Presumed consent organ donation

[Xordium]

And they point out that it reinforces the importance of giving consent in organ donation.

What we are talking about here is someone in an RTA - they get blue-lighted to an A+E. They get their clothes cut off - the go to surgery - they get blue lighted to regional centres - they get further surgery - they go to ITU - do you think we have the card? By the time you find out in many cases do you think the organs are useful?

And Woden if you believe this will cost nothing to set up and maintain you are severely deluded.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'm not sure that is true anymore. The link to the NHSBT suggests that the 2006 Human Tissue act states that the explicit wishes of the deceased take precedence.

And they point out that it reinforces the importance of giving consent in organ donation.

Explicit wishes may legally take precedence but on a practical level for a medical team it might well not be worth the hassle to try and circumvent or argue against what the family wishes. There may also be guidelines from the hospital or medical authorities that in such circumstances it is not to be pursued.

I suspect most would. I've noticed over the years that quite ironically it is often the people who laugh all to freely at the "tooth fairy" who seem to care most about people disobeying them after they are dead.
Snipped the rest for space.

If my family choose to disobey my wishes after I'm dead (or as near as) then I figure I'm in no position to care about it. It might be interesting to think about in advance but once I'm gone I don't think I'll be interested in the slightest what happens to me, for all I care I can be chucked on the nearest rubbish heap although that might be unfortunately traumatising for anyone who finds me.

The rest of your post is informative but I think I'm still on the side of believing that increasing the number of potential donors is good, it's not without problems and this may not be the best way to do so nor the most effective but if it sparks a debate and moves things forward then perhaps it has served the purpose.

 

[Castiel]

What we are talking about here is someone in an RTA - they get blue-lighted to an A+E. They get their clothes cut off - the go to surgery - they get blue lighted to regional centres - they get further surgery - they go to ITU - do you think we have the card? By the time you find out in many cases do you think the organs are useful?

I realise this, but that was not the argument Woden was making to which I was responding. He was referring to people's expressed consent (so it is known by the surgeon) being overruled by their family regardless of what the deceased wanted...the legislation prohibits this it seems.

Explicit wishes may legally take precedence but on a practical level for a medical team it might well not be worth the hassle to try and circumvent what the family wishes. There may also be guidelines from the hospital or medical authorities that in such circumstances it is not to be pursued.

Then that is an issue for the authorities to deal with if an offence is being committed, if they are not following the legislation then why would more legislation be practical?

 

[Xordium]

If my family choose to disobey my wishes after I'm dead (or as near as) then I figure I'm in no position to care about it. It might be interesting to think about in advance but once I'm gone I don't think I'll be interested in the slightest what happens to me, for all I care I can be chucked on the nearest rubbish heap although that might be unfortunately traumatising for anyone who finds me.

If you wish your "wishes" in this regard to be exactly enforced then the only "real" way would be to have a designated person to act on your behalf in a will type structure where they are nominated and given power witnessed by a solicitor etc.

And I am far from trying to change peoples minds which is the whole point - people making up their mind and not having it made up for them - and I believe for people to make up their mind they need to know about the issue (social policy promotion), understand the issue (health promotion) and then actively give consent. An awful lot of in an opt-out system are in no fit state to give consent.

The real solution as I've hinted all along is to plough the money that will be spent on this into ensuring people never hit the list in the first place.

I realise this, but that was not the argument Woden was making to which I was responding. He was referring to people's expressed consent (so it is known by the surgeon) being overruled by their family regardless of what the deceased wanted...the legislation prohibits this it seems.?

I know but the point is it's all well and good saying you must respect the individuals wishes but we don't really know their wishes in either system in a practical and timely fashion.

Then that is an issue for the authorities to deal with if an offence is being committed, if they are not following the legislation then why would more legislation be practical?

It wouldn't because it would be easy to argue against that legislation as I've already indicated. I think I went through this on the use of torture and the burden of ethical responsibility in this country in regards to medical ethics and the individual and the state - in the US then they could be punitive - over here not a chance - Germany they'd lose their jobs for even attempting to challenge the decisions made with law if a greater good was being upheld. Not like they are going to kick everyone off the register are they!

 

[Woden]

I'm not sure that is true anymore. The link to the NHSBT suggests that the 2006 Human Tissue act states that the explicit wishes of the deceased take precedence.

And they point out that it reinforces the importance of giving consent in organ donation.

Well that's good

Not really an issue with my family, we all share the same views on death pretty much. But no doubt there are people who could and wanted to donate that didn't because the family didn't want it.

My cousin was murdered a few years ago. He was a gay pagan but his mother insisted on a catholic burial and his long-term boyfriend wasn't invited. Okay that was a little off topic but I think you get me. People do weird things when grieving.

 

[powlesY]

Sorry, i don't have the time to read through all the topic but would just like to drop in with this.

My best friend
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/9411437.Newport_man_is_beating_heart_trouble_to_follow_dream/

Whilst waiting for a donor. "His weight plummeted to six stone and he was wheelchair bound."

An update on him a year later
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/ne...t_heart_op_student__23__loses_fight_for_life/

Those extra 3 years he got were very, very important to me - not to mention his family. In that time he taught himself guitar, went to college and got engaged. He also spoke at several seminars and was somewhat of an ambassador trying to get this law passed. An absolute inspiration to many people. Whether he would've managed to live longer if he didn't have to wait so long for a donor is anyones guess but all i and everyone else can be happy for is those extra 3 years. Since then i've raised over £4000 for BHF and will continue to try and raise more.

I have no respect for anyone that's against this law that's been passed. You still have the option to opt-out but if you do, one can only imagine if you or a close one ends up with something terminal demanding a transplant and then you have no option but to announce yourself to be a classless hypocrite.

 

[UncleRuckus]

I have no respect for anyone that's against this law that's been passed. You still have the option to opt-out but if you do, one can only imagine if you or a close one ends up with something terminal demanding a transplant and then you have no option but to announce yourself to be a classless hypocrite.

Why would they be hypocrites or classless? They'd be receiving organs from people who have chosen to donate.

I'm willing to donate to someone in need, but it will be under my consent. I want to know that my donation is going to someone I deem suitable.

 

[Angilion]

If they bring in an opt out then I will opt out..I carry a card now, but that is my choice. .if the default positive position becomes the choice of the state then I will no longer carry one.

The default position should always be in favour of the individual, not the State.

I'm glad I decided to read the whole thread before replying, because your post is a clearer explanation than the one I would have made.

I'm registered as a donor for everything. I've informed my relatives. Even casual acquaintances know. I have a donor card in my wallet at all times. I've gone out of my way to ensure that there's no uncertainty, just in case I get my head mashed by a bus or something and it's a case of harvesting bits right now or not at all.

But if the state rules that I am only allowed one choice, to choice to opt out, then I will probably take that choice as a matter of principle. It's my body. I damn well should be allowed to choose whether or not people farm it for parts.

 

[Angilion]

I love the throwing around of emotive terms like harvesting and state ownership. [..]

They are the most accurate terms. Perhaps that's why some people prefer the deception of bland euphemisms and outright lies. And yes, it is a lie to call lack of consent "consent". It's an extremely obvious lie. It is also a lie to call something a donation when it has not been donated - donation requires consent.

"state ownership" is more of a stretch, but it's not entirely inaccurate. Ownership lies with who has has the power to choose how something is used, so with this law everyone's body is owned by the state unless they explicitly claim it back...as long as the state allows them that option.

 

[Angilion]

[..]The state is already choosing for us by assuming non-consent is it not? [..]

It is not, because it is not assuming non-consent.

Not assuming consent does not mean assuming non-consent.

 

[Angilion]

A friend of mine was refused her hip replacement until she quit smoking, which seems to fit into scenario A in your quote rather than scenario B.

Not necessarily. Smoking is obviously very much relevant to medical issues. Maybe the risk and benefits of the hip replacement procedure were judged on medical grounds and it was decided that her smoking increased the risks of the hip replacement procedure enough to make it inadvisable.

 

[covenantuk]

Really worries me that so many people are happy with the government assuming ownership of a citizen's body.

No-one has the right to my organs without my explicit consent, I don't care how ill they may be, it doesn't justify breaking that basic principle.

On principle alone I will be carrying an opt-out when I visit my sister in Wales. Not because I disagree with donorship, but because it's not the State's place make that decision for me or my family.

 

[elmarko]

Really worries me that so many people are happy with the government assuming ownership of a citizen's body.

No-one has the right to my organs without my explicit consent, I don't care how ill they may be, it doesn't justify breaking that basic principle.

On principle alone I will be carrying an opt-out when I visit my sister in Wales. Not because I disagree with donorship, but because it's not the State's place make that decision for me or my family.

Of all the current infringements on our liberty we endure to live in a society, this is the one which really crosses a line for you?.

One which happens after you are dead?.

Strange.

 

[RDM]

Of all the current infringements on our liberty we endure to live in a society, this is the one which really crosses a line for you?.

One which happens after you are dead?.

Strange.

Not really all that strange as that is the one being discussed in this thread. Unless you want the thread to go off topic and we can talk about all of the other infringements on our liberty in a thread that is about organ donation?

 

[Xordium]

Of all the current infringements on our liberty we endure to live in a society, this is the one which really crosses a line for you?.

One which happens after you are dead?.

Strange.

I've read that post a few times and not once does he mention that "this was the one which really crossed the line".

Strange. Strawman.

 

[elmarko]

I've read that post a few times and not once does he mention that "this was the one which really crossed the line".

Strange. Strawman.

Not really, if you actually read the post a question mark was at the end of the sentence.

This indicates it was a question, giving him the opportunity to correct that if it wasn't accurate.

Strange. Poor reading comprehension.

Not really all that strange as that is the one being discussed in this thread. Unless you want the thread to go off topic and we can talk about all of the other infringements on our liberty in a thread that is about organ donation?

The point is, we all make concessions on liberty for perceived benefit (which in most cases isn't even real) - this would be a minor concession & has a measurable benefit.

It's related to the subject matter at hand.

A bit slow this morning guys?.

 

[Castiel]

Of all the current infringements on our liberty we endure to live in a society, this is the one which really crosses a line for you?.

One which happens after you are dead?.

Strange.

Well, he did not mention any other infringements he may or not be happy with..although I note that you have mentioned it as being as infringement on our Liberty at least by association...

For some people, I am one of them, the principle that the Govt deems your body its property to dispose of as it sees fit unless you explicitly take ownership of it yourself prior to your death seems a fundamental infringement of one our most basic principles in a free society.

I understand that it is an emotive subject, particularly for someone such as powlsy who has lost someone close to them, but should we really compromise our basic principles when there are other viable alternatives that would not imply such infringements?

Effectively if something requires Consent, that Consent should never be presumed.

The point is, we all make concessions on liberty for perceived benefit (which in most cases isn't even real) - this would be a minor concession & has a measurable benefit.

Minor for you, but obviously not for others. I don't see it as minor at all. I respect your right to make such a concession, but I don't accept that it is necessary and that it is a concession that can be dealt with by a less controversial and emotive one.

 

[elmarko]

Well, he did not mention any other infringements he may or not be happy with..although I note that you have mentioned it as being as infringement on our Liberty at least by association...

For some people, I am one of them, the principle that the Govt deems your body its property to dispose of as it sees fit unless you explicitly take ownership of it yourself prior to your death seems a fundamental infringement of one our most basic principles in a free society.

I understand that it is an emotive subject, particularly for someone such as powlsy who has lost someone close to them, but should we really compromise our basic principles when there are other viable alternatives that would not imply such infringements?

Effectively if something requires Consent, that Consent should never be presumed.

My views on liberty are mixed, liberty should be limitless assuming it doesn't impact on the life of another.

Choosing to destroy perfectly good organs upon death does impact on the lives of others, more-so if the person takes from the limited organ pot & doesn't believe they should put back into it.

Liberty isn't the "be all end all".

As I said earlier, I'm totally in favour of different solutions to appease everybody - just I fundamentally disagree with the idea of ownership after death, or that peoples liberty should extend to choices which result in the death of others.

That's my subjective view on the matter.

If I had ownership of a rare material which was needed to create a medicine which could cure countless diseases, should my liberty be extended to being allowed to destroy it for no other reason than I don't want to share it? - or does the human impact outweigh one individuals desires?.

Should not part of the price of reaping the benefits of living in a society be that you fulfil certain social obligations & perform certain civic duties?.

If the person lived on their own & was 100% independent from society I could understand & would support that choice, but this clearly isn't the case.

 

[Castiel]

My views on liberty are mixed, liberty should be limitless assuming it doesn't impact on the life of another.

Choosing to destroy perfectly good organs upon death does impact on the lives of others, more-so if the person takes from the limited organ pot & doesn't believe they should put back into it.

Liberty isn't the "be all end all".

As I said earlier, I'm totally in favour of different solutions to appease everybody - just I fundamentally disagree with the idea of ownership after death, or that peoples liberty should extend to choices which result in the death of others.

That's my subjective view on the matter.

People should retain the fundamental right that their body is theirs to do as they wish....if they wish to donate then that should be a choice they make, if they wish not to the same should be true...the State should not assume anything about such a fundamental expression of freedom, the freedom over ones body, whether alive or dead...simply because the outcome may (it may not) help save a life. If we assume that Liberty is less important than any potential risk to another's Life in all cases then we are potentially on a very dangerous line of reasoning....

The simplest and least invasive solution is to make the choice compulsory with certain provisos to ensure an informed position can be taken by everyone with the option to abstain if you wish....it would also be a simple matter to allow family to decide in cases where there is no explicit determination by the deceased. Both of these solutions do not imply ownership by the State and the infringement on an individuals liberty is reduced.

 

[Castiel]

If I had ownership of a rare material which was needed to create a medicine which could cure countless diseases, should my liberty be extended to being allowed to destroy it for no other reason than I don't want to share it? - or does the human impact outweigh one individuals desires?.

And if that rare material was inherent in the individual themselves and removing it would save a thousand, but destroy the very essence of the person to which it is inherent?....does the potentially greater human impact outweigh that individuals right to choose what happens to his/her own body?

Should not part of the price of reaping the benefits of living in a society be that you fulfil certain social obligations & perform certain civic duties?.

Should society assume the choices of its members, is this a Brave New World, or a society based on fundamental principles of freedom and the right to self determination without that determination being assumed?

If the person lived on their own & was 100% independent from society I could understand & would support that choice, but this clearly isn't the case.

So society, through the mechanism of the State should determine the rights of the individual as it sees fit?

Everything determined by the collective right, not the individual right....