Organ donor system "presumed consent"

[Nix]

Or looking at it with a more positive slant, it is encouraging people to confront the question of whether they believe organ donation to be acceptable and under what circumstances. If that makes some people uncomfortable then it is unfortunate but lack of suitable organs and donors is a real problem so I'd prefer healthy living people to have a relatively short period of mental turmoil (if you'll excuse the overly dramatic phrasing) than the alternative of people dying because someone doesn't want to consider the situation.

It's not necessarily short-term though, is it? In my particular position, it's a case of me trying to identify why exactly I feel uncomfortable with the idea, then address it. To others, it might be a huge moral polemic created by man's actions.

Surely the issue then is not in creating an atmosphere of pushing people into moral dilemmas, but in raising awareness of the current situation? Perhaps this whole debate may serve a means to an ends in such context.

Like I've said, it's simply not right to force people to choose nor is it right to refuse someone treatment simply because they may wish to be buried whole, even if it is for religious reasons; it goes totally against the whole point of medicine.

 

[Bear]

Because not everyone has the time or ability to give blood, pretty much anyone can donate their organs once dead - you have all the time in the World at that point.

And yet it hardly takes any time to fill out a card yet so many people seem to not get round to it. It is this, that is fundamental to the whole arguement, people are so ******* lazy that they want the governemt to sort it out for them. Totally pathetic and people wonder why they arent worth saving IMO.

 

[chrisd]

Because not everyone has the time or ability to give blood, pretty much anyone can donate their organs once dead - you have all the time in the World at that point.

The number of people who genuinely don't have the time to spend 30 minutes donating blood, especially given that appointments can often be made for weekends, must be a tiny fraction of those that don't donate.

I'd much rather the government tried to encourage people to donate (both blood and organs) because it's the right thing to do, than to take the easy route by changing the opt-in scheme.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It's not necessarily short-term though, is it? In my particular position, it's a case of me trying to identify why exactly I feel uncomfortable with the idea, then address it. To others, it might be a huge moral polemic created by man's actions.

Surely the issue then is not in creating an atmosphere of pushing people into moral dilemmas, but in raising awareness of the current situation? Perhaps this whole debate may serve a means to an ends in such context.

If all this proposal does is to raise awareness and never gets implemented then it will still have served a valuable purpose. Not as useful to my mind as if it was implemented fully but better than nothing. Part of the dilemma created is entirely by self though, I've got a relatively simple view, you can opt in/out as you choose with no major moral consequences but I know that not everyone will share my views on this.

Like I've said, it's simply not right to force people to choose nor is it right to refuse someone treatment simply because they may wish to be buried whole, even if it is for religious reasons; it goes totally against the whole point of medicine.

I've not said that those who do not donate their organs should be refused organs of others, for the record I am not in favour of that. It is their choice not to and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to expect the same standard of care as anyone else, however I would hope that they might then reconsider their stance.

 

[Tefal]

I've not said that those who do not donate their organs should be refused organs of others, for the record I am not in favour of that. It is their choice not to and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to expect the same standard of care as anyone else, however I would hope that they might then reconsider their stance.

although it would probably be that that if they felt so strongly that organs are sacred etc and shouldn't be removed they wouldn't want them put in either(sp?).

 

[semi-pro waster]

And yet it hardly takes any time to fill out a card yet so many people seem to not get round to it. It is this, that is fundamental to the whole arguement, people are so ******* lazy that they want the governemt to sort it out for them. Totally pathetic and people wonder why they arent worth saving IMO.

As I've mentioned above I've signed the register at least twice and haven't received a card yet, admittedly this does not bode particularly well for displaying the competence required to administer the system fully but a card itself is a fairly minor thing provided all relevant checks are carried out before organ removal takes place.

Do you think this is all a question of laziness? I'd say that it was the Government addressing a problem in the best way it can.

I am however totally with you on the issue that many people aren't worth saving, in fact I'm half in favour of involuntary euthanasia, fortunately though I don't have any say in it. Since I can't pick the people I want saved I've accepted that the better option is to try and save everyone and live with the fact that some dross will inevitably survive while other more 'worthy' people won't.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The number of people who genuinely don't have the time to spend 30 minutes donating blood, especially given that appointments can often be made for weekends, must be a tiny fraction of those that don't donate.

Probably it is a very small percentage who don't have the time.

I'd much rather the government tried to encourage people to donate (both blood and organs) because it's the right thing to do, than to take the easy route by changing the opt-in scheme.

The Government does though, I hear adverts about giving blood on the radio a good 3-4 times a day. I've not been so aware of campaigns about organ donation but if the current campaigns aren't working then trying a different tack seems like an obvious step to me. I'd love to believe that people will do things because it is the right thing to do but sadly I don't have that much faith in all humanity.

 

[Mulder]

I'm with CBS on this one. Yes, organ donation is a good thing and more people should do it (I carry a card myself) and yes, organs are useless to you after you die. However, this signals a fundamental shift in the relationship between state and individual as it assumes that they can do anything with your body after you die. Imagine a system whereby material possessions are defaulted to being property of the state unless you chose to opt out. This isn't just property, it's our own bodies.

Whether property or parts of our body, it doesn't really matter, the state shouldn't be able to take control of anything of ours by default. An opt out clause is NOT good enough. The Government should encourage people far more to carry donor cards, by putting a tick box on tax returns, for example.

 

[Nix]

I'm with CBS on this one. Yes, organ donation is a good thing and more people should do it (I carry a card myself) and yes, organs are useless to you after you die. However, this signals a fundamental shift in the relationship between state and individual as it assumes that they can do anything with your body after you die. Imagine a system whereby material possessions are defaulted to being property of the state unless you chose to opt out. This isn't just property, it's our own bodies.

Whether property or parts of our body, it doesn't really matter, the state shouldn't be able to take control of anything of ours after death. An opt out clause is NOT good enough. The Government should encourage people far more to carry donor cards, like putting a tick box on tax returns, for example.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

This is very much an issue of the state invading personal freedoms. First the identity cards, now this. What's next!?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

This one again - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17755410&highlight=organ+donor

Even though I'm being left at the hospital to be cut into tiny pieces it is my right to give my consent and not the other way round.

 

[Bear]

As I've mentioned above I've signed the register at least twice and haven't received a card yet, admittedly this does not bode particularly well for displaying the competence required to administer the system fully but a card itself is a fairly minor thing provided all relevant checks are carried out before organ removal takes place.

Do you think this is all a question of laziness? I'd say that it was the Government addressing a problem in the best way it can.

You not having a card to sign isnt your fault but the fault of the system but with the amount of people that are willing to donate and not signing for it, what could it be down to if not laziness ??

Here we are, I'll even make it easy for the people that havent registered but want to http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp

 

[loopstah]

You might not be able to take it with you when you die but I'm ****** well going to take my organs with me at the least. I don't want parts of my body shipped round the country and stuck in other people when I'm dead, I put a lot of work into maintaining and keeping those organs going and don't want someone else benefiting unless they are a close relative.

 

[netby]

"Government advisers have recommended a radical overhaul of the UK organ donor network in a bid to double the number of organs available for transplant.By recruiting twice as many transplant coordinators and creating 24-hour organ retrieval teams they hope to emulate Spain's successful model.A system of "presumed consent" in which everyone is a potential donor unless they opt out is also being considered. "Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7183559.stmGordon Brown supports the removal of organs without consent.

eheheh
here in Portugal we have same regimen as Spain( it started two/tree years ago)
we are all potential donors,unless we make a statement ,in life,that we do not want our organs done to somebody else after our dead

personally I havent done any statement

 

[Surfer]

The problem with this proposal is that it seems to be a blanket waiver to our rights. (however good the outcome might be for everyone) and i'd be concerned that this didnt set a precedent for other political endeavours that are less merit worthy.

All we need to do is have the question on something like a driving licence form and bam sorted.

 

[Indy500]

This makes about as much sense as taking everyone's DNA and blood at birth because they *might* commit a crime. Complete nonsense. Please, stop being lazy and asking the government to do everything - this is why we're at this point.

 

[Nix]

This makes about as much sense as taking everyone's DNA and blood at birth because they *might* commit a crime. Complete nonsense. Please, stop being lazy and asking the government to do everything - this is why we're at this point.

I'm not asking the government to do anything. In fact, I'm telling them to keep their grubby hands off unless I tell them otherwise!

The body is the last frontier and the state seem determined to control that too.

Joyce Robins from Patient Concern told BBC Radio 5 Live presumed consent turned volunteers into conscripts and that proposals did not tackle the problem of donor shortages.

"Presumed consent is no consent at all. We've worked for years to get a system of proper, informed consent in the health service in this country and Gordon Brown is willing to throw it all out of the window," she said.

 

[Indy500]

I'm not asking the government to do anything. In fact, I'm telling them to keep their grubby hands off unless I tell them otherwise!

It was a general response to the thread, if I was aiming it at you I'd quote you

 

[Nix]

It was a general response to the thread, if I was aiming it at you I'd quote you

I didn't assume you were aiming at me, I was replying to state the point that there are people who oppose the idea, just like you.

 

[Indy500]

I didn't assume you were aiming at me, I was replying to state the point that there are people who oppose the idea, just like you.

I know, it does seem to be the majority in the thread favouring the govt idea though. Besides, the above is a point that can't be pressed enough.

 

[Mik3]

I think this is a good idea, however it will put a hugh load on the already over worked NHS.