Steve Jobs: "I could have died," without the liver transplant

Last year, Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, underwent a secret liver transplant needed to save his life. The whole ordeal was kept quiet, much like everything else that Jobs and Apple do, but today he spoke up with California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in order to push for a reform of the state's process for organ donation.

The current organ donation system in California allows residents to put a pink sticker on their driver's license should they wish to become an organ donor.  However, this means that a lot of people living in the state never consider the option and it goes ignored. The bill that is being promoted by Jobs will mean that it is compulsory for a citizen to either accept or decline the organ donor program when their renew their license, having the effect that a lot more people will be aware of the situation.

When Jobs fell ill and needed a transplant last year, there were not enough usable livers for everybody who needed them – the CEO pointed out that 400 Californians died waiting for their chance to get a transplant at the same time he was, so he got very lucky. Jobs' financial situation allowed him to sign up for a liver transplant in Memphis, and fly to the required hospital when he was needed, though the vast majority of people living in the area (or even around the world) don't have that option.

According to AppleInsider, Jobs managed to contact Schwarzenegger through the governor's wife, who is now helping to get the new bill passed. It goes to show how much Jobs is willing to keep back from the world (though, this is a personal and private matter, so one wouldn't expect him to openly discuss it), even when it's a matter of life or death.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple now accepting iPad app submissions

Next Story

Ubuntu 10.04 beta 1 released

139 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is a very personal decision and it should not be forced. Forcing people to 'accept' or 'decline' is not going to do much to raise awareness and education about organ donation. Providing information and encouraging people to make a toughtful decision will go much farther than forcing a yes or no upon license renewal.

But Jobs knows what's best for everyone, right?

I dont like the fact they "force" you into it. I understand and am totally with people that say after your dead, if your organs are good and someone needs them, it gives them a second shot at life. I would happily do that, BUT, everyone in my family and its religion/culture to get cremated and ill be getting cremated along with my family. So, the ashes will fly in the wind where all my family members have been.

If it wasnt for that, I would happily be on board of the pink sticker.

Gee, I wonder how much it cost for Jobs to get on the top of the list? Let's see...$25 million /year to fly on his own personal Gulfstream to Memphis from California, $1 million or more to dontate to the Memphis hospital to "thank" them, and $1 million or or more for the operation, etc... The trials and tribulations of being a multi-billionaire!

What ****s me is that in Australia, if you are an organ donor, you die, your next of kin can still refuse to sign the donor forms.

"I could have died"
My dream almost came true. Unfortunately it didn't.

That liver should have gone to some 700 people who died instead. At least they are not as egocentric and think that they're Gods.

day2die said,
"I could have died"
My dream almost came true. Unfortunately it didn't.

That liver should have gone to some 700 people who died instead. At least they are not as egocentric and think that they're Gods.

Don't be so sure. He got it from Memphis.

Here in New Zealand organ donor status is an official part of every license with its own section number and everything; it's amazing that California has been getting by with just a sticker. Hopefully this bill will pass. Even if only a few additional people become donors it will still help save lives.

vice le von said,
He could have died, so disappointed.
Thankfully I can still dream about it.


Perhaps next time I will run him over with an 18 Wheeler.

it's done this wayin other states you get id/lisance and they ask want to be a donar yes or no and thats that. rather havve the option there then not, because it makes people away of it. oh wait i can save someone else okay why not. not like i need the organ if i'm dead anyways

Xerino said,
Steve said he was lucky??? bull****.... he probably paid serious coin for that liver

Whilst I agree with you, and he probably did, and it was morrally wrong, I think if either of us was on our death bed, you would probably do the same.

barteh said,

Whilst I agree with you, and he probably did, and it was morrally wrong, I think if either of us was on our death bed, you would probably do the same.

Nope, I would go skydiving without a Parachute. I could not live with myself, I could never do that to people. He is evil!!


Neither his life nor mine is worth it. I hope GOD is more forgiving than I. Oh wait, there is no GOD. Damn man, he's ****ed! lol

Edited by war, Mar 20 2010, 10:50pm :

So Steve Jobs wants to join in on the propaganda, aye? Forcing us to buy anything is wrong! I can't wait to be fined $25,000 and thrown in jail for a year simply because I can't afford the extortion that's being called "health care reform". This isn't reform, it's tyranny!

s1k3sT said,
So Steve Jobs wants to join in on the propaganda, aye? Forcing us to buy anything is wrong! I can't wait to be fined $25,000 and thrown in jail for a year simply because I can't afford the extortion that's being called "health care reform". This isn't reform, it's tyranny!

Nobody has ever been thrown in jail because they couldn't afford something.....The first take away your house, car, all your possessions and if that's not enough they take away your life savings and everything and if even that's not enough they go to your immediate descendants and make them pay too. Personally, I'd take jail time over having to lose everything.

Edited by vladmphoto, Mar 20 2010, 5:59pm :

ManOfMystery said,

Nobody has ever been thrown in jail because they couldn't afford something.....The first take away your house, car, all your possessions and if that's not enough they take away your life savings and everything and if even that's not enough they go to your immediate descendants and make them pay too. Personally, I'd take jail time over having to lose everything.

What do you even mean?! They are going to force us to buy health insurance, that's a fact. They are tying it in with taxes so when you don't pay you get in trouble for not filling taxes, which is a $25,000 fine and a year in jail. Right now you get a huge debt but no jail, what they are proposing you get both. How is that not worse?

s1k3sT said,

What do you even mean?! They are going to force us to buy health insurance, that's a fact. They are tying it in with taxes so when you don't pay you get in trouble for not filling taxes, which is a $25,000 fine and a year in jail. Right now you get a huge debt but no jail, what they are proposing you get both. How is that not worse?

What? No, wait, what? Well for one thing, you've got your facts wrong. Nobody will be paying for health insurance with their tax dollars. If you don't have insurance, you'll be fined, and that fine will be added to your tax burden, up to a maximum of roughly $2k or 2.5% of your household income. No jail time.

There are more reasonable angles to criticize it from, but if you're just going to spread FUD, you might as well just not make an argument in the first place. Personally, I don't like the idea of a government mandate to give money to something non-government. If we're going to be required to buy insurance, the government should be required to offer a competing public option. Otherwise it feels like a mandate to be good consumers. Throw a public option out there? I'll be on board. Unfortunately it's looking like Obama and the certain legislators made some deals with the industry to make sure it wouldn't happen.

guys...this subject is not up for debate. we have no say on how these things go, the government does and they are corrupt as hell. we all know steve jobs paid BIG $$ to be on top of that transplant list too.

barteh said,
I wonder who died in Memphis because Steve Jobs signed up somewhere else, simply because he could afford to?
Thank God, it was not me.

Does anyone who responded here actually live in Calif. (Thats 1st off).
Currently, when they mail you a DL they send a little insert card with a sticker that says donor. If you bother take and look at all the other papers that come in the envelope and read each one then you would see that. However, in our "I only a 30 sec. attention span" most people only grab the license and then throw the other papers in a drawer or away and never bother to look at them. What this option says is that they will ask you during the application (or renewal form process) and if you say yes then they will imprint it directly on your license. **The same way that they imprint UNDER 18 for those under 18**. So this still leaves you the choice. Saying no on the form is opt out, so yes this is opt out however, its on the form in front of you, if you miss it, then its your fault. It is hoped that this way more people will actually answer the question one way or the other.

you know Steve, it is probably the time that you yourself start giving back to the community. It is ironic that it took a liver transplant for you to understand the importance of social responsibility. but, it seems you have understood nothing at all really. Instead of setting up a fund/charity and contributing with your own money, you have the nerve to push a bill that forces others to donate their organs.

In followup to my previous comments, one obvious option would be that the people working at a Department of Motor Vehicles office (Driver's License facility or whatever you call it) would have a prompt or window that pops up on their screen to ask the man/woman they are helping about being a organ donor. The system could be set up so that the worker cannot go forward until yes/no is answered (and whatever, if any, paperwork necessary is printed out). This would be a more proactive approach to bringing up the subject and making sure the state gets a yes or no without being a default "yes" and a need to opt-out.

And again, the presumption that after you die your body doesn't matter to you or similar arguments is not considerate of other factors, especially religious/spiritual/Scriptural views or concerns about what happens after physical death.

ahhell said,
What an arrogant ****!

"I had the money to buy a new liver. Thanks suckers! LOL"

*******.


that sounds about right. wonder if he'll buy other organs if he needs them

timster said,

that sounds about right. wonder if he'll buy other organs if he needs them
Of course, who does not want to live forever.

Opt out does not work....Ultra-Orthodox Judaism does not allow for organ transplant, and many others would have to have approvals from their religious leaders. There are tons of sites that say otherwise, but certain sects of most large religions do not allow this. Look up the tenets of the haredim, they actually issue and anti-organ donor card, this is why opt-out is a bad idea. Simply because the major sects accept it, does not mean that all underlying ones do.

Religions involving re-incarnation are the most accepting as the body is irrelevant.

schubb said,
Opt out does not work....Ultra-Orthodox Judaism does not allow for organ transplant, and many others would have to have approvals from their religious leaders. There are tons of sites that say otherwise, but certain sects of most large religions do not allow this. Look up the tenets of the haredim, they actually issue and anti-organ donor card, this is why opt-out is a bad idea. Simply because the major sects accept it, does not mean that all underlying ones do.

Religions involving re-incarnation are the most accepting as the body is irrelevant.

Religions involving re-incarnation use that reasoning, yea.. but its not as if Christians and Jews think the body is important in itself. Many Christian thinkers have understood the body as evil, for instance. The issue is less about the body and more about giving dignity to the person that's dead; its supposed to ingrain a culture of respect, for the person and for life in general.

For instance, if its ok to treat a dead body like its a commodity, the feeling is that it will lead the culture to devalue people and treat people in general like commodities.

This is a problem sometimes, that in these religions dignity is believed to be more important than death, or suffering. Thats one Mother Theresa has been criticized -- because she didn't offer anyone she helped any medical attention, she just wanted them to die with dignity.

Edited by brianshapiro, Mar 21 2010, 12:53am :

We have this in Indiana, every time you go get your license renewed they just ask if you want to be a donor. If you say yes, when they print your license out, there is a donor section on it and they print a heart on it.

I'm a donor. And its a good idea for them to ask when getting the license renewed. It doesn't hurt anyone and it makes everyone aware of it.

Well I have two points to make. 1. Yes his financial status did contribute greatly to him getting a new liver. In the USA, organ transplant coordination is handled by a firm called UNOS which does all the administrative stuff. You are put on a waiting list and UNOS takes care of the matching process required for a new organ and as more and more people ahead of you on the transplant list get organs you keep moving up. There is no doubt that in this world money is power. If you have lots of money you can accomplish a lot more than a person earning 50k a year. It's a tough thing to digest but you better get used to it.
2. I think the bill should be passed because it is a simple question which you have the option to say 'no' to. Instead of them leaving it up to you to get informed on the donation process, they ask each and everyone if they would donate their organs in the event of your death......Honestly, I think people make such a big deal about what happens to them after death. First of all, you're dead and it really doesn't matter anymore. You will rot in the ground anyways so wouldn't it be better for your organs to save a dozen other lives? I think that's a much better alternative.

I wish if I was rich, I would get special treatment. I'm not saying that is what happened. Since the beginning when man realized their was power in wealth. It's always been like this. So if their was some "back room deals" going on. Lets not get too caught up in it. Just be happy that "modern" medicine has advanced itself that people have a choice now. Remember that in the past, people just died.

P.S. I'll take damn sexy over being rich anyday. You will live longer.

Why is it nobody bashes him for buying himself a top spot on the list of another state? He essentially caused somebody in that other state to die who didnt have the money to BUY a new liver. Your liver can fail due to other things besides alcohol and drug abuse.

Jobs is an egotistical ****** who doesn't deserve any better treatment than the next guy. I might think differnt if he was some type of humanitariun or even an occasional charity giver but he is so self absorbed that I wouldn't shed a tear if he was still waiting for a liver transplant. I just wonder who had to die in order for him to get his new liver.

speedstr3789 said,
Jobs is an egotistical ****** who doesn't deserve any better treatment than the next guy. I might think differnt if he was some type of humanitariun or even an occasional charity giver but he is so self absorbed that I wouldn't shed a tear if he was still waiting for a liver transplant. I just wonder who had to die in order for him to get his new liver.

If you hate him so much why don't you call in a hit. I am sure 80% of neowin will chip in.


Lamp0 said,

If you hate him so much why don't you call in a hit. I am sure 80% of neowin will chip in.


I'd give my liver to make it so.

i remember one very bad joke saying

"i hate that Steve jobs had liver transplant but i have to replace my ipad for a battery."

that's is just mean

Quick clarification... when I mentioned knowing the definitions of words and how they are used. I am talking about a Law Dicitonary, not a common dictionary. You've got to understand legal speak. Clinton talked about this during that one deposition where he said "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." I recommend Black's Law Dicitonary 4th Edition as well as maybe the 5th or 6th Edition. The later editions have a tendency to get more watered down. So, comparing an older version with a newer version is a good idea to see if the original definitions in the older editions were more thorough.

This is a good place to start, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1910).

http://books.google.com/books?...sec=frontcover&dq=Black%27s+Law+Dicitonary&as_brr=1&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I have newer versions that are public domain if anyone wants them. Hope this helps clarify...

One problem with this is the assumptions involved, like the assumption that everyone has a Driver's License and/or that it is required. A Driver's License is NOT required in any state in America that I am aware of to travel in a personal automobile, which is NOT a commercial activity. But, most people think (i.e. have been indoctrinated to believe) that what they do is Drive or Operate a Motor Vehicle, which is a commercial activity and, therefore, requires a Driver's License. Frist step is to know the law and the definitions of the words being used as well as how they are being used.

Beyond that whole Driver's License issue, I have mixed feelings about the proposed opt-out system. To a large degree, I agree with k7of9... you shouldn't have to take action to undo some default decision/action. That applies to many things you have to opt-out of, like telling your bank that it is NOT okay to share certain information, but unless you read thru the privacy statement, etc, you maybe don't realize what they are sharing and that you can opt-out of having x, y, & z shared.

In this case, I agree, in general the idea is to help people live that might die and that is a good thing. I also understand that it sounds like there is going to be more of an attempt to make people aware of the issue and people will obviously be able to opt-out. But, I have a feeling that over time more and more people will be unaware of the opt-out system and those that would opt-out won't. Their ignorance will be trumped by the fact that a default decision was made.

And then there are the religious or other factors. If one is a believer in The Scriptures and has accepted the gift of salvation thru Yahushua Messiah (often called "Jesus"), do you care about your body parts? How does that factor in when bodies are raised from the dead as discussed in The Scriptures? I bring those issues up because some just believe "I'm dead. I don't need the body.", but others don't believe that.

Ultimately, in general, I think the idea of trying to help more people get organs is a good idea, but there are many factors. Maybe, just maybe, the best solution is NOT an opt-out system as described, but simply a little more done to make people aware of the issue and real encouragement to think about it and act.

And let's not forget that every time you give government (or allow them to take and don't tell them "No, you are NOT doing that.") more authority that is supposed to be temporary, it is usually permanent. Let's not be foolish enough to believe that this system wouldn't have to be watched closely. That usually doesn't happen because We The People get complacent or sidetracked or both. The opt-out part could always be removed, especially when we see the documents and speeches taking place in the U.N. and other organizations pushing for some authority to decide when the elderly get/don't get medication, are allowed to die, etc.

Food for thought...

(and a total violation of one's right to decide what happens to their own body.
Sure, just opt-out right? Well I find it totally unacceptable the choice is made for you and you have to take action to "reclaim" your own body.
The human body is not a car. For some reason people seem to think it's without question one would want to donate parts of their body. There's people that, for whatever reason, don't want to. Be it religious reasons or personal convictions, it's actually not relevant. Others may object to donate without knowing who the beneficiary would be. I for one would never want parts of my body to end up in a child molester or rapist)

When your body parts are to be harvested, you will no longer be here, so it will be impossible to violate your rights. I think what your are complaining about is the idea of having to look at the issue and make a decision. Well, Boo Hoo for you. There are some of us who think that people's lives are more important, than your discomfort.

I live in Hungary. Everyone is a potential donor here. You could reject it of course. But think about it. You're dead. You don't need your organs anymore and those organs could save a life.

As a med student, I know a lot of things about organ donation.

You need to have the same blood type, same HLAs, the same viral infections ( if you had one ) and your age is important too... and so so on, but it is not sure, your body won't reject the organ you got.

More organ donor, more chance. YOU DON'T NEED YOUR ORGANS WHILE YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY !

Israel is looking at a new law that could help organ donation.... if you do not sign a organ donor card, then your at the bottom of the waiting list. Certified donors will get preference!! May sound mean but why the hell not.. if you want to play the game show us your cards.

Apple-a-Day said,
Israel is looking at a new law that could help organ donation.... if you do not sign a organ donor card, then your at the bottom of the waiting list. Certified donors will get preference!! May sound mean but why the hell not.. if you want to play the game show us your cards.

Or they can have free Palestinian donors.

They should just make it so that everyone over 18yrs old has to donate by default and post letters to everyone saying if you don't want to donate please phone this number or go to this website and opt out. This way there would never be a shortage of organs. They shouldn't just do this for drivers license renewing, they should do it for everyone.

Why driving licenses though? That isn't something everyone has. What if you don't/can't drive? Wouldn't passers be a better option?

FunkTrooper said,
Why driving licenses though? That isn't something everyone has. What if you don't/can't drive? Wouldn't passers be a better option?

That has always got me too. There are a lot of people that don't have and never will have a license. I guess they're not allowed to donate. It would make more sense to have it on something like a SSN(US)/SIN(Cdn) or whatever else it is for your country. Make it mandatory when you turn 18 that you have to update those cards and fill out the required donation part.

FunkTrooper said,
Why driving licenses though? That isn't something everyone has. What if you don't/can't drive? Wouldn't passers be a better option?

Perhaps something to do with the high fatility rate from car accidents, and organs being used for those purposes?

edit: never mind that doesn't count passengers

Edited by Salty Wagyu, Mar 20 2010, 2:45pm :

dogmai said,

That has always got me too. There are a lot of people that don't have and never will have a license. I guess they're not allowed to donate. It would make more sense to have it on something like a SSN(US)/SIN(Cdn) or whatever else it is for your country. Make it mandatory when you turn 18 that you have to update those cards and fill out the required donation part.

Yeah kinda like how 18 year old boys have to fill out the military Selective Service card.

"Jobs' financial situation allowed him to sign up for a liver transplant in Memphis, and fly to the required hospital when he was needed, though the vast majority of people living in the area (or even around the world) don't have that option."

This is why I don't take people seriously when they say "money isn't that important"

Money will get you the best healthcare in the world when you need it, and that is the most important thing there is. QED Money is the most important thing there is.

For those who bitch at the rich man living, he's not an idiot. He's doing everything he can to stay alive. I would take out a mortgage for £500,000 if I knew that loan would let me live.

Right on.

It makes me laugh how a number of people in here are upset that Jobs jumped the queue for his transplant because he was rich. If it was someone in your family, or YOU that needed that transplant and you had the money to do it, you'd damn well do everything you could to make sure it was you who got it. Frankly anyone that says otherwise is a liar!

Chicane-UK said,
Right on.

It makes me laugh how a number of people in here are upset that Jobs jumped the queue for his transplant because he was rich. If it was someone in your family, or YOU that needed that transplant and you had the money to do it, you'd damn well do everything you could to make sure it was you who got it. Frankly anyone that says otherwise is a liar!

Yes but he bought himself the top spot in a state that has a huge poor population That is not right.

majortom1981 said,

Yes but he bought himself the top spot in a state that has a huge poor population That is not right.

If it wasn't Jobs, it would have been a lesser rich, but still rich nonetheless person.

Just happens that this time it was a famous and rich person.

Chicane-UK said,
Right on.

It makes me laugh how a number of people in here are upset that Jobs jumped the queue for his transplant because he was rich. If it was someone in your family, or YOU that needed that transplant and you had the money to do it, you'd damn well do everything you could to make sure it was you who got it. Frankly anyone that says otherwise is a liar!

Well, then, I suppose you could call it a systemic problem with humanity's concept of being rich. The fact that we think because we're rich (myself not included) we can buy our way into anything, even at the expense of someone else's life (he killed someone else who was waiting for that liver, plain and simple)... The fact that any state thinks that's ok is just plain wrong.

Chicane-UK said,
Right on.

It makes me laugh how a number of people in here are upset that Jobs jumped the queue for his transplant because he was rich. If it was someone in your family, or YOU that needed that transplant and you had the money to do it, you'd damn well do everything you could to make sure it was you who got it. Frankly anyone that says otherwise is a liar!

Um no. Some of us think anther's life is more important than their own. I'd gladly take my name off the list if someone I loved needed one too. But yes I would try to do everything I could for a love one. But yes I would take my name completely off the list to save another if I truly believed it would save that other person, even a stranger.

The Jambo said,
For those who bitch at the rich man living, he's not an idiot. He's doing everything he can to stay alive. I would take out a mortgage for £500,000 if I knew that loan would let me live.

That's not the point. The point is that Jobs' life was valued more only because he had money. When net worth determines your priority on an organ donor list that is very, very sad. How'd you like to be the person to tell a family that their loved one died because a richer person bumped them down on the priority list?

Of course Jobs should have done everything in his power to stay alive. But the fact that his life was valued more than others who were already on a waiting list simply because he had deeper pockets is pretty sick.

I knew that dude was sick, though to be honest i figured he'd be dead not long after his "vacation" from the day to day runnings of Apple..... Honestly, though, it's not too cool that he effectively bought his liver.... If he was on a list with 400 other people, he may well have killed one of them to save himself. And don't think he's out of the woods either... He could reject that liver any time, even with taking the immunosuppressant drugs, and be in the same exact situation he was in before the transplant.

To the person who said he was more available to go where the liver was- totally irrelevent. I mean, they fly those organs all over the place on a regular basis.... Practically anyone in the US could have gotten that liver no matter where they lived (save for maybe hawaii)..... Patients don't need to do the work to get their organ... Don't need to "go where the organ is"... He did it because he's rich and he bribed the devil for some more time. don't dress it up.

Dr. Albert Spamstein said,
I knew that dude was sick, though to be honest i figured he'd be dead not long after his "vacation" from the day to day runnings of Apple..... Honestly, though, it's not too cool that he effectively bought his liver.... If he was on a list with 400 other people, he may well have killed one of them to save himself. And don't think he's out of the woods either... He could reject that liver any time, even with taking the immunosuppressant drugs, and be in the same exact situation he was in before the transplant.

To the person who said he was more available to go where the liver was- totally irrelevent. I mean, they fly those organs all over the place on a regular basis.... Practically anyone in the US could have gotten that liver no matter where they lived (save for maybe hawaii)..... Patients don't need to do the work to get their organ... Don't need to "go where the organ is"... He did it because he's rich and he bribed the devil for some more time. don't dress it up.


Or, maybe he got it on the black market? lol But yea I agree, he def. paid for it... I would have.

they dont fly the organs anywhere. There are districts and regions for organ donation setup. you have to go there. If you live in Washington and there's a liver in Florida, they dont UPS it to you. You have to go there and live there sometimes for an extended period of time to wait for an organ depending on your need.

He bought is liver plain and simple.

I'm glad this worked out for him, but with an admission like that, I wonder if the investigation into his not advising shareholders of his condition will be impacted... It seems that it would. I mean, he can't now downplay his condition in that case... ?

M_Lyons10 said,
I'm glad this worked out for him, but with an admission like that, I wonder if the investigation into his not advising shareholders of his condition will be impacted... It seems that it would. I mean, he can't now downplay his condition in that case... ?

There's an investigation into that? lmfao He just put it right in their faces. Wow

It is one thing to encourage people to to donate - and they should donate. It is another thing to force people into choosing. With each passing day, Steve Jobs becomes the guy in the 1984 commercial on the screen; big brother watching over everything.

nohone said,
It is one thing to encourage people to to donate - and they should donate. It is another thing to force people into choosing. With each passing day, Steve Jobs becomes the guy in the 1984 commercial on the screen; big brother watching over everything.

It's a choice; your approval or disproval is entirely up to you. Not like they're forcing people to give up their livers upon death.

nohone said,
It is one thing to encourage people to to donate - and they should donate. It is another thing to force people into choosing. With each passing day, Steve Jobs becomes the guy in the 1984 commercial on the screen; big brother watching over everything.

All this does is bring awareness... What is the difference between you being asked if you want to be an organ donor and saying no, and never being asked? I mean, aside from all the people that WOULD be organ donors, but don't know about the program... You can still opt out quite easily...

"it is compulsory for a citizen to either accept or decline the organ donor program"

Compulsory - required; mandatory; obligatory

What if I had not thought about it before, and now to get my license, I need to make a decision on the spot or I do not get my license. The state of California will give drivers licenses to illegial aliens no questions asked, but if I (and I lived in California for 4 years when I went to school there) as a legal citizen want a drivers license I can be denied simply because I decide to refuse to choose to decline to answer.

I understand being bothered with being put on the spot for something like that, but the actual result for you is no different. If you decline to answer, you aren't an organ donor. If you answer no, you aren't an organ donor.

nohone said,
"it is compulsory for a citizen to either accept or decline the organ donor program"

Compulsory - required; mandatory; obligatory

What if I had not thought about it before, and now to get my license, I need to make a decision on the spot or I do not get my license. The state of California will give drivers licenses to illegial aliens no questions asked, but if I (and I lived in California for 4 years when I went to school there) as a legal citizen want a drivers license I can be denied simply because I decide to refuse to choose to decline to answer.

The default answer is no. If a man dies and hasn't expressed any wishes regarding organ donation (or, in some cases, his relatives), the answer is assumed to be no. So if you don't want to think about it, just say no.

nohone said,
"it is compulsory for a citizen to either accept or decline the organ donor program"

Compulsory - required; mandatory; obligatory

What if I had not thought about it before, and now to get my license, I need to make a decision on the spot or I do not get my license. The state of California will give drivers licenses to illegial aliens no questions asked, but if I (and I lived in California for 4 years when I went to school there) as a legal citizen want a drivers license I can be denied simply because I decide to refuse to choose to decline to answer.


Then check no! It's really that simple.

nohone said,
"it is compulsory for a citizen to either accept or decline the organ donor program"

Compulsory - required; mandatory; obligatory

What if I had not thought about it before, and now to get my license, I need to make a decision on the spot or I do not get my license. The state of California will give drivers licenses to illegial aliens no questions asked, but if I (and I lived in California for 4 years when I went to school there) as a legal citizen want a drivers license I can be denied simply because I decide to refuse to choose to decline to answer.

Of all the things involved in getting a license - registering your car, applying for a license, getting insurance - checking this box as yes or no is pretty minor. Don't like it? Check no, and it will be no different than before.

nohone said,

What if I had not thought about it before, and now to get my license, I need to make a decision on the spot or I do not get my license.
Just say no then (as you are effectively doing if you aren't asked at all) and then if you change your mind get the records updated later?

I think you should be asked at an earlier date but...maybe in any letter about license renewal so you have time to think it over. That said, I see no problem with it being a compulsory question.

Thought organ yes/no was on most developed world licenses... either way world would be a better place somehow if he threw in the towel.

people with money should not get better or faster treatment then those who have nothing or very little, theres a wait list and that should include people who have money, he only got lucky as he had money but imagine if he had no money he would have been put on a wait list and probably would not have survived, now if he were to donate more to the poor instead of being greedy and restrictive he would feel better about himself if he did a good deed everyday.

soldier1st said,
people with money should not get better or faster treatment then those who have nothing or very little, theres a wait list and that should include people who have money, he only got lucky as he had money but imagine if he had no money he would have been put on a wait list and probably would not have survived, now if he were to donate more to the poor instead of being greedy and restrictive he would feel better about himself if he did a good deed everyday.

Well, in fairness, he was on a wait list. His financial situation allowed him to drop everything and fly anywhere in the country when a liver turned up, meaning he was more available... But he was still on a list...

soldier1st said,
people with money should not get better or faster treatment then those who have nothing or very little

n/m...

Edited by nowimnothing, Mar 20 2010, 12:55pm :

soldier1st said,
people with money should not get better or faster treatment then those who have nothing or very little, theres a wait list and that should include people who have money, he only got lucky as he had money but imagine if he had no money he would have been put on a wait list and probably would not have survived, now if he were to donate more to the poor instead of being greedy and restrictive he would feel better about himself if he did a good deed everyday.
Wholeheartedly agree, but down there you can't really get anything done healthcare-wise without money. The whole system is flawed until healthcare reform of one kind or another passes.

soldier1st said,
people with money should not get better or faster treatment then those who have nothing or very little

He didn't, he just had the ability to get there in time. Otherwise he would have had to wait even longer.

Edited by Northgrove, Mar 20 2010, 6:22pm :

Northgrove said,

He didn't, he just had the ability to get there in time. Otherwise he would have had to wait even longer.
BS!!! Like you really know!

PeterTHX said,

Need to know where to get a liver transplant ASAP?

There's an app for that!

Need a brain? Don't ask Apple, they lost theirs back in the 70s thanks to LSD.

Edited by war, Mar 20 2010, 10:23pm :

Yup, 400 dead and a rich man that has, self admittedly, spent the better part of 40 years destroying his own body with booze and drugs... but it's alright because he's pushing for resolution to the problem now. Wonder how many of those 400 lost their lives as he paid his way up the list with donations.

Hospitals love the donor system the way it is (except for the lack of organs) because the ambiguity allows for them to make judgement calls... judgement calls that can lead to donations.

Nice of you to turn taking LSD in the 70's into "40 years of destroying his body with booze and drugs", maybe everybody with cancer does something to earn it. Given that those 400 were on a list in CA and he had a transplant from Memphis also means that he did not buy his way above the 400 either and doesn't the US health system work on the money rules principle anyway?

bobbba said,
Nice of you to turn taking LSD in the 70's into "40 years of destroying his body with booze and drugs", maybe everybody with cancer does something to earn it. Given that those 400 were on a list in CA and he had a transplant from Memphis also means that he did not buy his way above the 400 either and doesn't the US health system work on the money rules principle anyway?

Actually that means he bought himself to the top of the list in another state in effect causing somebody else on the list in that state to die.

majortom1981 said,

Actually that means he bought himself to the top of the list in another state in effect causing somebody else on the list in that state to die.

That's what I got out of that too. Seems wrong but money does always rule in the US, probably anywhere else too though.

Yup disgusting isnt it? 400 dead because the organ donor system can move organs from one district to another. So a usable liver in Tennessee came up and he got it where it could have been used somewhere else for someone who waited longer than he did.

Gotta love the rich, now there is truly nothing they cant buy.

AmazingRando said,
Yup disgusting isnt it? 400 dead because the organ donor system can move organs from one district to another. So a usable liver in Tennessee came up and he got it where it could have been used somewhere else for someone who waited longer than he did.

Gotta love the rich, now there is truly nothing they cant buy.

So sad! Life is a bitch ant it!

M2Ys4U said,
Opt-out systems are the only ones to provide a decent donation rate.

and a total violation of one's right to decide what happens to their own body.
Sure, just opt-out right? Well I find it totally unacceptable the choice is made for you and you have to take action to "reclaim" your own body.
The human body is not a car. For some reason people seem to think it's without question one would want to donate parts of their body. There's people that, for whatever reason, don't want to. Be it religious reasons or personal convictions, it's actually not relevant. Others may object to donate without knowing who the beneficiary would be. I for one would never want parts of my body to end up in a child molester or rapist.

Edited by k7of9, Mar 20 2010, 8:05am :

k7of9 said,

and a total violation of one's right to decide what happens to their own body.
Sure, just opt-out right? Well I find it totally unacceptable the choice is made for you and you have to take action to "reclaim" your own body.
The human body is not a car. For some reason people seem to think it's without question one would want to donate parts of their body. There's people that, for whatever reason, don't want to. Be it religious reasons or personal convictions, it's actually not relevant. Others may object to donate without knowing who the beneficiary would be. I for one would never want parts of my body to end up in a child molester or rapist.

How is an "opt out" system a violation? You opt out, and you no longer have to donate. Easy.

k7of9 said,

and a total violation of one's right to decide what happens to their own body.
Sure, just opt-out right? Well I find it totally unacceptable the choice is made for you and you have to take action to "reclaim" your own body.
The human body is not a car. For some reason people seem to think it's without question one would want to donate parts of their body. There's people that, for whatever reason, don't want to. Be it religious reasons or personal convictions, it's actually not relevant. Others may object to donate without knowing who the beneficiary would be. I for one would never want parts of my body to end up in a child molester or rapist.

I think the idea/benefit for an "opt out" system is generally most people would donate parts of their body, whereas very few sign up to do it. It still allows anyone with the decision they do not want to donate to opt out, so the decision is far from made for you.

The decision on what to do with peoples bodies after they die is not always made by the person anyway. Where they are buried or even what happens to the body is often decided by family. Have you stipulated what you want doing with your body? On your argument they should just leave you where you are.

metallithrax said,

How is an "opt out" system a violation? You opt out, and you no longer have to donate. Easy.

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

lt8480 said,

I think the idea/benefit for an "opt out" system is generally most people would donate parts of their body, whereas very few sign up to do it. It still allows anyone with the decision they do not want to donate to opt out, so the decision is far from made for you.

I know what the idea behind it is, I just don't agree with it.

The statement that most people would donate is based on assumption. If it holds true, seems to me the problem to deal with is getting those people to sign up instead of creating a workaround.
Why would I have to take action because others are to lazy to take their desired action?

And yes, the decision is made for me. Doesn't matter if I can undo the decision afterwards, it's till a decision made for me. I could be unaware of it, or for whatever reason not able to do something about it.

Long story short, I just hate the concept of opt-out systems, whether it be the issue at hand here, or anything else for that matter. Expecting people to take action to undo any decision made for them is ridiculous.
I guess you don't mind unsolicited mail or email either right? You can just opt out of it..

Edited by k7of9, Mar 20 2010, 10:43am :

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

You don't need your organs when you die so why withhold them. When I die I'd be happy to be ground up for spare parts! It's like a legacy - I'd die but many would live.

Sure, it could end up in someone bad. But I'd like to think there's a much greater chance that it would end up in someone who deserves a second shot at life.

I'm not in the mindset of punishing everyone for the crimes of the few, I'd rather put myself in the position of those people and families who are likely to suffer because one selfish person decided they'd prefer there body to rot 6-feet under as opposed to allow someone to live.

I'd personally like to see it go one step further than opt-out. How about those who do opt-out, aren't allowed to receive? Seems fair, right?

Edited by Axel, Mar 20 2010, 10:17am :

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

You have to weigh the pro's with the con's. This isn't some peice of paper affecting no-one, this action WILL save lives & reduce suffering. So I understand you might not like opt-out systems, but doesn't that seem a little selfish in this instance?

Edited by imachip, Mar 20 2010, 11:10am :

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

But that's a very inaccurate statement to begin with. It is not a default decision that you need to file a separate set of paperwork for. It is just a matter of having a section in the DMV forms that, instead of saying yes or no (proposed bills), ask you if you want to use their suggested option, or check a single box to opt out. Before filling out that form, nothing is decided for you.

Also, the default decision over what happens to your body was "waste it" before. Either way, there is a "default decision". Deciding what happens, however, is your task, and there's nothing to even "undo" as nothing is done before you tick that box or not.

k7of9 said,

and a total violation of one's right to decide what happens to their own body.
Sure, just opt-out right? Well I find it totally unacceptable the choice is made for you and you have to take action to "reclaim" your own body.
The human body is not a car. For some reason people seem to think it's without question one would want to donate parts of their body. There's people that, for whatever reason, don't want to. Be it religious reasons or personal convictions, it's actually not relevant. Others may object to donate without knowing who the beneficiary would be. I for one would never want parts of my body to end up in a child molester or rapist.

Thankfully, they're not proposing an opt-out situation. What they're proposing is opt-in... with more exposure to the question. Simple, really.

k7of9 said,

and a total violation of one's right to decide what happens to their own body.
Sure, just opt-out right? Well I find it totally unacceptable the choice is made for you and you have to take action to "reclaim" your own body.
The human body is not a car. For some reason people seem to think it's without question one would want to donate parts of their body. There's people that, for whatever reason, don't want to. Be it religious reasons or personal convictions, it's actually not relevant. Others may object to donate without knowing who the beneficiary would be. I for one would never want parts of my body to end up in a child molester or rapist.

If you don't like it you could always move?

M2Ys4U said,
Opt-out systems are the only ones to provide a decent donation rate.

Did anyone even read the article clearly? I didn't read anywhere in there that you had to opt-out. It just said you have to make a decision yes or no. You can't just ignore it. By the looks of it, there is no default because you're forced to make that decision therefore they can't make up your mind for you. They should still leave the default as no incase you forcefully refuse to choose. Then if I were the person giving you your license, I'd just refuse to give it to you.

It's a simple "You must decide yes or no to become an organ donor in order to receive your license today. If you choose not to decide, you do not get to receive your new or renewed license.".

No default decision.

Edited by The Guru Network, Mar 20 2010, 2:06pm :

dogmai said,

Did anyone even read the article clearly? I didn't read anywhere in there that you had to opt-out. It just said you have to make a decision yes or no. You can't just ignore it.
Yeah I think what he is saying is that that is less effective than defaulting to "yes" and then having people have to chase up to opt out. It makes sense too. A lot of people, myself included (we had this in my state in Australia) don't give any consideration to being a doner before getting a license...you are more concerned about the license itself and passing any tests required.


You pass and then theres this question of "will you be a doner" and if you havent actually thought about it theres a chance that comes across as "can we cut you up on your death". Really ts the sort of thing people need to think about and feel comfortable with making a decision. Throwing it in their face at a time like that (which may be stressful if they are applying for the license for the first time) will often result in the person declining when they may have been ok with it had they been given time to think it over.

I don't like the idea of having to opt out but perhaps they should push the question to you BEFORE you do anything else when applying for the license so that when you pass any tests 30 mins later at least you've had some time to let it sink in and can decide rather than making a last minute knee jerk decision.

Edited by Smigit, Mar 20 2010, 2:35pm :

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

Checking a box when getting/renewing your license is a huge burden on you? You make it sound like you would need to jump through hoops or go out of your way for it

Axel said,

You don't need your organs when you die so why withhold them.

It's one's decision. The reasons are irrelevant.


I'm not in the mindset of punishing everyone for the crimes of the few, I'd rather put myself in the position of those people and families who are likely to suffer because one selfish person decided they'd prefer there body to rot 6-feet under as opposed to allow someone to live.

Argh....the selfish argument, of course it was going to come. If someone' s religion or life conviction means he or she wants to stay intact after they die, it has _nothing_ to do with selfishness! It has to do with one's personal decision over their _own_ body...


I'd personally like to see it go one step further than opt-out. How about those who do opt-out, aren't allowed to receive? Seems fair, right?

Yup, that would indeed be fair. Although it totally contradicts with your argument about not caring about who your organs end up in. Cause you would donate to murderers and rapists, but not to people who opt-out.

Edited by k7of9, Mar 20 2010, 4:28pm :

SkyyPunk said,

Checking a box when getting/renewing your license is a huge burden on you? You make it sound like you would need to jump through hoops or go out of your way for it

It's about the principle, not the amount of effort.

Edited by k7of9, Mar 20 2010, 4:49pm :

EyasSH said,

Before filling out that form, nothing is decided for you.

So what if I don't fill out the form. Exactly, the decision will be made for me. Kind of the point of opt-out don't you think?

k7of9 said,

So what if I don't fill out the form. Exactly, the decision will be made for me. Kind of the point of opt-out don't you think?

Yeah, because they are going to drag you kicking and screaming to rip out some organs.. it's not like you don't have a choice, I'm sure if they contacted you for some miraculous reason you can say no.

WICKO said,

Yeah, because they are going to drag you kicking and screaming to rip out some organs.. it's not like you don't have a choice, I'm sure if they contacted you for some miraculous reason you can say no.

Uhm, wouldn't I be dead?

Axel said,

You don't need your organs when you die so why withhold them.

I would like you to prove this to me. I wasn't aware that anyone had died and came back to tell us if there even is one, or what we might possibly need in the after life. None of the Non-doners are trying to force our beliefs on you, why are you treading on me? Get your doners to actually sign up if you believe people have intentions without action.

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

It's not an opt-out. It's a mandatory question - would you like to become an organ donor? yes/no

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

Is this some sort of Glenn Beck imitation or are you *actually* serious?

k7of9 said,

The fact that _I_ have to take action to undo a default decision over what happens to _my_ body.

LOL because you'll be able to stop someone from doing it while you are dead? Even though I have chosen NOT to be an organ donor that doesn't mean it won't happen either purposely and covered up, or done on accident. What is done is done at that point, and even immediate cremation is no guarantee since there's a chance there could be an autopsy. It sucks, but it could happen and it does to some.

Money does a lot to people.

angrykeyboarder said,

Is this some sort of Glenn Beck imitation or are you *actually* serious?


I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend and respect an opinion other than your own.

An opt-out system would be great (imo).. but it wouldn't work with how society works today and the views its people have. So it shouldn't come in to play. Religion is a big factor here as there are several religions that prevent donations.

The way Jobs is pushing it in California seems like the way to go. You can't ignore the question and it's op-in. Mind you, it only gets asked to drivers so if I was living there I wouldn't be on record to donate my organs!

But I live in Britian, and we have the NHS, so when I changed my local GP recently I got asked to opt-in on the registration form.

opt out only system isn't the only system in existence.

Iran has a organ donation system whereby the government compensates financially for the donated organ, with the recipient's own choice of compensation added on top of that, and guess what, everyone who needs an organ in Iran gets it, instead of this haphazard, rights violating default opt out only or opt in only system that exists in the United states.

k7of9 said,
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend and respect an opinion other than your own.

And we're sorry that you're too lazy to read the damn article. It very clearly states (as has been mentioned) that this would be an additional question on the form when you renew your license. You either opt-in, or opt-out. There is nothing that says you have to opt-in, and you won't be in OR out by default until you renew your license (your previous election would stand until you renew and check the box).

So seriously, quit attacking people and go take chill pill.

vaximily said,

And we're sorry that you're too lazy to read the damn article. It very clearly states (as has been mentioned) that this would be an additional question on the form when you renew your license. You either opt-in, or opt-out. There is nothing that says you have to opt-in, and you won't be in OR out by default until you renew your license (your previous election would stand until you renew and check the box).

So seriously, quit attacking people and go take chill pill.

Except I was responding to a statement by another commenter (about opt-out being the only good system), not to the actual specific scenario in the article. So, you might want to evaluate your own reading skills and understand what exactly it is I am commenting on before you make these pretty dumb acquisitions.

I am merely voicing my opinion, it baffles me how that would mean I am attacking people. If you can't understand the difference, well... sorry again.

And btw, "we're sorry..." ? Since when can you speak for anyone but yourself?

Edited by k7of9, Mar 24 2010, 8:18pm :

ekw said,
Yeah that bill should be passed, I see no reason why not.

Yeah. I see nothing wrong with this either. You can still opt out if you want...

ekw said,
Yeah that bill should be passed, I see no reason why not.

Gee the fact that it requires you to buy insurance or go to jail or pay a huge fine?

Or that it puts the entire industry under control of the same people that ran Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and dozens of other bloated government programs into the ground.

Or that you will be taxed for several years before one part of it comes in affect.

Most of the people that supposedly need it, dont even pay federal taxes, so the cost will fall on the 40% of Americans that do.

That without accounting gimmicks, as stated by the CBO, the thing will cost over a trillion dollars to start and is 100% guaranteed to add to the deficit and will cost more over time.

So, yeah doood, I like so no reason why this cant pass. /s

Ozood said,

Gee the fact that it requires you to buy insurance or go to jail or pay a huge fine?

Or that it puts the entire industry under control of the same people that ran Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and dozens of other bloated government programs into the ground.

Or that you will be taxed for several years before one part of it comes in affect.

Most of the people that supposedly need it, dont even pay federal taxes, so the cost will fall on the 40% of Americans that do.

That without accounting gimmicks, as stated by the CBO, the thing will cost over a trillion dollars to start and is 100% guaranteed to add to the deficit and will cost more over time.

So, yeah doood, I like so no reason why this cant pass. /s

Not a single part of that made sense to me

KirbzStar said,
Not a single part of that made sense to me

Remove all references to this article and apply it to the Health Care Package currently being worked on in Congress and it will make perfect sense. Although half of his points are as inaccurate as his post on this article was.