is “an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ tradition.” (Eureka College is a Christian school in Eureka, Illinois.)

So why isn’t Dr. Clayville an organ donor? In short, because she says the organ donation system is biased towards the wealthy, the well connected, and the educated. And the system is subjective. So she’d rather let people die than save someone’s life who might be in one of those groups.

Of course Clayville realizes that such a stand doesn’t look that good, so she defuses her opponents by going on the offensive

I anticipate some of you saying, “But I thought you were a good person. I thought you cared about people.” And of course you will say this with a perplexed look that suggests you don’t know how I could be so callous, or even worse: anti-science. I know this look well because I’ve been the recipient of it before, usually across a dinner table with my progressive, liberal, overeducated, friends (PLOFs) who suddenly wonder whether they’ve misjudged my character for years.

I’ll leave aside the snarky term “overeducated” (is it possible for someone who likes to learn to be “overeducated”?), and go to her argument, which hinges on “social justice”:

Being an organ donor doesn’t just potentially save someone’s life. You can focus on that aspect of it—and maybe you should—but there are significant social justice issues involved that aren’t apparent on the surface. Among them is distribution—or what the transplant community refers to as allocation. Most of us are aware that there’s an organ shortage, but then who gets a transplant and who doesn’t? And who decides?

. . . But these financial issues obscure a larger problem: to get an organ transplant in the US, you are subjected to medical and social review by a transplant team. This multidisciplinary team consists of surgeons, organ specialists, social workers, nurses, psychiatrists, hospital administrators, and sometimes a chaplain. The medical criteria for getting an organ can be thought of as objective, though also relative to the skills of the local transplant surgeons and the level of risk they’re willing to take. The social review by the team is highly subjective, even in the best scenarios. Since donated organs are a scarce resource, the goal is often to find the best host (recipient) for the organ so that it does not go to waste.

In that environment, organs tend to go to people who can have a full-time caregiver, has family who will help with care, doesn’t take personal risks, and has a medical history of doing what doctors tell them to do. All of these fuzzy criteria require that there is someone on the transplant team who recognizes a potential patient’s behavior as understandable and relatable. Ultimately, these criteria become ciphers for minority status and financial means. Can your spouse take months off of work to take care of you? Mine can’t. Can you afford to pay an in-home caregiver? I can’t.

So the telescopic story is one of free resources and the skills of highly-trained professionals (skills gained with tax-payer subsidies) helping the well-insured and financially well-off overcome diseases and extend their lives, while medically qualified candidates without financial and social means run out of options. From a social justice perspective, this story mirrors the story of the United States in general: most of the resources flow up to the haves rather than trickle down to have-nots.

According to an AP report, “Wealthy people are more likely to get on multiple waiting lists and score a transplant, and less likely to die while waiting for one, a new study finds.” Getting put on multiple transplant lists is not the only way that the haves can get ahead in the current system; they can also move to regions where the organ shortage is not as severe. Doing so can shave years off the waiting time.

Yes, I’m sure there are inequities in the system, and wealthier or savvier people may have a better chance of getting organs. But those who get donations aren’t all that way: I’ve seen enough poor and marginalized people on the news getting a lease on life through new organs to know that the poor do benefit from this system. Yes, it’s subjective, as Clayville says, but it has to be; after all, beyond the medical considerations you’re judging the value of a present and future life, and there’s no objective way to do that. But are these reasons to diss the whole system, one that involves other chaplains, social workers, psychiatrists, and so on?

Apparently so.  Because of these inequities, and the “subjectivity” aspect, Clayville will simply keep her own organs after she dies, thank you. (Perhaps she wants to meet Jesus with an intact liver.) But have a gander at her conclusion, which is about as selfish and mean-spirited as one can get. In short it says this: “Because the system isn’t perfect, I’d rather keep my organs and let people die.” In other words, she’s letting people die out of simple spite (my emphasis):

Should you be an organ donor? It’s not mine to say. Organ donation saves lives; it really does. And the professionals involved in organ transplantation are well aware of the social justice issues. Many are working on reforms. In the interim, you get to decide which story you want to be a character in: the microscopic version where you are an organ donor to a particular person in need, or the telescopic version where your organ becomes a resource in an economy that privileges those with financial means.

To return to AJ’s case, it seems that he and his father had been put on the back burner by the transplant team for social reasons. Though the organ wasn’t a scarce resource—it was donated to AJ specifically—their social situation wasn’t recognizable to the team as “normal.” AJ only received the transplant after a significant public outcry. Given that these are the fuzzy social criteria in play, until there’s a significantly revised system of review of transplant candidates I’m keeping my PLOF-y organs.

This is the epitome of social justice gone wrong: because the system isn’t perfect, Clayville prefers to subvert it by withholding potentially lifesaving organs. What kind of Christian is she? When she meets Jesus, will she explain, “Lord, I thought it was better to let someone die than to tolerate the injustices of organ donation”?

h/t: Diane G

159 Comments

  1. Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Very, very sad to be that PIG HEADED and STUPID! ☹️

    • Kev
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Pig-headed and Dumb: PhD.

      At least no poor unfortunate will live to get her brain, even though its virtually unused!

      • W.T. Effingham
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. Some diplomas aren’t worth the paper…(e.g. Dr. Bill Cosby?? honorary, but still). This Clayville gal obviously has a Pretentiously hyped Declaration.

    • Taz
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

      Maybe she’s just over-educated? /s

  2. yazikus
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like she was pretty interested in coming up with an excuse for not wanting to donate her organs. It sort of reminds me of the non-gaycake-baking bakers… in that they could not bake the gay cake if they wanted (with no repercussions), but they insist on telling us that it is because they want to be discriminatory. She could not-donate her organs and no one would give a shit, but she is intent on making a point about it.

  3. Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    If I had to make one stipulation as an organ donor it would only be that my organs go to another organ donor.

    You shouldn’t benefit from a system you won’t contribute to if you can.

    • nicky
      Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:11 am | Permalink

      There is something in that. Although I doubt it would be really ethical, it appears to have some justice to it.

  4. glen1davidson
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Well, isn’t she special and privileged.

    Just as she likes it.

    Glen Davidson

    • Sastra
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      Yes.
      I assume she’s also on board with Trump and the Republicans gutting natural resources and parks, since the marginalized poor are less likely to consume or go camping.

  5. alexandra Moffat
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    She is playing god, deciding, indirectly, who lives, who dies. There’s a theist for you-
    hubris personified.

    • Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      Which is ironic as Jesus was an organ and blood donor, symbolically at least. Isn’t that what communion is about?

      • Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        Symbolic? Thanks to transubstantiation, us Catholics got to chow down on the real deal.

  6. Randall Schenck
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    I guess she also refuses to go to doctors or hospitals since surveys show that the well to do get much better health care as well. And of course she would only consider driving a cheap used care to get around. Probably lives in a tent in a poor neighborhood?

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

      I liked the tent part. It made me LOL.

    • slandermonkey
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      She must be an American, as the rest of the world well off enough for organ transplants has socialized medicine so while there is still a review of the recipients, their wealth doesn’t enter into the equation.

      I find it sad that the country that put multiple men on the moon, had a President progressive enough to do the “New Deal” now has regressed into bizarre cult of Capitalism on one side, and a cult of Post Modern gibberish on the other.

      Please, America, regain your senses – elect some more good people, move forward, and put your wealth and talent towards something more than the best military machine on the planet.

      • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

        I do not think things are so bleak. Poor undocumented immigrant Jesica Santillan got an organ transplant. It is another matter that it went horribly wrong.

  7. John Gibson
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    You can get some strange reasons for objecting to transplants. I recall years ago reading a newspaper article by someone who loathed the idea of heart transplants. His objection was that we are not simply cold emotionless brains, but that we have emotions and feelings, and that these were located in the heart. So heart transplants treat our emotions as being of no importance.
    Mind you, this was in the early days of heart transplants. I doubt that anyone would argue that today.

    • Sastra
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      Instead, such people are more likely to fawn over apocryphal or highly suspect stories of transplant recipients who start exhibiting personality traits of the donor.

  8. Pierluigi Ballabeni
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Supposing that privileged people are preferred I would think that if fewer organs are donated the poor people’s probability of getting a one are further reduced.

    • yazikus
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      Excellent point. How is this different from a person being against a social safety net because someone, somewhere might be taking advantage of it?

      • nicky
        Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:15 am | Permalink

        Excellent point (and a nice pointer to HL Mencken) 🙂

      • Posted March 19, 2018 at 11:57 am | Permalink

        Ironically, I *have* heard that excuse – from future Canadian medical students no less.

    • glen1davidson
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      She a great lover of humanity.

      People, not so much.

      Glen Davidson

  9. Christopher
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Well, isn’t this a wonderfully vile and disgusting new version of intersectionality! Regressive leftism meets religion, a match made in an ignorant and hateful heaven! And it resembles the republican views on health care as well: the system isn’t perfect, so let’s just destroy the whole damn thing.

    What we really need is to go to a system where a person must opt OUT of organ donation, rather than opt IN. Perhaps if there were not so many useful organs getting chucked into the ground or cremated, there would be more people, poor people, non-Euro American people, who could receive their much-needed transplants, or perhaps if a non-PoC organ went into a PoC body that would be considered a form of organ colonialism and this SJW would still refuse to save a life.

    What an asshole.

    • Diane G.
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      “What we really need is to go to a system where a person must opt OUT of organ donation, rather than opt IN.”

      Exactly!

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:33 am | Permalink

        Yes, excellent idea.

        It would dramatically increase the supply of transplants, since the default position would change from not-being-a-donor to being-a-donor. I suspect a lot of people don’t feel particularly strongly either way, but don’t want to raise the subject of their own mortality by registering, or they may feel it’s an implied affront to their loved ones to do so.

        cr

        • Posted March 19, 2018 at 11:58 am | Permalink

          That’s apparently what the evidence suggests (opt-out policies produce more available organs).

  10. Pierluigi Ballabeni
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    In Spain everybody is registerd for organ donation unless one opts out.

    • nicky
      Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:18 am | Permalink

      In Belgium too. there is a central register where you can register to opt out.

  11. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    Nobody ever gonna ask Kristel to donate her brain. (Chrissake, unless she dances the hoochie-coochie, she’s not even spelling her own first name right.)

    • Christopher
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

      That’s actually something I’ve thought about, donating my brain to science. I know it can be done, not sure how, but it does appeal to me.

      If I have any salvageable bits, dole ’em out to those in need, shuck my brain and slice it up for science, then toss the husk of me remainder somewhere to feed the birds, worms, and whatnot. Actually, I’d love to be dumped in a deep sea trench somewhere, so my remains could be recycled into osedax worms and the like. A feast for the wee beasties would be an honorable way to go.

    • BJ
      Posted March 18, 2018 at 9:31 am | Permalink

  12. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    You’re only “overeducated” if you are not a well-rounded personality and elitist about your education.

    I once worked at a small high-tech firm (in the early 1980s). Two of the employees were opera lovers, one of them me. The other one was generally snooty and disdainful towards blue-collar workers, whom I played cards with every lunch date. We both liked opera, but I was also a huge fan of the Bugs Bunny opera parody “What’s Opera, Doc?” which I also thoroughly enjoyed. I respectfully submit that she was “over-educated” and I am not.

    IN other news, in 2014 the Vatican launched a large campaign to encourage organ donation.

    • Jonathan Dore
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Nothing you’ve described sounds like a symptom of having too much education. Sounds to me like the appropriate word there is simply “snob”.

      • JonLynnHarvey
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        I am suggesting that for all practical purposes, “overeducated” is used as a synonym for elitist attitudes.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      “… blue-collar workers, whom I played cards with every lunch date.”

      Very noblesse oblige of you, old boy. Do hope you didn’t query whether they knew “Quadrille” or “Whist,” the card games separating the idle rich like Darcy from the strivers like Charlotte Lucas in Pride and Prejudice.

      I kid! 🙂

      • Posted March 19, 2018 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        Yet, isn’t Whist played a few generations later by the petty thieves in _Oliver Twist_?

  13. Richard Sanderson
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    The regressive left insist that SJWs don’t exist, and it is just a “snarl term” aimed at people who genuinely care for “social justice”.

    That is bollocks, of course, and this woman’s attitude is another great example of how SJWs are actually awful human beings who make the world a much nastier and depressing place. Just like their counterparts on the far right.

    • Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      As I understand it, the term for SJW actually originated as a snarl term about this variety of person. Only the term stuck and has been used as well by SJWs. One supposes that they are a somewhat diverse bunch (all groups really are), so maybe some refuse to identify themselves under it.

    • Posted March 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

      I for one even donate to an organization with “Social Justice” in the name, and it has nothing to do with these buffoons …

  14. Lianne Byram
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    I can’t get past an alleged academic denigrating people for having too much education.

    • Christopher
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      I’m impressed that she has managed to find the Goldilocks zone of education, not too educated, not too uneducated, but just right!
      I’ll bet that republicans are like momma bear, with under-educated brains that are too small, and many of us here are over-educated classical liberals that have brains that are too large, and there she is, having found a perfect baby bear brain of Just Right!
      Then again, considering her stance here, she may just have porridge for brains.

      • grasshopper
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

        Quite the Grimm scenario.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

          😜 Good one.

        • Diane G.
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

          Lol @ both Christopher and grasshopper! 😀

        • glen1davidson
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

          Well, maybe a Southey scenario.

          Doesn’t work as well, but Goldilocks isn’t a Grimm tale.

          Glen Davidson

      • Posted March 18, 2018 at 5:25 am | Permalink

        Like the “porridge for brains” – from the commenter formerly known as “HaggisForBrains”.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

      Yes! WTF is the definition of overeducated? If her friends’ over-education leads them to look at ger in horror because she’d rather let someone die than be an organ donor, I say bring it on. Of course, the trouble with that argument is all the poorly educated people who are, I’ve no doubt, equally disgusted with her attitude.

      I think she’s scared that if she has bits missing she won’t be allowed into heaven. Or maybe it’s the idea of being cut up after she dies. However, if she dies at an age and condition that her organs would be good for transplant, chances are there’d be a post-mortem anyway.

      Rather than admit to an irrational superstition, she’s trying to find another justification for her selfishness. If God is real, I would hope he’d deny her access to heaven. What if the rich people she could be saving are those who give so much money to keep the myth alive? Without them, superstition would die a faster death. God won’t be happy with her then.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        It sounds like a Twilight Zone episode. I can already here Rod Searling narrating the conclusion as she stands at heaven’s closed pearly gates, looking perplexed.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

          Ha! Good one!

      • Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        Well in my opinion she is undereducated, after all what actually defines a PhD in divinity (superstition.)
        😻

        • Rita
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

          Good point!

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

          IMO Religious Studies is a valid field of study. Theology is not. I’m not that clear where Divinity falls. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a PhD in Divinity seems to be designed for ministers, pastors, priests etc to be able to say to parishioners that they have a PhD, and therefore come across as An Authority On All Things Who Must Be Listened To At All Times. They’re creating a source for the Appeal to Authority argument.

          • Posted March 18, 2018 at 12:43 am | Permalink

            Doesn’t Professor Trelawney have a PhD in Divinity?

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted March 18, 2018 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

              Ha ha!

              I don’t know actually. We know there are jobs that require a lot of further study after NEWTs, like healer and auror, but we’re never told where that study takes place afair.

          • Posted March 18, 2018 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

            Apparently you can’t tell from a simple PhD from the Divinity School. You can choose between 11 areas of study from History of Religion to Theology. But here’s a quote from their page: “PhD students also must pursue substantial work in at least one other area of study to prepare broadly for their future careers as educators or in other professions and to locate their research in contexts outside of, but relevant to, their own concentration.”

            Source: divinity.uchicago.edu/doctoral-program

        • Posted March 19, 2018 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

          Maybe that counts as a negative number of years? 😉

  15. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Couldn’t Dr. Clayville execute a codicil providing that her organs go to “the deserving poor” (you know, the same way rich Republicans give money to charity)?

    • BJ
      Posted March 18, 2018 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Is this actually possible? The laws regarding to whom and how organs are transferred are pretty strict.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted March 18, 2018 at 9:56 am | Permalink

        Dafuq do I know about wills & trusts? 🙂

        • BJ
          Posted March 18, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

          Biiitch, I don’t know what law you be doin.

          Are you sarcastically saying, “how should I know? This isn’t my area of expertise,” or are you saying, “obviously you can execute such a codicil. Estate law is what I do, so you best get out my grille, muhfucka”?

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted March 18, 2018 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

            It was a reach for me to remember “codicil.”

    • Posted March 19, 2018 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      I seem to remember that in the US one can *sell* organs, so I imagine it should be straightforward to will them to someone.

      People also do will whole cadavers to medical school anatomy departments, etc.

  16. glen1davidson
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    It’s just another case of “if you decide that I didn’t make it safely to base, I’ll take my ball and go home.”

    The system can agree with her and change immediately, or she’ll let people die. Ha, it’s their fault, they won’t play fair.

    Glen Davidson

  17. Pliny the in Between
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    I worked with the transplant system for 25 years and am married to someone who continues to work within that system. Organs go to recipients based on physiologic, not economic status. Ensuring this was the big reason that the federal government stepped in years ago to pay for kidney transplants.

    Another fine example of the differences among religion, morals and ethics.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that her “facts” are made up. The whole argument is fallacious. She’s basically fake news and dangerous too because people may listen to her and refuse to donate organs. She’s like the people howling not to donate to cancer research because it is just to make money as the researches already have a cure but they aren’t sharing it because chemo is making them rich.

      • Diane G.
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

        At least she didn’t manage to come up with some scenario in which organ transplantation is misogynist. (I probably shouldn’t be giving her ideas, though.)

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

          You’re making me want to satirically write that article. Also, look how I knowingly used a split infinitive….I did it knowingly because I’m over educated.

          • Diane G.
            Posted March 17, 2018 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

            You’d be the one to do it. 😉

          • Posted March 18, 2018 at 5:29 am | Permalink

            To knowingly split an infinitive – that is the height of modern grammar education 😉

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted March 18, 2018 at 8:53 am | Permalink

              I see what you did there!

    • Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      Organs go to recipients based on physiologic, not economic status.

      I’m a double lung transplant recipient and I can attest to this.

      In regard to carers. A carer throughout the process significantly increases likelihood of successful outcomes. In very many cases it is essential. The data exists.

      Better for this odious woman to focus her attention on reforming the USA’s appalling insurance based health system in general, as it is the greater villain in the denial of treatment.

      I know I would be dead if I had lived in The USA instead of New Zealand. In NZ we enjoy a single payer public heath system.

      • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

        I do not see any reason to think that you would be dead if you lived in the USA.

  18. Gareth
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, I’m sure the rich and powerful will have a harder time finding a donor without her help.

    Honestly, I think we have a working definition for over-educated. All that learning, but too lazy to use it.

    • Craw
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      She should look at it this way: if she’s a match for a zillionaire like Mark Zukerberg her donation might save some poor schnook from getting burked …

  19. Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Its a bit like a homophobe saying he won’t donate his hands because every time the other guy goes for a pee he’ll have to touch his penis.

  20. Heather Hastie
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    How did she get a PhD with such crappy logic?

    There are two ways to make sure poor people get access to donated organs.
    1. Increase the number of organ donors.
    2. Reform the health system so wealth isn’t a factor.

    Like most countries, NZ doesn’t have enough organ donors, but the decision on who gets them are on entirely clinical grounds. That’s because the health system provides care for organ recipients.

    How about she looks into the medical ethics of a healthcare system that means the US has the worst maternal and neo-natal survival rate in the developed world, and worse even than some countries outside that group. Imo she’s a disgrace to medical ethics.

    • Steve Pollard
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      Her PhD is from the Divinity School. No logic or reason required.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        Good point!

      • Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, logic is an impediment.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      She doesn’t want to look into health ethics of a for-profit system because she is an elitist and it’s so much easier to justify your elitism and your selfishness by railing against something that isn’t really an issue.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        Yep. Imo, most people who are religious, and I think it’s especially likely if they’re religious leaders like her, are elitist. They think their channel to Jesus/God/whatever makes them special/better.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:47 am | Permalink

          I have to disagree there. I think this is one of the (possibly unusual) cases where religion can’t be blamed for this woman, since her stance doesn’t appear to be religion-influenced. She could be an atheist and equally malignant.

          (So far as I can tell, most religions seem to be neutral on transplants. A very few may believe the entire body gets raptured so it’s important to keep all your bits, but there are obvious problems with that approach).

          cr

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted March 18, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

            She has a PhD in Divinity, mate, and she went to a theological college. I’m going to assume she’s religion influenced, though I admit that could be wrong.

          • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

            It is true that she could be an atheist and equally malignant. However, I suspect that her opinion is influenced by religion, and what she really thinks is that we should not intervene to save people whom God has ordered to die.

            The same way, every time believers make noisy campaigns against abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome and other disabilities, I suspect that their main wish is to deflect the question why God allows these disorders in the first place.

    • Pliny the in Between
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      No different from the US transplant system. Transplantation has been nationalized in the USA for decades. Trauma and medical services are completely separated from donation services so there are no financial incentives to the acute care side to advocate for donation. Federal law requires that donation requesters be trained and not associated with acute care. Donation services do not actively participate in care decisions until a patient is brain dead and donation is requested. Donor families do not incur any costs associated with donation once a patient is declared brain dead.

      Today, some patients not meeting brain death criteria but with non-survivable injury or illness may also be candidates for Donation after cardiac death (DCD).

      Gaming the system is even hard for the wealthy since now most transplantable organs can be maintained for longer periods than ever before and are entered into a national system purely based on clinical status.

      In my experience, refusals to donate were 100% due to either a family being overwhelmed by the pace of an illness or injury, a poor requester, or most often religion.

      Most important ways to ensure that you would be a donor if it ever came to that: Tell your family your wishes, register as a donor on your state’s donor registry.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for this. I saw your other comment on this after I’d made this comment. It’s great that the US has sorted itself out re organ donations, and it sounds really good.

        And, it means that not only is her logic screwed, but she talking from a position of ignorance. Her complaint is simply invalid. You’d think if she was writing about medical ethics in relation to organ donation, she’d find out what the actual situation is!

      • Posted March 18, 2018 at 5:37 am | Permalink

        Most important ways to ensure that you would be a donor if it ever came to that: Tell your family your wishes, register as a donor on your state’s donor registry.

        Why not go one stage further, and donate a kidney now, and save someone’s life while you are still alive to see the results?

        Give a Kidney – One’s Enough

        • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

          Donors are advised to limit their protein intake, which clearly indicates that they are considered at risk. And this is for a reason. Slinin et al. Transplantation. 2016 Jun;100(6):1371-1386 state that “Moderate grade evidence reveals an association between living kidney donation and greater risk of end-stage renal disease… Consistent evidence from 3 studies reveals that donors are at higher risk for preeclampsia and gestational hypertension with postdonation pregnancies and compared with healthy matched nondonors.”

          In light of this, I do not think that one kidney is “enough”. I think there must be strict guidelines for live kidney donors and donation should be limited to parents and maybe siblings and spouses.

    • Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

      but the decision on who gets them are on entirely clinical grounds.

      In NZ you won’t get certain transplants (lung, heart, liver and perhaps others) without a full time carer with you throughout the process, which can often take up to three months of full time care.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for the info. I thought the care was available in needed. I know of single people who moved into what are normally rest homes because that was the only way to get 24 hour care, but that was subsidized. I’m extremely disappointed if there are cases of people missing out on a transplant for non-clinical reasons. (It’s a long time since I worked in the health system, so some of my knowledge will obviously be out of date.)

        • Posted March 17, 2018 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

          It’s moot as to whether engaging a carer is “non-clinical” in nature.

          It’s part of the care process, just as nursing and the surgery is.

          Clayville’s seeming insinuation is that the requirement shouldn’t exist or should be waived. That’s absurd, for good “clinical” outcomes.

          Her only justifiable beef can be in regard to the source of funding for this care.

          It’s a hard call, even for public health services. I was informed last week that NZ’s Heart Lung transplant team performed about twice as many transplants last year over the number were funded for. Given current restraints funding full-time carers would be prohibitive, yet they are required.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted March 17, 2018 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

            Yes, they are necessary. I wasn’t saying otherwise. It would be pointless to do a transplant if the patient won’t get the appropriate aftercare. I meant that care should be part of the process, which it seems to be in the US from Pliny’s comments.

            Here, funding full time carers wouldn’t be necessary for everybody. Some can be looked after by family members most of the time, and some can’t. Any discharge from hospital takes into account what situation the patient is going to, and the hospital sends a referral for home help for those who will need it – usually those living alone. GPs can also do that if the requirement arises later. That home help is publicly funded. 24 hour care is obviously a lot more expensive, but there are options. Sometimes it depends on which DHB you’re located in though, and it may be different in other places. I know about Waikato. Some others may have different arrangements, and I know some are pretty mean with home help provision, so that may be a problem elsewhere too.

  21. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Well, she makes about as good a case as one can for a rotten-to-the-core point of view, but that does not transform her turd of an opinion into a delicacy. Yes, the criteria for short-listing organ donors winds up favoring the well-off, but even among those there are children and mothers and fathers.
    So pooey on her.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:50 am | Permalink

      I think her position is known as ‘pissing in the soup’. 😉

      cr

  22. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Ah the perfect solution fallacy. The organ donation process is not perfect so therefore I will not donate my organs. She does recognize she is one of these elite over educated people, right? I hope she knows that should the time come, she should properly refuse an organ donated to her.

    Also, why should a chaplain sit on an organ donation panel? Would the person’s beliefs play into whether they get the organ? How is a Chaplin qualified to make ethical decisions?

    • Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      When I read that part it sent me a shiver of panic, can they refuse to give an organ to an otherwise deserving Atheist?

      Why would religion matter at all, why give religion a vote on this?

      Is there a way to change that?

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        Indeed. I know it was paranoia on my part, and I live in Canada where religion isn’t what it is in the US, but I was getting an operation in a Catholic hospital so when the form asked what religion I was, I just left it blank. Normally, I’d write “atheist” to have atheists counted for things, but I didn’t want to take a chance.

        • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

          I suppose their idea is to know what priest to call in case they botch the operation.

    • Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      Generally, people who are strongly for one faith aren’t accepted as or are removed as chaplins in such situations. Some (e.g. many Unitarian chaplins) are essentially atheist anyway. In this context, I’d view a chaplin as an ethicist, not a person weeding out recipients by cult membership.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 18, 2018 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

        But what are the credentials for the chaplain acting as ethicist? Secular ethicists have to have specific philosophical training. And this specific chaplain seems to lack the careful thinking required of secular ethicists.

  23. Jonathan Dore
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Once you hear someone use the word “overeducated” you can pretty much stop listening. The mistrust of the intellect, of expertise, that it betrays is a giveaway of a small-minded and, it seems, rather vicious outlook.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

      Quite! I came across this Big Think video of Salman Rushdie that summarizes this shit attitude well. I hope I linked it properly. I am on my iPhone & my HTML seems to be suspect when I try to type it on an iPhone keyboard.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

      That’a a bad link Diana [extra characters at the right end that break it]. It’s a jolly good Rushdie video & here’s a working link for those interested:
      Anti-Intellectual Elite Turning the World Upside Down

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

        Thanks again Michael. I don’t know what my phone does. I double check the HTML and it never works from my phone. I think autocorrect is doing something.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        The extra characters you are getting to the right of the url are %E2%80%9D which is the UTF-8 encoding [hex.] for the unicode character representing the RIGHT CURLY double quotation mark. What you want is the STRAIGHT double quotation mark [which looks the same for both left & right double quotation marks].

        The ” mark is part of the html used to make a pretty link in WordPress:
        LINK NAME HERE

        I am wondering if you are using the wrong type of double quotation mark on your dog? Or your dog has a conflict with the way it uses UTF-8?

        If none of that helps you could try just pasting the bare address without using the html to make a pretty, named link

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

          To further confuse matters I notice that WordPress automatically turns straight quotes into curly quotes! So if I type:

          He said “hello”

          with straight quotes they post as curly

          • Diane G.
            Posted March 17, 2018 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

            They look straight to me!

            • Michael Fisher
              Posted March 17, 2018 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

              Well they’re curly in the sense that the published opening double quote in “hello” leans to the left & the published closing leans to the right even though when I typed them both quote marks appear in the comment box the same [straight, vertical, no lean]

              • Diane G.
                Posted March 17, 2018 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

                I see, thanks.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 17, 2018 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

            Must be my iPhone doing that quote thing. Stupid technology.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:53 am | Permalink

              It’s not stupid, it’s over-educated.

              😎

              cr

  24. Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Why would she be so persnickety about who might get to use her organs after she no longer needs them? I guess she could specify her dictates in a will. But, the whole deal is a crap shoot. Maybe she dies of something that makes her organs unusable, or maybe she dies somewhere that prevents her organs from being harvested in a timely manner. Maybe her organs won’t be usable. Maybe a poor person gets one of her organs, but dies shortly thereafter. Maybe, part of her organs go to the rich and part to the poor. Maybe, her organ(s) give someone a longer life who benefits humanity, whether rich or poor.

  25. Posted March 17, 2018 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    She’s undereducated in the proper use of commas.

    • Diane G.
      Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:52 am | Permalink

      Not to mention tense.

      “In that environment, organs tend to go to people who can have a full-time caregiver, has family who will help with care, doesn’t take personal risks, and has a medical history of doing what doctors tell them to do. “

  26. Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    It sounds like just another instance of the Authoritarian Left’s thesis that a person or an institution must be 100% virtuous or they want no part of it, presented as a form of protest. She’s not an organ donor so she can maintain her hatred of institutions and write about it.

  27. Posted March 17, 2018 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    This is BS, if more people donate then more people get organs and the field opens up wider for being accepted as a candidate for an organ.

    People like her are the reason for the subjective decisions, because there are not enough to go around. If everyone donated there would be an abundance and no one would have to be refused for lack of availability

    So much for the generous nature of theists.

    • Carl S
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Yes, but if NO ONE donates, then all would-be recipients will be treated equally, regardless of socio-economic level, race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual identity/orientation, etc. True justice will have been achieved!

  28. Craw
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Over-educated: adj, person who understands that the dog in the manger is not supposed to be a role model.

  29. Posted March 17, 2018 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  30. Posted March 17, 2018 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Since donated organs are a scarce resource, the goal is often to find the best host (recipient) for the organ so that it does not go to waste.

    I’m amazed she failed to see the flaw in her logic whilst writing that sentence down. Organs are scarce, so only privileged people get them, so she’s going to protest by doing her bit to keep organs scarce.

  31. Michael Fisher
    Posted March 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    THE HYPOCRISY [or is it conflict of interest? or both?] OF KRISTEL CLAYVILLE:

    QUOTE:

    Kristel Clayville, a life-long member of Bridgeport Christian Church (BCC), was ordained into the ministry of the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, on Saturday, May 20 [2017], at BCC.

    Kristel is the daughter of Mary Clayville and the late Jim Clayville and is married to Mandy Burton. She is currently a resident of Chicago.

    She completed a residency at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, serving on the medical ethics committee, the palliative care team and as a chaplain for transplant patients. She has held teaching positions at a number of schools, including the University of Chicago, Elmhurst College, Centre College, Claremont School of Theology, Meadville Lombard Theological School and Saint Mary’s College. Kristel studied in Israel as part of a Fulbright Fellowship.

    The ordination service will include representatives of both the Kentucky and Illinois/Wisconsin regional ministries, the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, and BCC, as her home congregation. We join with Kristel and her family in the celebration of this significant accomplishment.

    SOURCE

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted March 17, 2018 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

      Clinical Experience
      CPE Residency, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 2015 – 2016.

      ** Member of the Medical Ethics Committee for the hospital
      ** Member of the Palliative Care team
      Chaplain for Transplant patients
      ** Various ethics presentations to chaplains, medical students, and medical fellows
      SOURCE: HER CV

      • Diane G.
        Posted March 17, 2018 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

        Well, that was an eye-opener. So I checked one of Jerry’s links and found this:

        Clinically, she served as a chaplain to liver and kidney transplant patients at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in 2015-2016, while also collaborating with transplant surgeons and ethicists on research.

        One wonders if she’s the only one of the Ethics Fellowship group who feels this way or whether she’s expressing a group conclusion; one that might then be taught to others?

        https://macleanethics.uchicago.edu/fellowship/current/

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted March 17, 2018 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

          After looking at her many social media outlets – she doesn’t notice that she herself is the enemy that she despises.

          And she is ‘picky’ about her causes so as to least discomfort herself:
          The ‘out’ lesbian Christian not making waves
          The anti-capitalist with a range of decently paid gigs not making waves

          Smug & fatuous

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 17, 2018 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

            I think her stated attitude has to be a conflict of interest to the ethics board because how is it ethical or demonstrative of the kind of careful thinking required of ethics. I wonder if there is a bona fide ethicist ok that hospital board.

          • Diane G.
            Posted March 17, 2018 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

            Nice, succinct characterization.

            Why are these people always so full of themselves?! (rhetorical question)

  32. Posted March 18, 2018 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    Since I hate privileged people, I will do my best to harm them, no matter how many underprivileged get harmed along the way! Kinda defeats the whole point of social justice, doesn’t it?

    And “overeducated”? I’m tempted to dismiss any argument that uses that word.

  33. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:19 am | Permalink

    What an utter pillock!

    “I’m going to behave like a selfish asshole because, just possibly, somebody I disapprove of might benefit”.

    This is an argument for never, ever doing anything good, or altruistic, or worthwhile, or beneficial to society.

    I suggest she stops paying taxes because, inevitably, some unworthy person somewhere will benefit from some portion of her tax money. I suggest that with infinite malice, knowing exactly how far that argument will get her with the IRS…

    cr

  34. Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    The ultimate, one day she, or someone close in her circle of kin and friends may need an organ, will she refuse the organ for herself? discourage someone close from excepting a donated organ?

  35. Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    The ultimate, one day she, or someone close in her circle of kin and friends may need an organ, will she refuse the organ for herself? discourage someone close from excepting a donated organ?

  36. grasshopper
    Posted March 18, 2018 at 2:44 am | Permalink

    I remember hearing about the Israeli approach to organ transplants and organ donations. A person who needs a transplant will be given priority if they have already become an organ donor themselves.
    I found this link/explanation in The New York Times.

    The Israeli program was initiated by Dr. Jacob Lavee, a cardiothoracic surgeon who heads the heart transplant program of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer. In 2005, he had two ultra-Orthodox, Haredi Jewish patients on his ward who were awaiting heart transplants. The patients confided in him that they would never consider donating organs, in accordance with Haredi Jewish beliefs, but that they had absolutely no qualms about accepting organs from others.

    That Haredi Jews would not donate organs was a well-known fact in Israel. But this was the first time anyone had openly admitted the paradox to Dr. Lavee.

    The unfairness of a segment of society unwilling to donate organs, but happy to accept them, nagged at Dr. Lavee. After he operated on both patients, giving each a new lease on life, he put together a proposal that would give priority to those patients willing to donate their organs.

    Working with rabbis, ethicists, lawyers, academics and members of the public, he and other medical experts worked to create a new law in 2010, which will take full effect this year: if two patients have identical medical needs for an organ transplant, priority will be given to the patient who has signed a donor card, or whose family member has donated an organ in the past.

    A neat way of increasing the availability of donor organs are laws which stipulate that if you really don’t want your organs touched after death, then you must sign a form saying so at the time of your driving licence renewal. It has been found that many people can’t be bothered with the extra paperwork, so they default to becoming donors.

    P.S. This didn’t post the first time .. double post danger.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    • Posted March 23, 2018 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      I admit I am the opposite case: while I am a potential bone marrow donor, I haven’t registered myself as a potential organ donor because the associated paperwork is too much for me. I hope they will just change the rules to default donation. My doctor with whom I discussed the procedure told me that I am his only patient to ask this question. We concluded that people do not mind to donate but shun the thought of their imminent death; we know of course that we are mortal, but do not fully come to term with this knowledge.

  37. grasshopper
    Posted March 18, 2018 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    I left off the link to the NYT article. Here ’tis.

    https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/in-israel-a-new-approach-to-organ-donation/

  38. Bob
    Posted March 18, 2018 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    The Eureka College Red Devils! Really!?

  39. Posted March 18, 2018 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Once again, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

  40. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted March 19, 2018 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    More religion based insanity. Why withhold permission for organ donation? Neither you nor your healthy relatives will have any use for them, but they could save a few lives. What the fuck is wrong with these assholes???

  41. Shubel Morgan
    Posted April 13, 2018 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Some of us still believe that organ transplantation is an abomination that wholly and completely violates the Will of God, regardless of any other motivations.

    • Posted April 13, 2018 at 10:41 am | Permalink

      Hmm – I assume that you also don’t eat shellfish, rabbit or pork and don’t wear mixed fabrics, etc., which are also abominations and in violation of the Will of God, eh?

    • Bob Dickson
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…and the “some” (of us).

      Spock- Cosmic mouth piece of god.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      Shubel < the caring vulture:
      index

    • Paul S
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      What about treatment for cancer treatment or any deadly disease? For that matter, wouldn’t any life saving treatment also violate the Will of God?
      Where do you draw the line and why?

      • Paul S
        Posted April 13, 2018 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        What about treatment for cancer treatment……

        I need to proofread. 😦

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:03 am | Permalink

          I’m sure you can get treatment for that trait.

    • Posted April 13, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      I’m interested in your rationale for that belief. Is it supported by scripture? If so, which one(s)?

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted April 13, 2018 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        I’d like to know that too. Why do you believe that?

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:04 am | Permalink

        It’s definitely not in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (SBUHMB).

    • J. Quinton
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      How weak your god is. Is this the sum of your hate?

    • Mark Perew
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      I’d be interested in hearing your theological support for that position. What scripture or set of arguments leads to this conclusion?

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      Oh, ook! Tumbleweed!
      The other iconic invasive species of western movies.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:06 am | Permalink

        [Cues up for the proofreading treatment. Wire brush and Dettol?]

        • Diane G.
          Posted April 15, 2018 at 3:48 am | Permalink

          I thought “ook” was most evocative.

          • gravelinspector-Aidan
            Posted April 16, 2018 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

            At least one Librarian would agree. Ook!

  42. Martin X
    Posted April 13, 2018 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    My mother also thinks it’s a bad idea….people will be missing organs when the dead rise at the Second Coming. That’s why she told my father that she wouldn’t allow him to be cremated.

    • MP
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      >>she wouldn’t allow him to be cremated.

      Good. No Hindus will arise from dead at the Second Coming

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:13 am | Permalink

        You know, that thing about the dead rising again, resurrected but not re-incarnated (ie, in the body they died in, not a recreation of their body in life) is peculiar when you think about it. For a religion that originated in warm climates, if not hot, I’m sure they knew what happened to bodies in the ground, pretty damned quick. (In temperate to cool northern climes bodies can last a lot longer in the ground.) So where did this idea of the bodies rising from the grave come from?
        It smells to me a bit of the Egyptian idea derived from natural mummification. Before they got onto that mucking about with the canopic jars and the evisceration and de-braining.
        One for the comparative religionists.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: