They would only be funded if the outcome was expected to be favorable. (Since they are very expensive, there has to be a reasonable expectation of a good outcome.) To be put on the transplant waiting list in the UK, there has to be a 50% or higher expectation of the patient being alive in 5 years. If the probability falls below 50%, the patient is removed from the waiting list.
Thomas Aquinas lived hundreds of years before organ transplants and donations came into use. He would have known nothing about them.
well when i cut people open i use a spoon then i just rip their organs out. (: hope that helped
Most (common) transplants have been considered 'successful' since 1990. Ciclosporin (the first good immunosuppressant) was approved for use in 1983. From then on, success rates all improved dramatically.
They are relatively safe. (The NHS or your local health authority would not fund transplants if they were very unsafe - i.e had bad outcomes. Transplants are quite expensive, but most hospitals/health authorities consider the cost "worth it"- i.e they will fund the operation. This indicates that transplants are not 'high risk'- i.e risk does not outweigh the cost). Obviously, as with any medical procedure, there are some risks attached.
Organ transplants are the easiest to explain - people need these when their own organs have failed to prevent them from dying. Tissue transplants work on the sample principle, but the patient may simply be suffering or could use the extra boost to return to full health. Tissue transplants include corneas (which can restore sight to people legally blinded by glaucoma or corneal trauma), bone grafts (which are often used during complicated bone re-setting surgeries) and skin grafts (which can be used during reconstructive surgery or to treat burn patients).
good
Yes
Probably because it is hard to find a good organ player and/or the church can't afford to buy a nice organ.
Because the tissues of the donated organ have to match those of the patient. Not all tissue types are compatible with each other, and if they are not, then the body just rejects the donated organ and cannot use it. Modern pathology testing can go some way towards assessing beforehand if an organ is compatible with the recipient, but there are still occasions when donated organs are rejected for reasons that nobody understands. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the patient faces death- often the organ will work a bit, not as it should do but for long enough for another donor organ to be found that WILL work.
You publically advertise the need for more donors (which does have an affect, but only for a few months after the campaign). Making organ donation more socially acceptable generally helps. Or you change the system of organ donation from being "opt-in" (i.e you have to say that you wish to be an organ donor) to "opt-out" (you have to say that you do not wish to be an organ donor, otherwise it is assumed that you do wish to be an organ donor). The possibility of 'paying' people for their organs (or covering the cost of their funeral) may boost numbers organ donors, however this also creates ethical and moral issues (not to mention legal issues). Livers can be "split" into two pieces, for use in two people (if required).
carefully describes how good luck
Yes, if you need it bad enough.