If you read my posts without prejudice then you will see that I have made no reference to children and that consent is something that should be sought from an individual when they are in position to make an informed decision. I hold that view for religious practices such as circumcision and baptism also.
Presumed consent organ donation
- Thread starter stoofa
- Start date
If you read my posts without prejudice then you will see that I have made no reference to children and that consent is something that should be sought from an individual when they are in position to make an informed decision. I hold that view for religious practices such as circumcision and baptism also.
It is not being missed it's an entirely different paradigm. To paint it as the same without regard for the implications is simply not correct.
I do really wonder how many people quoting this and that in here know a) the criteria for donation b) what can be donated c) how the process actually happens d) what happens with objections e) what people would do with opt-out with objections etc.
Only if you are in a position to make that choice, however there are a myriad of reason why such a choice may not have been available to someone or appropriate for them. Presumed Consent makes that choice for them.
I think I answered this in my post to DP. I would support a mandated choice as long as it had three options and was open to review by the individual.
I disagree, I think that some of or a combination of them would give us significantly more people registering their intent or consent being given by someone other than the State...such as Family in the situation where their is no specific intent given by the individual.
I was referring to the point about objecting because of conscience or belief and retaining the right to be defended equally by those who hold no such objection, and how that compares with a system which punishes those who object to having their organs removed on grounds of conscience or belief as opposed to those who do not.
I was not referring to motivation, although I do not see a fair comparison between being paid a wage to defend your country and being threatened with potential death if you do not agree with organ donation.
I could see the appeal of killing everyone with a congenital or hereditary medical disposition that may require a transplant... That doesn't mean I would support or not actively oppose such a position however....many things are appealing, but that doesn't make them right.
I will be honest and say that I do not know the criteria you refer to, at least not fully or with any authority. My objection is purely about the presumed consent, which I feel is not really consent at all and I think that where a definitive intent is not given then we should not presume one.....there are other ways to solve this or at least improve it.
Opt-out simply does not work. According to the blood and transplant service 1,000 people a year die waiting for an organ. Yet almost 7,000 potential doners are buried/cremated a week with organs they don't need any more.
Personally I would like to see voting compulsory like in Australia. There's other things that could get done at the same time too if you know full well you will be seing everyone 17+ at least once every 4 years.
Cast your vote, join or leave the organ register, passport forms. Nothing that takes extra work on the day, just handing in papers.
The NHSBT seems to disagree with you, at least in some respects. They are pretty solid on the concept of consent and making sure that such consent is given.
They seem to value promotion of voluntary donations as the basis for any legislation. I think it is disingenuous to say that Opt-Outs simply do not work...I think ours can be improved in many ways, but that is a long way from having a presumed consent system.
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/newsroom/statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.asp
Obviosuly I meant opt-in, but from your post I think you got what I meant. I blame the lager ... only had one though
The NHSBTare entitled to their opinion ... however wrong it may be
Obviosuly I meant opt-in, but from your post I think you got what I meant. I blame the lager ... only had one though
The NHSBTare entitled to their opinion ... however wrong it may be
Yeah, I realised that was what you meant. And they are indeed entitled to their opinion, as we all are. Whether it is wrong or not is open to debate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
It's not yours when your dead.......because you'll be dead.
Last edited:
What an utterly stupid thing to say.In Elmarko's world only the scientists and staff members of the pharmaceutical companies that grow them would be allowed to have them
The only reason why I even entertained the idea of the mutual opt in system was for two key reasons.
1. Organs a limited resource - to note, this would not apply If we could grow them - making the entire debate pointless if it was true.
2. To get more people to sign up, because of point 1.
This isn't about teaching people lessons or punishment them, it's about incentivising people to join the register in such a way which doesn't impact on their rights (as obviously a simply opt out system for many is too draconian).
I do think that the suggestion Castiel mentioned may be one way of significantly increasing the donor rates & to be honest - whatever method reduces the total amount of deaths waiting for organ donation best should be explored.
If the double opt in system (to give & take) achieved that, I'd also support that.
Last edited:
You should still have the right to determine how your body is disposed of however and not have that decision subject to a presumption by the State. Change the system whereby Consent is given by all means, but presumption is not something I agree with.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
That's really ghoulish if you think that you can lay claim to someone's body because they are no longer living.
I suspect that there are more liberal ways of incentivising someone to donate than threatening to let them die unnecessarily if they do not agree with your position however.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why, the next of kin does it now.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It seems like a bold step by Wales so I'll be interested to see the results.
Instinctively I'd prefer it to be an opt-in system as that makes it a conscious choice rather than potentially an omission to be on the register. However if there aren't enough donors this is one way to attempt to address that - provided the choices are clearly explained then I don't have much in the way of an issue with it.
This might be a question which shows my naivety around donation procedures but can the family still overrule the wishes of the (soon to be) deceased regarding organ donation i.e. if the putative donor is currently on the register (whether opt-in or opt-out) then can the family still make the choice not to allow the donation to go ahead? I've already made it clear to my family that if any of my body parts can be reused then I'd like it to happen but I wonder about situations where it hasn't been discussed with the family or the family and the donor are at odds on the issue whose position would be upheld. I suspect it's those who remain living as a matter of guidelines and that it's simply not worth the hassle to take organs where there's a willing donor but unwilling family but perhaps someone could clarify for me?
Instinctively I'd prefer it to be an opt-in system as that makes it a conscious choice rather than potentially an omission to be on the register. However if there aren't enough donors this is one way to attempt to address that - provided the choices are clearly explained then I don't have much in the way of an issue with it.
This might be a question which shows my naivety around donation procedures but can the family still overrule the wishes of the (soon to be) deceased regarding organ donation i.e. if the putative donor is currently on the register (whether opt-in or opt-out) then can the family still make the choice not to allow the donation to go ahead? I've already made it clear to my family that if any of my body parts can be reused then I'd like it to happen but I wonder about situations where it hasn't been discussed with the family or the family and the donor are at odds on the issue whose position would be upheld. I suspect it's those who remain living as a matter of guidelines and that it's simply not worth the hassle to take organs where there's a willing donor but unwilling family but perhaps someone could clarify for me?
Well, that's not exactly true - it's saying, come join our club, we donate organs to each other because we rule!.I suspect that there are more liberal ways of incentivising someone to donate than threatening to let them die unnecessarily if they do not agree with your position however.
But yeah, I do know what you mean - which is why I've stressed if I was a little colder it's what I would support (in reality I wouldn't be comfortable with letting people die) but I also can't ignore the fact we have a population of people more than willing to take organs & not willing to give them back.
This annoys me greatly, almost enough to be want them out of the gene pool via the above form of Darwinism (almost enough, but not quite).
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Yes it is, the first part you admit as such when you say you'd do it to increase organ donations or 'incentivise' them, that is teaching them a lesson in other words.
The second bit, about punishment, is the natural consequence of telling a non-donor they can't have a transplant because they didn't donate themselves.
Do you think a women's place for a mastectomy operation should be based on how many Race for Lifes she's taken part in, or how much she's donated to cancer research? That is principally the same as your recommendation that people who opt out of organ donation should forgo their place in the queue.
No it isn't, they are not using up a limited resource & denying others the right to mastectomy's out of some insane selfish attitude.
They are saying, "Give me a mastectomy, but after I'm dead - I don't want other people to have something I don't need to have a mastectomy".
The two are simply not comparable, the principle isn't the same.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
Yes, they are entrusted to follow the deceased wishes.
Well, that's not exactly true - it's saying, come join our club, we donate organs to each other because we rule!.
But yeah, I do know what you mean - which is why I've stressed if I was a little colder it's what I would support (in reality I wouldn't be comfortable with letting people die) but I also can't ignore the fact we have a population of people more than willing to take organs & not willing to give them back.
This annoys me greatly, almost enough to be want them out of the gene pool via the above form of Darwinism (almost enough, but not quite).
Many may be like me though, they may be willing to give their organs freely, but have a significant opposition to how the system manifests the way in which that choice is made (or for some, not made). There are also a whole range of other factors that may mean someone has opted out or may have wished to, they may not be in a position to make an informed choice or have the opportunity to make such a choice for example.
It really is a difficult position, and there is no guarantee that this will increase donations...for example Sweden who have an Opt-Out law have lower comparative donations per capita than the UK does currently.
I really feel that there are better options here that do not require a presumption on the part of the State.
Last edited: