Compulsary organ donation

[WaldoMcFroog]

According to the Chief Medical Officer, we should be considered a possible candidate for organ donation upon death, unless we've opted out.

Seems fine to me. Some people are suggesting that it shouldn't be up to the government to dictate what happens to you when you die, but if you can opt out, and if this opt out process was well publicised and easy to do, where's the problem?

[jno]

I think I had this argument a while ago and was heavily outvoted, but no, I don't like it. I think the default position should be that your body belongs to you and your family unless you yourself choose otherwise. After all, the opting-in position can be equally easy and well publicised. But I don't like the notion, in general, that a government assumes it can do what it likes unless you tell it not to - it ought to be just the reverse.

[libertie]

I carry a donor card so I have no problem with this proposal and my family are also well aware of how I feel! Also I can appreciate how difficult it must be for a family to have to make a decision on donation when they have just lost a loved one and I'm sure that many families say no, only to regret their decision later!

[NJOK]

And I still disagree with you, jno! ;-)

The title here is misleading. It isn't compulsory. Anyone can opt out whenever they like.

I understand jno's viewpoint but, for me, it's a far greater loss if a willing donor doesn't get round to opting in than if an unwilling one fails to opt out.

And as I said the last time this was brought up, to me, the anger/suffering of a widow who sees their late husband's soon-to-rot cadaver cut up (against his wishes) is less significant than the suffering of a loved one who is seeing their relative needlessly dying just because a donor's organs are going unused due to a lack of paperwork. But it's a subjective thing isn't it?

I just think as a society we should make it easier to share than not share.

[jno]

NJOK, the matter of compulsion is open to question; consider the Austrian position here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6902519.stm

It isn't clear what sort of consent, or lack of it, Sir Liam is talking about

[jake-the-peg]

There is a side issue that I'm not sure we considerred very carefully.

Suppose you are happy to allow certain organs to be used but not others.

I can for example see a woman being happy to be a heart donor but unhappy about egg harvesting from ovaries.

Can we be confident that the system will have the controlls in place to allow this level of discrimination?

[lovejoy]

jno you say that your body (and therefore your parts) belongs to your family? what are they going to do display them in their china cabinet?

If people don't want others to live all they have to do is carry a card saying in the event of my death I don't wish for a child to live from receiving any of my organs I would prefer the child to die

Whats the problem?

[jno]

I don't believe I should have to carry cards, that's all, lovejoy. I don't want to carry compulsory ID cards either. I believe it's my right to live the way I choose unless the government passes a specific law stopping me doing something, rather than that I should be allowed to do nothing but the specific things the government permits me to do.

What my family does with my body is up to them. I doubt china cabinets will be involved, but maybe an urn for my ashes would sit nicely in such a cabinet. That should be their right. It sounds as if they would have no such right in Austria.

And phrasing it as 'If you don't want others to live...' sounds like emotional blackmail.

[lovejoy]

If you (like me) jno, had a very rare blood group which would you prefer, a child to live or worms to gorge themselves on your festering remains?

[johnlambert]

If anyone thinks I'm going to stand at the pearly gates minus my eyes, lungs, kidneys, heart, liver etc they have another think coming!!!!

[Clanad]

I certainly agree with jno but with a different emphasis. Once the control is delegated to bureaucrats, it's been shown time and time again that it's only a small hop, skip and jump for the determination of actual death to ne "enhanced"... Several cases, not even involving government forced organ donation have already cropped up here in the U.S. where the patient was either allowed to expire or the expiration was "nudged" along for the convenience of the receiving patient.
Is there a person alive beyond the age of majority that hasn't had the government really screw up some situation? Not only that, but what (as has been mentioned) happens for receptor selection? If the donor's organ(s) are harvested after death and the family has a friend/relative that needs the organ, can the governing body over rule in favor of some more deserving recipient? Call me cynical, but no, thank you...

[flip_flop]

No brainer as far as I'm concerned - should most definitely be a presumed consent system.

Opting-in apathy does not serve this country at well - but if people wanted to opt-out I'm sure they wouldn't be quite so apathetic: and if they were, well, great - more donors.

I can remember a disagreement with my ex-mother in law about 15 years ago when this subject was brought up, where she assumed, in the event of her daughters/my wife of the time death that she would be consulted concerning donation and that consent would be denied.

I disappointed her by saying that (1) my wife was a donor card holder and that (2) I most certainly would provide consent whether she liked it or not and that as I was my wife's next of kin it had nothing to do with her.

Her basic argument was that she didn't want her daughter's body "defiled".

This is at the heart of the problem - it is a selfish response.

Personally, I like the Austrian model: strict presumed consent and if the family doesn't like it - then tough.

[jenstar]

No. The government must never, ever, own the bodies of its citizens. But it looks like permanent totalitarian government is now unavoidable.

[WaldoMcFroog]

One of the issues seems to be that 70% of people are in favour of organ donation, yet those signed up to the voluntary opt-in NHS list are but a fraction of this number.

Speaking of which: http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_beco me_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp

[lovejoy]

johnlambert if you think there is a place called pearly gates you should start reading Harry Potter novels

[jno]

Clanad, the awful risk is this would be done in the UK by the people responsible for buying the calamitously overpriced and inefficient national health service computer system. I wouldn't trust them to pick a daisy let alone harvest my organs.

[jake-the-peg]

Clanad, can you provide some examples of where this nudging has taken place, if it's happened so often it must be well documented.

Otherwise we might think you're just cynical

[China Doll]

I think it's an excellent idea. When we die we do not need our organs and I'm pretty sure you can't take them with you. If one person can benefit from my death then I'd say that's a pretty nice parting gift.

I also believe that people who really do not want to donate will be very quick to opt out. More so than people who want to opt in but for whatever reason never quite get around to filling in that donor card.

It also takes the pressure from your family/spouse should something horrid ever happen and they are asked if you're an organ donor. It's hardly something you'd want to think about at a time like that (in my limited experience).

I just see it as a chance to do something good before you leave.

I do take Jake's point about if someone has a wish not to have a particular part of their body used though and I think a contingency plan for that may be needed.

[LoftyLottie]

I agree totally with jno here for the reasons he/she quotes.

I cannot add any more to the debate.

[Maggoty]

It is not compulsory - you can opt out

If you are willing to receive then you must be willing to give.

All of you against it - are you going to refuse a kidney transplant if you or, god forbid, a spouse or child are in need of one. Of course you are not - the only way you would refuse is on religious grounds and thats another matter entirely.

If its an opt out system then there will hardly be any need for doctors to "nudge" us towards death to harvest our organs as there withe shortgage there is now, because of the new system.

Don't suppose my liver would be much good to them (except for medical school!!) but the rest of me, do as you like.