Organ donation

[Muffin`]

No-one is grooming my body for bits when i die thank you very much. (Barring family of course) I dont see why a stranger who is an alcoholic should get my liver or heavy smoker get my lungs if there is a 1% chance they will knacker them again.

(My liver would be pretty useless anyway i think)

For this reason I wish to be cremated

But they don't, they always goto the people who have looked after themselves over the people who haven't. People who have just been crushed in an accidents etc. If there is no preferred donor then it goes next down the list, to people who do smoke etc, but there is no one more deserving.

Seem rather moronic you would keep them to yourself then help a person live longer when in actual fact you cannot possibly need them anymore, nor will it make any difference to you what so ever, except "He was nice, he gave his organs to five different people, so they could live on".

 

[cleanbluesky]

I think I did that, so I'm already a donor. Imo organ donation should be an opt out scheme. It's not like you need them after you're dead, so there's no reason not to unless it's against your religion.

It seems ignorant to believe that you can state something about other people so abolutely, unless their religion says otherwise.

There seem to be a lot of opinions without explanation in this thread.

 

[Zip]

No-one is grooming my body for bits when i die thank you very much. (Barring family of course) I dont see why a stranger who is an alcoholic should get my liver or heavy smoker get my lungs if there is a 1% chance they will knacker them again.

(My liver would be pretty useless anyway i think)

For this reason I wish to be cremated

They have a screaning Process with people that need livers and such.

If someone thats a heavy smoker or drinker needs an Organ they will just have to wait longer when while the people with more healthy life styles get them

 

[Gilly]

There seem to be a lot of opinions without explanation in this thread.

Agreed, though I agree with him that it should be opt-out.

 

[cleanbluesky]

But they don't, they always goto the people who have looked after themselves over the people who haven't. People who have just been crushed in an accidents etc. If there is no preferred donor then it goes next down the list, to people who do smoke etc, but there is no one more deserving.

There is no guaruntee that a person will have looked after themselves, acoholics and smokers get in accidents and need organ replacement too. Also, the idea of who is 'more deserving' isn't clear cut - if a person smokes, there is no guaruntee that their cancer would not have happened if they did not.

Seem rather moronic you would keep them to yourself then help a person live longer when in actual fact you cannot possibly need them anymore, nor will it make any difference to you what so ever, except "He was nice, he gave his organs to five different people, so they could live on".

It seems curt that you would call someone moronic because you do not understand their opinion.

 

[TripleT]

Think I've done it already...

I'd like to see some stats for the % of people who need them through self abuse though.

/digs

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

Surely if the religious practises are so important then people would put in the effort to opt out?

 

[cleanbluesky]

Agreed, though I agree with him that it should be opt-out.

I don't believe that the state should start organ harvesting upon assumption, an opt-out system would mean that we are not assumed to be in charge of our organs.

 

[mjer1984]

I signed up as an organ donor a while ago, while i was at it signed up for bone marrow and to give blood.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I think I've already done this but I don't appear to have a donor card from the last time so I've just done it again, might as well since I'm entirely happy for someone else to get some use out of my bodyparts when they aren't any use to me.

 

[Gilly]

I don't believe that the state should start organ harvesting upon assumption, an opt-out system would mean that we are not assumed to be in charge of our organs.

How about we had the question asked when birth is registered.

Parents are asked whether they would like to opt out or not. If the answer is no then the child would have the opportunity to opt-out on leaving school. Up until this point would the parents have the say so anyway?

It is assumed that newborns are to go on the donor list. If the parents opt-out when registering the infant then the details do not go on the list, if the school leaver opts out then the details come off the list. As happens when an adult decides they wish to come off the list.

Workable?

 

[cleanbluesky]

How about we had the question asked when birth is registered.

Parents are asked whether they would like to opt out or not. If the answer is no then the child would have the opportunity to opt-out on leaving school. Up until this point would the parents have the say so anyway?

It is assumed that newborns are to go on the donor list. If the parents opt-out when registering the infant then the details do not go on the list, if the school leaver opts out then the details come off the list. As happens when an adult decides they wish to come off the list.

Workable?

It is very workable, although my concern would be that whilst such a system would be a 'good thing' because it may mean more lives are saved - it would carry with it the assumption that we do not own our organs. Regardless of how many oportunties a person were given to 'opt out', they should not be required to answer to anyone else on the fate of their body parts.

 

[Gilly]

It is very workable, although my concern would be that whilst such a system would be a 'good thing' because it may mean more lives are saved - it would carry with it the assumption that we do not own our organs. Regardless of how many oportunties a person were given to 'opt out', they should not be required to answer to anyone else on the fate of their body parts.

I suppose at some point the question is raised as to whether it is a good or evil thing to do it. Good things cannot be achieved by evil means.

However I'm not sure I fully agree with the assumption you stated. I have signed up for organ donation and yet own all of my own organs. When I die my ownership on them expires IMO. Just as the ownership of my estate would pass on to someone else.

It is a very personal subject and I understand misgivings people would have on it, but it is clear (if you can believe the sensationalist reporting) that the amount of organs available isn't enough at the min.

 

[georges]

I don't think I'm down for it, but is there a way to get them to put it on your driving licence( send a new one ) for free, as I don't think I did, but don't want to carry around another card.

 

[Welshy]

I'm already on there, signed up when I got my drivers license

 

[Gilly]

I don't think I'm down for it, but is there a way to get them to put it on your driving licence( send a new one ) for free, as I don't think I did, but don't want to carry around another card.

Not for free, no. You'd have to pay for a new card.

You don't have to carry a card to be on the register.

 

[TheKnat]

I signed up ages ago, although I don't think my organs are viable any more. I fully agree that it should be an opt-out system, as this would save may more lives. BUT it should only come into affect if someone actually dies, rather than is sitting on life support. In that situation there should be no question of unplugging them as someone needs their organs. Hopefully if we had an opt-out system, the supply of organs should be sufficient that this doesn't happen.

As far as owning your organs is concerned, I don't think that its possible to own anything after you die so what good are they going to do you ? Either they become maggot food or your ashes are a few grams heavier. Either way you've just wasted an opportunity to save someones life, but instead you have kept them to yourself. Maybe it should be a new entry into your will ?

I hereby leave all my internal gooey bits to my nephew to do with as he wishes.

If he chooses to give them to others, great; if he chooses to wear them as hats, not so great.

 

[Psyk]

It is very workable, although my concern would be that whilst such a system would be a 'good thing' because it may mean more lives are saved - it would carry with it the assumption that we do not own our organs.

A corpse can't own anything. The way I see it after death your organs belong to whoever you have left them to. At the moment it is assumed they become the property of your next of kin upon your death, unless you opt-in as an organ donor which means they become the property of the NHS or whatever organisation deals with it. I don't see why it can't be the other way round. In other words your organs are assumed to be left to the NHS unless you state otherwise.

Maybe you could do a two tiered approach. If you opt-in as an donor, then your organs are donated, no questions. If you haven't opted in then your next of kin has a certain period of time to opt-out of organ donation. After that time is up, your organs are automatically donated.