Presumed consent organ donation

Bear said:
I personally think presumed consent is wrong, it should always be IMO be an opt in system. Depnding on how it is done, people that don't want to donate may be put in the uncomfortable position of having inform their doctor or may have to justify it to someone when asked why not.

The whole debate for me isn't about the people that don't donate but the lazy morons that want to but never get round to doing so. Presumed consent is for the lazy ***** that can't be bothered to get off their backsides to do something which they seemingly feel passionate about, so its those people and the ones that choose not to donate that should go at the back of the list. In fact I would put the lazy morons right at the end of the list.
Click to expand...
I do agree on that part, ideally we wouldn't even have to even consider anything other than an opt in system, laziness is indeed part of the problem.

But at the moment, the opt in system is currently resulting in a huge organ deficit - so really, something should be done to address this.
 
Westyfield2 said:
Unless of-course we were to make everything in this country default consent unless opt-out? Automatically signed up to Telephone Preference Service, automatically get a passport, presumed consent to sex, etc etc... in which case it's fine to do organ donation as-well as everything else.
Click to expand...
ijWIFUa.png
 
elmarko said:
Out of curiosity, do you know how much is spent currently (in time & effort) in getting people onto the register - encouraging donation?.

Is it more than would be spent dealing with the other side of the coin (essentially leaving more money/time free for the A,B,C things you mentioned?).
Click to expand...

I don't know the figure but I think we could easily extrapolate it is hardly the best funded venture.

I doubt most people on here would know the criteria for usage of organs, the difference between differing forms of donation, the usage of donations, the ethical framework and knowledge to make their own personal choice an informed one etc. See a lot of people say hell yeah and hell no way but when you actually ask them their decision is hardly informed and if it is not then it's hardly consent. The fact most people don't know this demonstrates the failure is most likely not in opt-in/opt-out mechanics but the public health message.
 
realBabelfish said:
no it isnt. it might be anti-hypocritical though.

if you dont believe in donating organs why should you be allowed to get donated organs? if you believe in sky fairies and dont want to donate then surely you dont need donated organs as your sky fairy will look after you when your organs fail.
Click to expand...

I know what your saying, but i just don't like the idea of say if i needed a kidney i would have to be on the organ list or get chucked at the bottom, it may come accross as selfish from me i know, i'm sure it would turn into a postcode lottery anyway :(
 
Woden said:
That is incredibly childish at best. By stopping your organs being doif thatcated because the government says you should, you are still letting the government make your decisions for you. Most people grow out of that in their teens.

Or, even worse, you are some sort of extremist hipster? If organ donation becomes to mainstream you will stop? Even if it costs lives?
Click to expand...

Its called a protest....I will withdraw my consent in protest at what I think is an authoritarian and wrong practice.
I will not do it lightly and I do not consider protecting my rights as best I can as being childish..you may not agree with my protest but I have a right to determine what happens to my body and I feel that should remain.

You are almost right on that one. The default position should always be in favour of the living individual. The state doesn't benefit here, people on transplant lists do.

I don't care what happens to my body when I die, and the people that might be asked about it when I do finally pop my clogs know this. They can take anything that could be useful for transplant, research or education, cremate the rest. Not exactly using it am I? In my mind, it is no different to me giving away my blueray player when I got my PS3.



It will save lives. It's that simple. Anyone that wants to keep their body intact for whatever reason (I know Muslims believe their body should be buried whole for example) will have the ability to opt-out. Anyone that doesn't care enough to opt out would likely be okay with it anyway.
Click to expand...

You may not care...however I do as do my family. I consent currently because I choose to...If donation is presumed then it is harvesting not donation. It is my body, the default position should always lie with me.
 
Last edited:
Diesel said:
Totally agree with this. You can have whatever body parts of me you like when I die.
Click to expand...

They don't do it while you're dead though, the pull all the best bits out while your heart is still beating.

You're "brain dead" but the problem is the science of conciousness can't really measure brain death yet.

Worst case scenario it would be like being in a coma and having organs, eyes, etc cut out. People have woken up from comas though, and can remember things they have heard when the doctors/machines say they were "brain dead".

I reckon this will end badly when the neuroscience matures.
 
I love the throwing around of emotive terms like harvesting and state ownership.

Makes it sound like the government is going to have silos full of organs that they will sell to other EU states for more funds.
 
krooton said:
I would assume other religious people would feel the same, and both you and them have the right to opt out if you wish.
Click to expand...


They don't own me(yet) so it should be opt in. This is the fairest way I think. But you can imagine the first mistake

"we are sorry we chopped up your family for parts, is was a computer error" "we have learned from our(opps sorry) the computers mistake" :)
 
Castiel said:
Its called a protest....I will withdraw my consent in protest at what I think is an authoritarian and wrong practice.
I will not do it lightly and I do not consider protecting my rights as best I can as being childish..you may not agree with my protest but I have a right to determine what happens to my body and I feel that should remain.
Click to expand...

You would still have the right, that is why there is the option to opt-out. And it would hardly be the first time an opt-out system would be in place in and out of the medical field.

If I were found unconscious on the street tomorrow, I would be given medical treatment, even though I couldn't possibly consent. The people just assume that I, like most, would consent and do whatever is in my best interests.

Castiel said:
You may not care...however I do as do my family. I consent currently because I choose to...If donation is presumed then it is harvesting not donation. It is my body, the default position should always lie with me.
Click to expand...

You're dead, the default position would never lie with you. Right now the default is that the organs and tissues would go to waste even if, like the majority, you would be happy to donate. Even if you are on the register, your family will be asked and they can override your decision.
 
In the future, everyone will be opted in.

You'll have to donate a pint of blood every month. If there's a clerical error after doing so, you'll have to give up another pint.

If you're ever in hospital, your microchip will be scanned. At that point in time, if your body will save at least 6 other lives, and you haven't paid enough into the system, your life will be terminated.

Donate-ers will get preference, unless a rich American needs your liver, then it will go to the highest bidder.

Harvesting organs from tourists will become common.

Luckily for me, I've found a motorcyclist who has the same blood / compatible organs. When the time comes, I'm ready to pounce.
 
!bluetonic! said:
In the future, everyone will be opted in.

You'll have to donate a pint of blood every month. If there's a clerical error after doing so, you'll have to give up another pint.

If you're ever in hospital, your microchip will be scanned. At that point in time, if your body will save at least 6 other lives, and you haven't paid enough into the system, your life will be terminated.

Donate-ers will get preference, unless a rich American needs your liver, then it will go to the highest bidder.

Harvesting organs from tourists will become common.

Luckily for me, I've found a motorcyclist who has the same blood / compatible organs. When the time comes, I'm ready to pounce.
Click to expand...

In the future organs will be grown to order and blood donations will be replaced by synthetic blood farms. These once working well would be safer and more viable than using doners anyway.
 
I find it darkly ironic that one of the reasons for the reduced number of young peoples organs currently available was the implementation of the law regarding wearing seat belts! :p

I wonder how many people have been saved from wearing a seat belt netted off with the number of lives lost due to lack of organs...

It's probably still in favour of the seat belt wearer, but then, who knows... 1 death can save multiple lives....hmm, the law of unintended consequences and all that..
 
The only thing I'm a little uncertain on is people <18, for instance, I'm 16, now I'm classed as an adult to the NHS, if I get a blood test and go in to pick up the results, they will only give the results to me, not my parents, the same is with confidentiality. Now because of this, would they allow me to opt-out on my own, or would the person have to be over 18?

I think donating organs is something I'd be willing to do, but only if I knew the person.
 
Freakbro said:
I find it darkly ironic that one of the reasons for the reduced number of young peoples organs currently available was the implementation of the law regarding wearing seat belts! :p

I wonder how many people have been saved from wearing a seat belt netted off with the number of lives lost due to lack of organs...

It's probably still in favour of the seat belt wearer, but then, who knows... 1 death can save multiple lives....hmm, the law of unintended consequences and all that..
Click to expand...
Why doesn't anybody think of the positive externalities of not wearing a seatbelt!!!!. :D:D

Woden said:
In the future organs will be grown to order and blood donations will be replaced by synthetic blood farms. These once working well would be safer and more viable than using doners anyway.
Click to expand...
Yup, this is a better solution - but if I recall correctly, they still need organs to use as templates (they drain them of cells & use them as a bio-framework if I recall correctly), I'm unsure as to if they can re-use them or not (pretty big factor there).

But it would mean that pretty much any organ could be used.
 
elmarko said:
Why doesn't anybody think of the positive externalities of not wearing a seatbelt!!!!. :D:D
Click to expand...

Exactly! I will point this out to the kind officer the next time I get pulled for not wearing a seatbelt! ;)

"But Occifer, I am just increasing the chances of life via organ donation"
 
Last edited:
krooton said:
I love the throwing around of emotive terms like harvesting and state ownership.
Click to expand...

What else would you call it? It is obviously no longer organ donation because you are not donating your organs, they are being taken.

Freakbro said:
I find it darkly ironic that one of the reasons for the reduced number of young peoples organs currently available was the implementation of the law regarding wearing seat belts! :p

I wonder how many people have been saved from wearing a seat belt netted off with the number of lives lost due to lack of organs...

It's probably still in favour of the seat belt wearer, but then, who knows... 1 death can save multiple lives....hmm, the law of unintended consequences and all that..
Click to expand...

The lack of a seat belt law in Spain is seen as one of the reasons they have more organ donors than the UK rather than an opt-out system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom