Pages:
Author

Topic: Legalization and Standardization of Organ Donation (Read 388 times)

legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 1632
Do not die for Putin
I think it's important to first learn how it's done these days to analyze the proposal. So I decided to read a bit about my country and some others, and here's what I learned: in Spain, there's a presumption of consent to become a donor after death, unless a person explicitly said they were against it. From what I read about the US, it's the opposite, but 54% of citizens sign agreements to become donors. Given that 95% support the idea in the US, I think what this country needs is simply the presumption of consent because it indeed makes sense where the vast majority supports it.
So it's already happening, and there are no financial incentives involved, no 'money upfront' or anything.
In my country, you can register as a potential donor in an event of your death, and there's no financial incentive to do this.
I'm not sure any country would provide a financial incentive for people to register, especially in the US, where 54% already registered.

I did not know that you were presumed a donor in Spain unless stated otherwise, but I guess it makes sense. Particularly in a country that is quite strong in organ transplants in general already for a few decades. I cannot help but to feel that this is kind of a "harvesting" by the public health system though.

In my view, and based on the studies, donating for money is an ultimate way of exploitation of the poor. Anyone with a little imagination can figure out how ugly this may get... e.g. selling children for their organs, giving organs away to avoid deprivation and hunger or extreme poverty... My take is that this is already happening in the black market, yet making it official is simply intolerable.
newbie
Activity: 98
Merit: 0
I have heard for a long time about organ donation, if it is legal, of course there are also legal and illegal because the others are used in the wrong way except for government donations, it is a good method so that it will not be difficult.  people seek organ donation, but we still need to be careful because I said that sometimes it is used in the wrong way many people sell their organs I know what is available they want to get rich, all over the world millions are in need  of the organ and sells it and others just donate to a government where it is legal.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Of course im in for the organ donation but the problem comes when you actually realise that its one to donate clothes or books etc. and its totally different thing to donate  something (without earning anything) that will never be replaced like an organ .At the same time its a crime to sell organs... Theres a mix of emotions going through everyone of our heads while discussing a subject like that and thats why its so interesting for me to read other peoples' opinion.
thanks
sr. member
Activity: 2436
Merit: 455
I've had this idea in my head since 2019, what if it was legal in the US for people to get paid to become a donor.
2 years later, I think I've worked out a framework, but unfortunately it looks like I missed the cutoff date for state ballot initiative requests for the 2022 election cycle.

So here's my framework
Adopting a VC style of investment.
-people are paid a set price for the exclusive right per organ.
-they are given the money upfront, no exams needed
-there are no lifestyle restrictions
-the transplant only occurs after you die
-your estate is given equal or more money than you were given upfront
-if the organ is no longer viable, no big deal, just the cost of doing business. Your off the hook.
-if you change your mind, no big deal, pay back the money at 10% interest to remove your name off the list.
-you must be 18 years or older to apply
-you can enroll your children into the program. Same rules apply, money upfront, transplant only happens after death. On their 18th birthday, they are removed from the program, and have the option to re-enroll. If accepted, same rules apply.

The idea here is that there are over 100,000 people in US in need of transplants and not enough donors. Over 8,000 people die annually, with most waiting over 3 years. The longer they wait, the less productive they become, not including all the stress due to uncertainty.
My proposal is would provide cash upfront, work like the typical VC/Crypto model where you diversify and only need a small handful to breakeven.
The exclusive right would be sold to insurance companies or governments, who would pay 3-5x multiples.

Example 1
Jim, 20 years old, male, lives in Denver Colorado.
He sells us the exclusive right to both his kidney's for $500 each upfront.
We then sell the right to XYZ insurance company for $50,000 per kidney.
I'm assuming insurance companies would then sell term life organ policies to cover expenses.

This transaction is beneficial because insurance companies generally have to spend about $25,000 per year for some dialysis treatments which take up 10+ hours per week for the person in need of a transplant. We are filling the demand. And the cost of the transplant surgery wise is often $100-200,000 anyway. But because their policy holder becomes more productive and increased years to live, the insurance company can justify the expense. Plus based on public data, there are 33,244 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2019 in which 36,096 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.0 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.11 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The fatality rate per 100,000 people ranged from 3.3 in the District of Columbia to 25.4 in Wyoming. Also based on the numbers, it seems that men in the US begin to start dying in their 40's/50's, 10 years earlier than women. I want to avoid culture war issues and really focus on college kids and not the poor, I don't want this being seen as a payday lending scheme.

I'm working on the website now. Will start on the blockchain next month. The goal is to raise money to get this on the ballots of state elections for the 2024 Presidential election cycle. I want to amend the first line of the current law prohibiting the sale of organ donations after death. This is a felony currently. The average signature needed is about 100-300k per state and seems to be a huge undertaking. Do you guy's see the crypto community getting behind this effort either as early investors or joining the waitlist? What do you guys think of the concept overall.


Blockchain
-----------------------
Each transaction will be available in a blockchain. Those in need will know where in line they are, but the public won't know the names of said people, only the public ID's, and transaction codes.
-shows transaction data
--new donor registration, payout, removal, death
--donor recipient moving up in line, currently in surgery, successful transplant
--insurance company, policy sales


I don't really think this is a wise idea.

Foremost, why would you suggest that there's no need for an examination of the organ donor? That alone, is a very risky move, mate. This is very essential most especially if the topic is about healthcare. It is necessary to background check the lifestyle and medical record of a person who is any way a potential donor of an organ. This is to ensure that the health being of the one being transplanted the organ to, wouldn't be compromised the moment the operation would happen. In addition, to ensure the proper functionality of the organ once stored and used the moment someone already needs it.

Secondly, I think your the concept is just twisted. Organ donation is legal in most countries. What illegal is, is to sell it in exchange of money. In this topic, the idea of organ trafficking is included as well as the selling of organs due to poverty. This will just make more problems instead of filling in and being a solution to a medical problem. If ever this would be legalized, people who think there's no more other way to generate money would just resort to impulsively and carelessly selling their organs in exchange for ample amount of money. And then you will sell it at a higher price to the insurance company. This sounds like a great capitalistic mindset that basically abuses the poor and marginalized. This would just profit the insurance company and the midman, and would left the organ seller at the losing end. Despite saying that this would be voluntary, this is still abusive and just pure greedy. Because as you know, anyone who is desperate would do any measure they know to survive, most especially now wherein life is harder and more challenging than ever.

Lastly, what would be the specific role of blockchain technology in this? What you just mentioned in the post seems like black market to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really appeals to be just those listed in black market where you would buy an organ and everyone is anonymous, only showing the transaction ID's etc as a proof of purchase and whatnots. If this kind of thing would be like what your concept is trying to imply, then I don't really want it. Let's not taint the blockchain technology reputation with these kinds of ideas.
legendary
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1188
Where you said that the organs should be recorded and people should be paid without any form of examination to know their health status or that there shouldn’t be any form of lifestyle restrictions, is that really a good idea? So, what if the person is living a kind of reckless lifestyle that will affect the particular organ that will be needed later on? And maybe when they die, it happens that the organ is no longer in good condition to be used for the transplant, is it not going to be a huge loss for the company and those that needed the organ transplant?

So, do you think that is a good idea, or don’t you think that there should be an examination to know whether the organ is really in good condition before a payment is to be made to the person upfront?
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
I have discussed several how to securely verify data, have it hashed and use it for authentication purposes on websites.

No, you haven't discussed anything and you haven't answered the most important question:
How will you insert by yourself data in that database that nobody has access to but at the same time it will be verified?
If you do it like that is just like creating an account on facebook, till nobody askes you to provide information that that person is indeed you that data is totally unreliable, the moment someone verifies it is the moment your details are no longer secret.

It could be done with zero proof knowledge or some other secured means I have outlined before.

No, you haven't outlined anything, you're just writing the same statement without showing one real example of how this will be done. Besides, if the data is encrypted once you insert it, how it will be safer if it's decentralized compared to being centralized?
If you're going to reply do it by answering my question, this is going nowhere with your just reposting the same things over and over.
Ucy
sr. member
Activity: 2674
Merit: 403
Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.
A thoroughly encrypted data that only the owner can have access to should be better.

If only the owner can access that data how the hell would that scheme work when both the poeple in need, the insurance company, the company making the connection between those need the data?
You storing some secret code in a blockchain that can't be read by others is useless, others need access to it, once you grant access to anybody else this can lead to leaks.

You think this can be guaranteed on a centralized database? Everyone running a node, controlling his/her private keys and always verifying the integrity of the data on the decentralized network sounds more secure to me.

How can you verify the integrity of the data if the data is not checked to be accurate by somebody?
Unlike transactions in a chain where the origin of your coins is validated when they are minted in a new block how will this data be inserted in the chain? How will nodes verify you are an actual person, you are a citizen of that country, you actually are healthy enough to donate?

And most importantly, if you want to keep your data secret!!!!, how can others validate it?
You realize the contradiction in this?



This doesn't have to be a Blockchain like I said before. You could develop a decentralized system designed for that particular industry and have users control their data and choose who to share it with. It could be done with zero proof knowledge or some other secured means I have outlined before. It's not impossible to do  this without leaks.
In a decentralized system, a data could be verified once, hashed and stored on the network. Any unauthorized changes to the verified data can always render it invalid.
I have discussed several how to securely verify data, have it hashed and use it for authentication purposes on websites.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1402
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I think it's important to first learn how it's done these days to analyze the proposal. So I decided to read a bit about my country and some others, and here's what I learned: in Spain, there's a presumption of consent to become a donor after death, unless a person explicitly said they were against it. From what I read about the US, it's the opposite, but 54% of citizens sign agreements to become donors. Given that 95% support the idea in the US, I think what this country needs is simply the presumption of consent because it indeed makes sense where the vast majority supports it.
So it's already happening, and there are no financial incentives involved, no 'money upfront' or anything.
In my country, you can register as a potential donor in an event of your death, and there's no financial incentive to do this.
I'm not sure any country would provide a financial incentive for people to register, especially in the US, where 54% already registered.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
A thoroughly encrypted data that only the owner can have access to should be better.

If only the owner can access that data how the hell would that scheme work when both the poeple in need, the insurance company, the company making the connection between those need the data?
You storing some secret code in a blockchain that can't be read by others is useless, others need access to it, once you grant access to anybody else this can lead to leaks.

You think this can be guaranteed on a centralized database? Everyone running a node, controlling his/her private keys and always verifying the integrity of the data on the decentralized network sounds more secure to me.

How can you verify the integrity of the data if the data is not checked to be accurate by somebody?
Unlike transactions in a chain where the origin of your coins is validated when they are minted in a new block how will this data be inserted in the chain? How will nodes verify you are an actual person, you are a citizen of that country, you actually are healthy enough to donate?

And most importantly, if you want to keep your data secret!!!!, how can others validate it?
You realize the contradiction in this?
Ucy
sr. member
Activity: 2674
Merit: 403
Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.
Me too don't think it has to be Blockchain... what is important is the need to decentralize the processes due to its sensitive nature.

Decentralize it because it's sensitive?
Why? It should be as close to the public as possible because of the risks involved!
Imagine that somebody is desperate for a relative transplant and knows that only 4 people are left in the queue before his turn, and he has all the data of the donors, what do you think is going to happen, poeple have been killed for a few hundred bucks, what price do you put on the life of a relative?
Especially since if he chooses carefully from the list chances are he will never be caught?

I don't believe centralized platform can offer that level of security.

Care to explain why?
It's one thing to gain access to data and it's another to store that data safely.
Do you think the blockchain would prevent leaks just like so, because it's a blockchain?
Databases get hacked because somebody gets access to them, just like hackers and malware spreaders get the private keys of guys holding bitcoin, once they got access to that it doesn't matter what kind of database it is, the data will be retrieved.



A thoroughly encrypted data that only the owner can have access to should be better. You think this can be guaranteed on a centralized database? Everyone running a node, controlling his/her private keys and always verifying the integrity of the data on the decentralized network sounds more secure to me.
It's hard to trust a centralized entity to keep My sensitive data safe and secure. Better I control the data myself and be the only one with the keys to decrypt it. As a hacker you can only obtain private keys from few network participants rather than the entire participants unlike on centralized database.
Probably better to store the hash of the data on the shared network or store both encrypted data and the hash keys.


sr. member
Activity: 1722
Merit: 252
Actually, I have heard about organ donation for a long time, if it was legalized of course this could be better so that people don't worry about organ donation, but we have to be careful because many people sell their organs such as kidneys, eyes or others because they want to be rich , in my country 1 kidney costs around $125k.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
Me too don't think it has to be Blockchain... what is important is the need to decentralize the processes due to its sensitive nature.

Decentralize it because it's sensitive?
Why? It should be as close to the public as possible because of the risks involved!
Imagine that somebody is desperate for a relative transplant and knows that only 4 people are left in the queue before his turn, and he has all the data of the donors, what do you think is going to happen, poeple have been killed for a few hundred bucks, what price do you put on the life of a relative?
Especially since if he chooses carefully from the list chances are he will never be caught?

I don't believe centralized platform can offer that level of security.

Care to explain why?
It's one thing to gain access to data and it's another to store that data safely.
Do you think the blockchain would prevent leaks just like so, because it's a blockchain?
Databases get hacked because somebody gets access to them, just like hackers and malware spreaders get the private keys of guys holding bitcoin, once they got access to that it doesn't matter what kind of database it is, the data will be retrieved.

When you let everyone donate to everyone as a law then it would become a bit of a problem because mafia and similar bad people end up either stealing organs from others and if not then they would simply pay for people a lot less and get it, rich people willing to pay 5k dollars for a kidney? Mafia would pay 3k to you and get yours and get 2k profit from it, do it for 10 people and you get 20k, do it for 100 people and you get 200k...

5k? There are people willing to pay even 200k for one, there are companies involved in "medical tourism" in which you travel to a foreign country and get a transplant there, prices start at 50k for a kidney and that was a few years back.

For 2k for a killing the mafia won't be involved in such, for 200k, it will be a massacre.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1864
The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital. I do not intend my operation to become predatory and solely relying on low income or minority groups. That's bad press and terrible morally. At first I thought $5000 upfront and $5000 after death but a government official who works at USAID convinced me I could get away with offering people way less since its upfront and nothing is required of them, so this is where the $500 figure came from. $500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs.
The risk also stands at you killing the participants as well. Say you paid 5k before they die, and 5k after they die to their relatives or whatever, how would they know 100% that you will not kill them? Sure you could randomize it, sometimes it is 7 years 312 days, sometimes it is a week later, sometimes 2 years 123 days, but as long as they die at young age, or even from anything really then how would they really know if that person died normally?

There are also situations where you won't get anything, for example my mother in law has cancer now, she "beat it" technically but she still has it in her blood and she could get it again any moment, could be tomorrow or could be 5 years later we do not know, hence she can't donate organs because if she does then the new person may have it too, and you would technically kill that person a little later. So if you pay someone 20 years old money to get their organs after they die, then that person may end up getting cancer at old age and their organs would be worth zero.

There is an easier, legal, humane and honest way - to bequeath the donation of your organs in case of an accident, or premature death from illness (provided that you can use the organ or organs). And the family of the rescued can make a contribution, for example, to a charitable foundation, which will officially transfer some kind of reward (the word is not very suitable for the situation) to the family of the deceased. No one cuts out a kidney from a living, no one sells their organs - everything is built on charity
legendary
Activity: 3710
Merit: 1170
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital. I do not intend my operation to become predatory and solely relying on low income or minority groups. That's bad press and terrible morally. At first I thought $5000 upfront and $5000 after death but a government official who works at USAID convinced me I could get away with offering people way less since its upfront and nothing is required of them, so this is where the $500 figure came from. $500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs.
The risk also stands at you killing the participants as well. Say you paid 5k before they die, and 5k after they die to their relatives or whatever, how would they know 100% that you will not kill them? Sure you could randomize it, sometimes it is 7 years 312 days, sometimes it is a week later, sometimes 2 years 123 days, but as long as they die at young age, or even from anything really then how would they really know if that person died normally?

There are also situations where you won't get anything, for example my mother in law has cancer now, she "beat it" technically but she still has it in her blood and she could get it again any moment, could be tomorrow or could be 5 years later we do not know, hence she can't donate organs because if she does then the new person may have it too, and you would technically kill that person a little later. So if you pay someone 20 years old money to get their organs after they die, then that person may end up getting cancer at old age and their organs would be worth zero.
Ucy
sr. member
Activity: 2674
Merit: 403
Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.
I don't really think that you really need blockchain technology in order to implement this idea,OP.
A simple database can do the same work.
Anyway,I don't think that creating a marketplace for human organs is humane and/or morally justified.
Mostly likely all the criminals/gangsters/mobsters will take advantage of such "marketplace" by killing more people and selling their organs.
I better solution would be the state to make it mandatory for all people to declare their will to donate their organs after their death.Most of the transplantation recipients don't have any money to buy a human organ.
I know that you want to make a business out of this idea,but this doesn't seem right.
You should focus on other business ideas.


Me too don't think it has to be Blockchain... what is important is the need to decentralize the processes due to its sensitive nature. It's more like using a DNA database, it needs to be as secure and privacy-friendly as possible and I don't believe centralized platform can offer that level of security.
hero member
Activity: 2268
Merit: 789
America already has lots of problems with poverty, inequality and absurdly expensive health care, legalizing organ selling is like adding oil to the fire, poor people will have no choice but to give away their health for money. A better solution is to just make every deceased person an organ donor, with an option to opt out of this program for the paranoid people, making them ineligible to receive organs in exchange.

And what does the blockchain solve in this situation? If someone wants to cheat in this system and has a power to do so, they would still do it. They can create fake identities and put them into the queue, for example.

Selling your organs in exchange for a consideration is not illegal perse, but what is prohibited by law is the illegal act of harvesting organs without following the prescribed rules/laws mandated per country.

Unfortunately with stringent requirements mandated, only chosen individuals are possible candidates in order to legally sell their organs. But you are right- the implications of selling one's organs in third-world countries post a risk on both the donor and the donee.
hero member
Activity: 3164
Merit: 675
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
Here in India, it is illegal for individuals who are not related to the patient to donate their organs. As a result, tens of thousands die every year, from ailments to kidney and liver. Three years ago there was no such rule, and poor people used to get exploited by the middle men and forced in to selling their organs. But now the situation is even worse. Even those who want to donate organs on their own free will are prevented by the law from doing that. I fully support any initiative, which compensates organ donors financially.
We have something similar here as well. When you let everyone donate to everyone as a law then it would become a bit of a problem because mafia and similar bad people end up either stealing organs from others and if not then they would simply pay for people a lot less and get it, rich people willing to pay 5k dollars for a kidney? Mafia would pay 3k to you and get yours and get 2k profit from it, do it for 10 people and you get 20k, do it for 100 people and you get 200k... I am not even going to continue, 100 people for 200k dollars for 100 kidney is more than enough to understand how big of a problem it is.

However when you remove that and make it illegal then it suddenly causes people to die, literally death, so is that a better option? I do not think so because that results with death and everything is better than death. So, it's really a fine thin line.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital.

$500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs. Also, 40% of Americans have less than $400 in emergency savings according to the US Federal Reserve.

Contradiction much?
At one point you're starting well-informed groups and at the same time you're putting up that price range because another group has less than in...emergency funds. Would be ironic if there would be anything thing to laugh about this.

Let me be blunt, you expect somebody who goes to college, has taken care of its body to grant you rights for their organs who might save a relative in case of need for 5 days of work at flipping burgers or mopping the floor at Mcdonald's? You could buy of course a lot of rights from poorer persons for that sum but I'm willing to bet that your bet of 1:100 would be a losing ticket.

And I want to re-emphasize this, you can take your name off the list at anytime, you just have to pay back the amount give at a 10% annual interest rate from the time you borrowed it, up to 30 years.

Oh, just 10% interest, I mean, yeah, like a bank..expect 10x times costlier.

I'm a bit surprised how resistant people are of this

Because you started this with the idea of doing something for the poeple and you end up with a money milking machine.

If you would have cared that much about this you could have easily found a way to redistribute that money to the ones that needed it, rather than going in 1:100 bets you could have simply made a program in which the sum you are making from the selling of those would be half redistributed annually to the ones in the program
to keep them caring about it and another half to be given to to the relatives after the death of the person so that they would be incentive to approve the donations.

But no, for god's sake would you be pleased with 1% of it and the feeling of actually doing something, you want to profit at most from poeple who desperately need 500$.

newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 1
So if I pay 100 people $500 just to sign up and sell me the exclusive right to one kidney for example, and I sell that right to xyz insurance company or government healthcare system (europe) for $50k, 1 death covers 100 bets. The cypto/VC investors see their investment grow since margins are so big.

And in just one page this went from saving lives to making a whole shitload of money...
It's now pretty understandable why some poeple have expressed their concerns previously, the focus of this is money, making money by selling stuff that in a normal society that has a serious problem with it should be donated at death.

Again:

Quote
1 death covers 100 bets.

Seriously, do you know how this would sound while you're pitching your project to investors? You're going to hear the mice's hiccups 10 floors below after this.

Anyhow, if you think poeple who take care of their own health so they might still be considered as donors at 40-50 are going to sell you the rights for 500$, you live in a bubble. The ones that will grab this cash will probably be rejected even for blood donation.

The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital. I do not intend my operation to become predatory and solely relying on low income or minority groups. That's bad press and terrible morally. At first I thought $5000 upfront and $5000 after death but a government official who works at USAID convinced me I could get away with offering people way less since its upfront and nothing is required of them, so this is where the $500 figure came from. $500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs. Also, 40% of Americans have less than $400 in emergency savings according to the US Federal Reserve. I think at scale, one person could be able to secure about $25,000 to $50,000 with this program. Again all upfront, and with nothing required, until after their death. Because they are college kids, we assume they will live another 50+ years. As for my role, I am merely getting them to sign up, so I can sell the right to an insurance company or government agency handling insurance, similar to how if you get a $300,000 mortgage at say Bank of America, they may sell it to another bank or investment fund for say $250,000 upfront.


I'm a bit surprised how resistant people are of this. Again, the cash is upfront, we expect you to live for decades and forget about it, and the transplant only occurs after death. No one can see who's a donor, and who's where in line. There's very little room for foul play here. And I want to re-emphasize this, you can take your name off the list at anytime, you just have to pay back the amount give at a 10% annual interest rate from the time you borrowed it, up to 30 years. If the organ is no longer viable, you don't have to pay back anything but your estate/family won't receive the last payment.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1139
In China, it was legal to harvest the organs of the executed. This obviously creates a perverse incentive of the system to sentence to death more people - not that they really need much incentive.
Exactly! If there is one thing I've known of humans from my years on earth, is the fact that we humans we like to cut corners to almost everything. For the supposed donor, putting yourself out or enrolling is actually putting yourself directly in the line of danger. Instantly you become a target of what is sponsoring and might find a way to ensuring your life ends sooner as the organ is of great value.

Secondly, the said individual that was paid upfront, upon exhaustion of funds or after testing what it felt like to be rich would see the need not yo comply with agreement and would instead, try to invest, make ROI and then pay back. So, indirectly, you've loaned someone some investment cash without any interest. That aside, the individual might still decide to go unhealthy on organs of value to discourage its donation.
Pages:
Jump to: