ZC3rr0r

It's incredibly sad to hear someone die of a preventable cause this young, but I can also somewhat relate with the people who reviewed her application.

If a living donor wouldn't have been sufficient, they've now created two patients where they previously had one, and without improving the primary patient's condition. It makes sense that a donor organ from a deceased donor would be preferable.

That said, the current requirement for the patient to meet deceased donor standards for transplantation to be eligible to use a willing living donor make no sense. Both situations should have their own unique criteria, given that a living donor situation involves different risks for both the patient and the donor than a deceased donor situation would incur.

Ultimately this whole situation boils down to a scarcity situation though. If we want to solve this, it will require more people to register themselves as a donor and a review of the eligibility criteria as soon as more donors are available.

I'm sorry to hear that. And yes, it's depressing to see these "privitization will save us all" types destroy public services using the same old playbook of "defund, defund, defund, point out the issues after decades of defunding, then start to slow-roll private options until the public service has been fully hollowed out" everywhere.

This might be a bit sensitive of a question to ask, but what country are you in? Because I've lived in several western European countries and the access to healthcare wildly varies between them. Especially countries that've "enjoyed" a multitude of conservative/right wing governments over the past three decades seem to have really embraced enshittifying healthcare access and affordability while pushing an American-style private system as the "solution".

How is this so accurate?

We never thought about it, but of our three cats, the girls are named after a goddess and an empress, while the boy cat is named after a Starbucks menu item.

What can they do? How about making the cellular models modular? 3G goes bust? Swap the modem for a 4G one next time the car is in for service.

Remember how we used to think people should retire in old age, instead of running a country? Pepperidge farm remembers.

That last part is the terrifying bit, honestly. Trump is an egomaniac with the attention span of a toddler. He's an unguided projectile of spite and vanity.

Imagine someone competent filling his shoes with the unprecedented powers that were recently granted by the supreme court and the rabid MAGA fanbase behind them.

The potential for lasting damage goes (even further) off the scale. I shudder to think what that might actually look like.

Honestly, in the event Biden loses, the best hope the US has is Trump's general incompetence.

"Fighting solves everything" - These guys are really out there thinking they can punch the genie of social progress back into the bottle. If this were a parody people would say it's too ridiculous to be true.

Talk about a terrible way to go. For everyone involved. That's a lot of people that'll need trauma counseling for sure.

You're looking for a reason but refuse to accept one when provided. The reason assistance in dying is not suicide is blatantly obvious; the definition of suicide is an act in which one person takes their own life. End of sentence. Adding another person makes it a different act, and whether you like it or not, at least the legal system agrees on this.

I'm done debating this. Have a good day.

No, it's common parlance that attempts to avoid previous words associated with stigma.

That's not entirely honest - you're also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called "debatable") and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.

I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn't.

What I said, and what you're conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there's very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).

Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

What you're trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).