Home & Garden1 min ago
Organ donation - should we have to opt out?
In this country, once you die, your organs are unavailable for donation unless you have expressly asked for them to be used.
In 14 European countries, it's the other way round. It is assumed that your organs can be taken for someone else, unless you have made the decision to opt out.
Should we follow the lead of these countries?
In 14 European countries, it's the other way round. It is assumed that your organs can be taken for someone else, unless you have made the decision to opt out.
Should we follow the lead of these countries?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by NJOK. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes. Not a lot more to say really, except if you haven't signed up, you can do so here:
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/default.jsp
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/default.jsp
I firmly believe that we should have to opt out as an expressed view rather than the current situation. Last year one of my brothers suddenly died. Whilst various tests were being run on him they kept him technically alive on the machine, this enabled the living to say good byes etc and his organs fresh for harvesting. (He was a man in his 40s so plenty of him could be recycled). Because of the current situation his wife had to be asked to give permission for his organs to be used. What a question to have to ask and what a decision to have to make at such a time. She did decide yes because she and my brother happened to have discussed the issue. If we had been the same as other countries it would have been automatic unless my brother had felt so strongly against the use of organs he had made the effort to ask them not to.
So sorry to hear of your loss ruby. I can say tho that what a gift your brother and his wife gave someone else by letting his organs be transplanted.
My husband had his second kidney transplant 4 years ago, when our youngest daughter was only 2 months old. He was so ill for years leading up to that transplant, but he kept going but as time went on he kept getting other copmplcations and I truly believe if he hadn't have had the kidney when he did he may not be here with us today.
I cried that day they said he was to have the transplant, not just out of relief and fear but for the family that had lost their loved one but were allowing my husband to have another chance at life. Thank you xx
My husband had his second kidney transplant 4 years ago, when our youngest daughter was only 2 months old. He was so ill for years leading up to that transplant, but he kept going but as time went on he kept getting other copmplcations and I truly believe if he hadn't have had the kidney when he did he may not be here with us today.
I cried that day they said he was to have the transplant, not just out of relief and fear but for the family that had lost their loved one but were allowing my husband to have another chance at life. Thank you xx
no, I like our way better. I am happy for anyone to have bits of me (in fact you can have them now if you'll pay for the stamp); but I don't like the idea that the state might help itself to them without asking, after I die. I think the default option should be that you go to the grave intact unless you've said otherwise.
That's a very negative way of looking at it. What if you replace the word 'the state' with 'a dying child'?
Anyone that has a problem with donating can easily say so. The problem with the current system is that the majority of people who aren't bothered either way remain untouched - when in reality they'd probably consent if asked in retrospect.
It's hard - logically - to turn this into an invasion of privacy issue when you'd be dead already and your organs are being used as wormfood. Isn't it?
Anyone that has a problem with donating can easily say so. The problem with the current system is that the majority of people who aren't bothered either way remain untouched - when in reality they'd probably consent if asked in retrospect.
It's hard - logically - to turn this into an invasion of privacy issue when you'd be dead already and your organs are being used as wormfood. Isn't it?
That is your opinion jno and your entitled to it and your one out of only a handful of aber's that I have a lot of respect for, but I hope that you or a loved one aren't faced with an illness where the only chance of leading a normal life is to have a donated organ. We literally went through hell, my husband had to go to dialysis 3 times a week at St James hospital, we live over 20miles away. He would have to go on an evening because of work and not get in untill 1am and still get up for work at 6am. He would get so ill before and after. Many a time he was taken away in an ambulance because his health would take a serious dive and I had to reassure my eldest child (would have been under 5 yrs at the time) that he would be fine when I didn't even know that myself. This went on for over 4 years whilst he waited. That's a long time when you don't know if your going to be so ill for the rest of your life and you get so sick and tired of constantly being ill that you just want to give up.
All that changed because he had a kidney transplant. Why waste valuable organs by not allowing people to opt out if they have a strong enough view?
All that changed because he had a kidney transplant. Why waste valuable organs by not allowing people to opt out if they have a strong enough view?
I agree it should be changed....I have also heard that even if you are on the register and carry a doner card your next of kin will still have to give their consent if you die. For example I am on the register and carry a card but my mum could still say no. So it is very important that your family know what your intentions are. Its not a nice topic but I think it is important for people to discuss these things so we all know what to do in the event.
Has anyone heard of people saying they don't carry a card in case the doctors don't treat them as they see them as a doner? I don't understand this as what is in it for them?
Has anyone heard of people saying they don't carry a card in case the doctors don't treat them as they see them as a doner? I don't understand this as what is in it for them?
no, I wouldn't want a dying child to have the right to plunder other people's bodies uninvited either. As I said, I personally have no problem with it, help yourself to anything of mine that's still functioning; but I think it's proper that people should be able to die without having to specifically request that their bodies be left alone. Respect for bodily integrity should be the default option, not the other way around; I think Britain has it right.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question40 3818.html
Point 6 of my manifesto. Strangely some people disagreed with me who have since changed their mond on here. Goes to show, the British public are just simply lead by sheep.
Point 6 of my manifesto. Strangely some people disagreed with me who have since changed their mond on here. Goes to show, the British public are just simply lead by sheep.
Respect for people's bodies is a-okay. But nobody is suggesting you're to be held down and taken apart while you're still around to enjoy that right..
You're dead. There is no 'you' anymore. The vessel you used to inhabit is now essentially a rotting piece of meat and, while I can see it's something people have an attachment to and that this an emotive issue, people would still have the right to opt out.
We shouldn't like sentimentality and/or squeamishness take precedence over keeping people alive. It's backward.
You're dead. There is no 'you' anymore. The vessel you used to inhabit is now essentially a rotting piece of meat and, while I can see it's something people have an attachment to and that this an emotive issue, people would still have the right to opt out.
We shouldn't like sentimentality and/or squeamishness take precedence over keeping people alive. It's backward.
Well its a good enough point to acceptthe rest!!!
But to answer your question, naturally I think it would be an excellent idea.
As a side line however, I have a doctor friend who in his surgery, all new patients have the chance to fill in a donor form. For some unfathomable reason, many patients offer their organs but insist that their eyes (or corneas) are left alone.
How odd.
But to answer your question, naturally I think it would be an excellent idea.
As a side line however, I have a doctor friend who in his surgery, all new patients have the chance to fill in a donor form. For some unfathomable reason, many patients offer their organs but insist that their eyes (or corneas) are left alone.
How odd.
Strange. I've heard several people saying the same thing. What possible difference does it make?
For some reason, it reminds me of an old B-movie about a man who lost his hands in an accident and had those of a dead man sewn on in their place. It turned out that the dead man had been a murderer and the new owner of the hands found himself attempting to strangle people against his will. Wooo!
For some reason, it reminds me of an old B-movie about a man who lost his hands in an accident and had those of a dead man sewn on in their place. It turned out that the dead man had been a murderer and the new owner of the hands found himself attempting to strangle people against his will. Wooo!
-- answer removed --
it's not just the dead themselves. People have friends and family. How would a widow feel, for instance, if she knew parts of her dead husband's body had been taken for reuse? She might think that's fine. But equally, she might find the thought upsetting and disturbing. If her husband had expressly agreed that this should happen, I think she would just have to live with it. But if it was done merely because he'd never got around to opting out - well, I think that's wrong. In the 19th century graverobbers used to dig up the bodies of the recently dead and sell them to surgeons to practise on. I can see the advantages of being operated on by a surgeon who'd had a bit of practice; but I still think that's wrong too.
Of course, you run the risk of upsetting an already upset widow. And she'd have my sympathies.
I suspect neither of us are going to convince the other here.
But it's a choice between:
a) someone being upset because their loved one's lifeless cadaver has been used without consent; or
b) someone being upset because their loved one has died when they could easily have been saved.
You're putting the (perfectly understandable) sentimental concerns of a grieving person ahead of someone else's life.
That, to me, is backward.
I suspect neither of us are going to convince the other here.
But it's a choice between:
a) someone being upset because their loved one's lifeless cadaver has been used without consent; or
b) someone being upset because their loved one has died when they could easily have been saved.
You're putting the (perfectly understandable) sentimental concerns of a grieving person ahead of someone else's life.
That, to me, is backward.
jno - I'm having trouble understanding your perspective.
After all nobody is suggesting organ donation would be compulsory.
It would be a simple matter to register your preference on a database and if you were worried about a potential error you could carry a card or wear a bracelet.
If it were not possible to identify someone or if their relatives said they'd changed their minds then organs could not be taken.
The idea would simply be to change the default action for those who do not have a strong preference and do not take action.
After all nobody is suggesting organ donation would be compulsory.
It would be a simple matter to register your preference on a database and if you were worried about a potential error you could carry a card or wear a bracelet.
If it were not possible to identify someone or if their relatives said they'd changed their minds then organs could not be taken.
The idea would simply be to change the default action for those who do not have a strong preference and do not take action.
