= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RomeoStevens comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (898)
AFAIK yes. Up to 8 people.
Does it means "8 people saved (for unspecified time)" or "the saved people gain 8 times as much QALYs as the donor lost"?
AFAIK, the there are some problems with transplanted organs which require repeated medical attention and sometimes a lot of painkillers, so we convert X years of a healthy person to Y years of people with bad health.
On the other hand, a person willing to follow this advice and kill themselves probably suffers from depression, so we should reduce their remaining years estimate by a probability of suicide (other than the specific one recommended in this thread).
And if they don't actually commit suicide but still suffer from depression, or dislike living for any reason so much that they want to die, we should reduce their QALY in the equation.
When do we hit diminishing returns?
Let's find out.
You mean by calculation, right?
I mean, if every suicidal person saves the lives of up to eight people who want to live, it might be worth outright encouraging this approach, rather than having suicidal people kill themselves in ways that damage their bodies for this purpose, and then spend effort and money trying to bring them back.
Once a certain number of people is reached, though, there might be a degree of overabundance of organs compared to the needs, and unless you want to make the jurisdiction that allows this some sort of exporter of literal human resources, you should probably stop there.
Do you mean saving figuratively? (Also addressed at drethelin who used "save a life".)
Heart, lungs, liver, left kidney, right kidney = 5, and that's being generous.
Pancreas and corneas certainly improve quality of life, but aren't life savers. For skin grafts there's alternatives AFAIK.
Is there a stash of secret organs I'm missing?
You can give a small part of the liver, which grows to a functioning liver in the recipient. Presumably that means that you could get multiple liver transplants from one suicide by organ donations.
Yes, to my knowledge that was only done with living donors, but you are correct:
Interestingly, "living donor liver transplantation for pediatric recipients involves removal of approximately 20% of the liver", but you can't just take any 20% unfortunately.
If only there were more focused, high-scale, no-holds-barred research efforts on growing organs in the vat, xenotransplants from engineered e.g. pigs, for all of which proofs-of-concept and actual human trials by isolated low-funded groups exist (e.g. artificially grown trachea for a swedish girl if I recall correctly)! We have the technology, as they say, we're just too reluctant to use it.
I have no idea where to find quantified data on average lives saved. Most of the people involved have an incentive to exaggerate.
Up to?
Not all of your organs will be usable or near enough to save a life. A lot depends on the way you choose to kill yourself.
I'd realized as much, but that still left me wondering what actual average "Up to 8" signifies. After allowing for different suicide methods and such, that "Up to 8" might be 8, or it might be something like 1.1. The result of a utilitarian calculation would probably be sensitive to the real world average being ≈8 versus ≈1.