Presumed consent organ donation

[Woden]

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.

Without looking it up, as I am pretty damn lazy (and the transplant list for a work ethic is pretty darn long), I think you are right.

For now though, obviously. The technology will get better over time, and the synthetic organs will go from an idea, to viable to being fine substitutes.

Blood should be the easiest, read somewhere its already possible to produce clean O- (universal donor, works with everybody) blood, we just need to improve yields in production. There is no reason why within our lifetime we cant eliminate the need for blood donation totally.

 

[Freakbro]

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

It would only be state ownership, harvesting and overtly authoritarian if you had no options, but you do, you still have exactly the same rights as now, to donate or not, your choice.

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.

Haha, that's brilliant!

 

[MooMoo444]

+1.

Part of me thinks if you opt out (when if you are able medically to donate, also an adult) then you should be at the bottom of the transplant list if you should ever need one.

Might discourage people from opting out.

As harsh as this sounds, I can't help but agree to it. If you're being 'selfish' with your organs, then it's kinda hypocritical to be given someone elses to save your life.

 

[RDM]

It would only be state ownership, harvesting and overtly authoritarian if you had no options, but you do, you still have exactly the same rights as now, to donate or not, your choice.

Nope, donating is when you choose to give something. You are not choosing to give your organs the choice is being made for you. Much like I don't donate to HMRC.

Haha, that's brilliant!

So if you really care deeply about organ donation rather than campaign for an opt out system campaign for relaxing seat belt laws.

 

[Freakbro]

Nope, donating is when you choose to give something. You are not choosing to give your organs the choice is being made for you. Much like I don't donate to HMRC.

Common, this is nothing like the requirement to pay taxes! There you have no prior choice to opt out

All this is doing is changing the default position from no to yes. But the ultimate choice is not being made for you, you still have every right and option to not donate your organs, hence I just don't see the enforced part of the argument against this.

I understand what the objectors are saying, I just don't agree with it.

So if you really care deeply about organ donation rather than campaign for an opt out system campaign for relaxing seat belt laws.

! *runs off to start an e-petition*

 

[Woden]

Nope, donating is when you choose to give something. You are not choosing to give your organs the choice is being made for you. Much like I don't donate to HMRC.

You would be totally right ... if you couldn't opt-out. But you can. So ... yea ...

The very fact that you can opt-out means it is a choice! You can sit there and decide if you want them to have your organs or not. All that would change is the default position.

 

[ElliorR]

When I die others can have any part of my body they need.

To those who do not opt in now, and would opt out if things changed, I hope you never need a donor organ and can't get one because of people like yourselves.

I wouldn't care if a law was passed saying everyone, when they die, becomes a donor regardless. This would be one "draconian" measure I could live with if it means lives saved.

Queue lists of other measures people will ask if I would be happy forced upon me since I would be happy for this one.

 

[Pabl0]

I'm a donor and wouldn't be bothered if it was opt out for the whole of the UK.

What use is my corpse when i'm gone, might aswell harvest what they like and throw me in the coal fires at a power station.

 

[Abraxaz1]

When I die, the NHS can help themselves to my organs, I'd rather them be used to help someone else in either medical needs, training needs or scientific needs than rotting in a ditch somewhere.
I think People who do opt out should be on the bottom of the organ list but then again I have the same opinion of people who can give blood and refuse to. Problem with modern society is its too self centred, just look at the blood donation vans, I rarely see people my age or younger.

edit:stupid phone autocorrect

 

[RDM]

You would be totally right ... if you couldn't opt-out. But you can. So ... yea ...

The very fact that you can opt-out means it is a choice! You can sit there and decide if you want them to have your organs or not. All that would change is the default position.

You are still not making the choice to donate.

 

[elmarko]

When I die, the NHS can help themselves to my organs, I'd rather them be used to help someone else in either medical needs, training needs or scientific needs than rotting in a ditch somewhere.
I think People who do opt out should be on the bottom of the organ list but then again I have the same opinion of people who can give blood and refuse to. Problem with modern society is its too self centred, just look at the blood donation vans, I really see people my age or younger.

Indeed, whenever I'm donating blood I'm the only guy there in his 20's.

You are still not making the choice to donate.

But you still have the choice not to donate (the key point which is being missed).

 

[D.P.]

I thought you were against authoritarian things?

Basically enforcing organ harvesting isn't a particularly nice thing as it tramples over peoples rights and opinions.

My body is my own. If I wish to donate my bits and bobs I will, I don't want to be essentially forced into it...

The opt-out scheme is not enforcing, it gives you the same choices as every before.
Even elmarko's extreme version is not enforcing, you still have a choice. You want an organ transplant then you need to be a willing donor (or medically unsuitable), you don't donate then you don't receive. It would be like any scheme where to receive/win you must partake. Not my cup of tea but it makes sense, if you are selfish enough not to want to donate your organs then why should ou be given life by someone else kindness to donate?

 

[Castiel]

The reason why I object is that I feel there are better ways of doing this that do not infringe on what I consider a fundamental and basic right over what happens to ones body. Just as there are people today who have not registered because they either do not know how or even realise they have a choice so that will remain..the choice to remove someones organs would happen regardless of what they might have chosen in life we should never assume a position because it is expedient...the State is effectively choosing for them. I have already put forward one alternative and there are others.

And the idea that you should be potentially and perhaps fatally punished because you hold a difference of conscience is fundamentally against a free and equal society. Some people choose not to fight in defence of their country..should they not be defended by those that do?....I woukd hope our society has moved on from that kind of segregation.

 

[Woden]

You are still not making the choice to donate.

You still have the exact same choice. To donate or not. The end product is the same, the NHS either do or do not get your organs.

All that has changed is who gets inconvenienced. Right now, its the willing majority that have to go out of their way to change the default position.

I assume you are also against giving medical treatment to unconscious people to? They are not consenting.

The reason why I object is that I feel there are better ways of doing this that do not infringe on what I consider a fundamental and basic right over what happens to ones body. Just as there are people today who have not registered because they either do not know how or even realise they have a choice so that will remain..the choice to remove someones organs would happen regardless of what they might have chosen in life we should never assume a position because it is expedient...the State is effectively choosing for them. I have already put forward one alternative and there are others.

The state is already choosing for us by assuming non-consent is it not?
We already have no say what happens to us once we die. All we have is a preference. Even if you are on the donor register, family get final say on what happens to your organs, if they say no, they wont take them.
Hell I have made it known that I want to be cremated when I die, but there is nothing I can actually do to stop my family going against that and burying me.

And the idea that you should be potentially and perhaps fatally punished because you hold a difference of conscience is fundamentally against a free and equal society. Some people choose not to fight in defence of their country..should they not be defended by those that do?....I woukd hope our society has moved on from that kind of segregation.

Totally different scenario. There is not a shortage of soldiers and where there is, we have conscription.
There is however, a shortage of organs. And 8000-9000 potential donors (obviously most wont be suitable anyway) a week.

 

[RDM]

But you still have the choice not to donate (the key point which is being missed).

I am not missing anything, I just disagree that an opt out system suddenly means everyone chooses to donate. All it means is that thy haven't chosen to opt out. It stops being organ donation because you are not choosing to gift your organs.

 

[estebanrey]

Encouraged by saying "Ok, if you don't want to sign up-to donation you are also on the bottom of the receivers list" isn't forcing.

You are fully free to refuse to sign up-to donation & then die if you need one (in my system), that's freedom at it's best!.

So under your system what happens in this scenario....

You have 1 liver that matches with two people. Person A is a registered donor but doesn't need the transplant in the sense that whilst it would improve their life, their current condition can easily be managed with drugs/monitoring. Person B isn't a registered donor but is in desperate need of a transplant and will die if they don't get it.

Do you still give it to person A?

 

[starfighter]

I think this is a good idea, I am sure more people are willing to donate but they don't get around to giving consent. Opt out is the way forward.

 

[Abraxaz1]

So under your system what happens in this scenario....

You have 1 liver that matches with two people. Person A is a registered donor but doesn't need the transplant in the sense that whilst it would improve their life, their current condition can easily be managed with drugs/monitoring. Person B isn't a registered donor but is in desperate need of a transplant and will die if they don't get it.

Do you still give it to person A?

Person B made his choice when he was selfish and opted out, he knew the consequence and decided to be a selfish c word.
I cant understand why people seem to think they can get something for nothing, the only way forward for humanity is as a team.

 

[RDM]

You still have the exact same choice. To donate or not. The end product is the same, the NHS either do or do not get your organs.

All that has changed is who gets inconvenienced. Right now, its the willing majority that have to go out of their way to change the default position.

Sorry, this is incorrect, at the moment you choose to donate your organs. You make a conscious decision to do so. Ergo it is a donation. Otherwise you have made no choice. Using your logic all those people that have not opted in have choosen to NOT donate their organs when in reality they have either made a conscious decision to do so, or haven't even considered it or haven't got round to it.

Choosing to donate is different from not choosing to not donate (if you will excuse the double negative).

 

[elmarko]

The reason why I object is that I feel there are better ways of doing this that do not infringe on what I consider a fundamental and basic right over what happens to ones body.

You don't loose that right or choice though do you?.

Just as there are people today who have not registered because they either do not know how or even realise they have a choice so that will remain..the choice to remove someones organs would happen regardless of what they might have chosen in life we should never assume a position because it is expedient...the State is effectively choosing for them. I have already put forward one alternative and there are others.

Would you be happy with enforcing the decision (making it a mandatory choice)?

I'm mean, ideally I'd like everybody to be able to get them if needed, but that clearly isn't the case today & I doubt it would be under the suggestions you mentioned.

And the idea that you should be potentially and perhaps fatally punished because you hold a difference of conscience is fundamentally against a free and equal society. Some people choose not to fight in defence of their country..should they not be defended by those that do?....I woukd hope our society has moved on from that kind of segregation.

People who fight for our country get paid by tax payers, it isn't really comparable - as no financial motivation exists for donation.

My extreme suggestion wasn't really 100% serious, it's what I'd do If I was a harsher man - but programs like that already exist in the world (collectives of people with mutual organ donation as a form of "life insurance").

If not enough are being donated for the people of the nation, I could see the appeal of joining this kind of collective (I'm not sure I would personally).