Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

ptg33 t1_j686tcw wrote

Reply to yes this is a real bill that has been introduced by Ministry_of__Truth

How would we react if there was a news story of someone serving a 5 year sentence and decides to donate an organ in their 4th year but is still required to serve their final year in prison. Think most of us agree that their sentence should be reduced for such an act.

edit:

So I guess the question is, how do we reward someone who does such a selfless act while at the same time protecting prisoners from the dystopian idea of harvesting their organs.

−4

Elementium t1_j686kxb wrote

Reply to comment by Appropriate-XBL in yes this is a real bill that has been introduced by Ministry_of__Truth

Yep it's one of those things where in Hypothetical-Land it sounds like a reward for past good deeds on someone who accidentally committed a crime.

In reality.. It's kinda icky and the law should be the law. If you donated a million dollars to sick kids and still kill someone drunk driving, the crime is what matters.

9

nan_adams t1_j686hxu wrote

Reply to yes this is a real bill that has been introduced by Ministry_of__Truth

I’ve had multiple organ transplants and think this is a terrible idea. It’s unethical, it’s coercive, it’s a slippery slope to some Repo: the Genetic Opera shit.

We are so fortunate to live in a state with some of the best doctors, nurses, hospitals. I can’t imagine they would find this ethical. Organ donation is a huge process. You need to be medically evaluated as a match to the recipient but you also undergo testing to make sure you are physically and mentally capable of transplant. Part of that evaluation is a meeting with a mental health professional to glean of course if you’re capable of handling the post-transplant regimen but also to determine if there are strings attached to donation. They will not push forward with a match where there is ethical ambiguity. I don’t see how this program would proceed past that stage because it is very much a transaction with strings attached.

If we want to increase the pool of available organs there are steps we can take like educating the general public about live donation, encouraging people to register as a donor, dispelling myths about transplant etc. But probably the biggest thing we can do is challenge dialysis companies like DaVita and Fresenius - who lobby against bills that expand access to prescription drug coverage for transplant recipients. These are for profit companies that make money by keeping people on dialysis, even when transplant is often the better path. They’ve lobbied against bills that would expand Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, which are required for the life of the transplant. The number one cause of transplant rejection and return to dialysis is non-compliance - but this is usually due to patients not being able to afford medication. You want the list to be shorter, the cost to tax payers to be less (Medicare funds dialysis) - you don’t grow the pool of available kidneys, you shrink the pool of who needs them by providing better support to transplant patients and stopping for profit dialysis companies from predatory practices (including advising dialysis as a long term solution to organ failure).

164

Waggmans t1_j68414v wrote

Reply to comment by Maronita2020 in PSA: Your MassHealth covers dental as well by DesiOtaku

I’ve asked multiple times on the town Facebook page. It’s one thing when the appointment is right up the street, another when it’s a 45min drive. I am on a fixed income and can’t really afford to pay people to escort me. I need at least to be escorted at least 6x to various appointments.

As I said, I know I’m not the only one with this problem, but that doesn’t particularly help me.

2