Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out

[Sider]

I think some people need to look at how organ donation and transplantation process actually works. Its not a simple case of oh Fred here has had an accident and we know Bob on ward 3C needs a new liver so lets give him that, The process is much more complicated, there are waiting lists, tests for compatibility. I am all for this system and as long as its well advertised that automatic opt-in has taken place, giving people the chance to opt-out, I don't see the problem.

I'm pretty confident those that opt-out wouldn't think twice about accepting an organ if need be. I find find donating the cornea of the eye creepy but if it helps to save a child or another persons sight that would be incentive enough for me to donate.

 

[McBain]

Already registered, but voted 'Agree and IN'.

 

[adolf hamster]

It’s very simple really, those that feel passionately about donating sign up. If everyone passionate about it signed up then it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. The fact is lots of people talk it up about being passionate about donating but then are too ******* lazy to sort it out which causes the problem.

i think this is precisely the reason why they want to move to an opt in system, catch all of those who support organ donation but are too lazy to actually sign up (of which i will admit to being a member)

opt in or opt out, if you feel strongly enough either way then the freedom to choose is still there, this is just catching all of those who don't feel strongly enough to sign up.

 

[Orionaut]

That's actually a genuine ethical debate.

A person comes in to hospital badly damaged. You have two options:

1) Spend £500K of medical resources to try to save them and they may well die anyway.

2) Harvest their organs, save three people and still have a fair bit of the £500K you didn't spend left to help some other people.

Which is the more ethical course of action?

Well, At least somebody gets it!

 

[Dis86]

I find find donating the cornea of the eye creepy but if it helps to save a child or another persons sight that would be incentive enough for me to donate.

Ha! I'm exactly the same. It's like...ewwwwww.

I opted in as soon as I legally could.

 

[Bear]

i think this is precisely the reason why they want to move to an opt in system, catch all of those who support organ donation but are too lazy to actually sign up (of which i will admit to being a member)

opt in or opt out, if you feel strongly enough either way then the freedom to choose is still there, this is just catching all of those who don't feel strongly enough to sign up.

If you look at any poll that has run about organ donation it consistently shows up about 80+% in favour of an opt out. If those people genuinely cared enough as they make out then there wouldnt be a problem. The fact there is a shortage problem shows what a worthless pile of **** people are, rules shouldn’t be changed to cater for worthless lazy ****, infact these are exactly the people that shouldn’t ever get an organ.

 

[adolf hamster]

If you look at any poll that has run about organ donation it consistently shows up about 80+% in favour of an opt out. If those people genuinely cared enough as they make out then there wouldnt be a problem. The fact there is a shortage problem shows what a worthless pile of **** people are, rules shouldn’t be changed to cater for worthless lazy ****, infact these are exactly the people that shouldn’t ever get an organ.

you're plainly passionate about this, too passionate methinks.

 

[Bear]

you're plainly passionate about this, too passionate methinks.

Only in so much as it reinforces my low opinion in humanity and why I choose not to donate. If people were actually worth saving I would happily sign up.

 

[adolf hamster]

Only in so much as it reinforces my low opinion in humanity and why I choose not to donate. If people were actually worth saving I would happily sign up.

so you refuse to donate organs because you're annoyed by people who don't donate organs?

not sure i'm following the logic there.

 

[Angilion]

I think some people need to look at how organ donation and transplantation process actually works. Its not a simple case of oh Fred here has had an accident and we know Bob on ward 3C needs a new liver so lets give him that, The process is much more complicated, there are waiting lists, tests for compatibility. [..]

How is that relevant to whether or not consent should be obtained?

 

[Dis86]

Only in so much as it reinforces my low opinion in humanity and why I choose not to donate. If people were actually worth saving I would happily sign up.

Well if I'm a slab of meat you can have my liver

 

[Bear]

It’s quite simple, if you care about saving lives through organ donation but you like most of the people in society can’t spend literally a couple minutes of your miserable lives to sign up because you are too lazy and as a result people die because of the lack of organs, then you are attributing to the problem. If the majority of the supposed 80+% that profess to care can’t be bothered, then majority of those people are dicks.

 

[Angilion]

If you look at any poll that has run about organ donation it consistently shows up about 80+% in favour of an opt out. If those people genuinely cared enough as they make out then there wouldnt be a problem. The fact there is a shortage problem shows what a worthless pile of **** people are, rules shouldn’t be changed to cater for worthless lazy ****, infact these are exactly the people that shouldn’t ever get an organ.

I think this is an important point, but here's another:

There are 23.6 million registered organ donors in the UK.

If you exclude people who can't be used for organ donation for medical reasons and people who aren't legally allowed to give or withold consent, i.e. all the people who wouldn't be affected by removing the need for consent, we already have the majority of potential donors registered. Removing the need for consent to donation would make little difference to the number of potential donors.

Which ties back to Bear's point - advocating the removal of the need for consent is just virtue signalling. It's not useful. It's just virtue signalling.

It seems that the main reasons for the shortage of donor organs are compatibility and the lack of people who die while in hospital with their organs still functional. I'm assuming people realise that an actually dead organ can't be transplanted, but maybe I shouldn't be.

A more efficient way to increase the number of organ transplants is to decrease road safety. What we really need is more people with fatal head injuries who can be kept biologically functioning long enough to harvest their organs and road traffic accidents are the best way to do that.

So how about another poll - who's in favour of promoting a more efficient way to increase the number of organ transplants? Or are you just virtue signalling?

 

[robfosters]

It’s quite simple, if you care about saving lives through organ donation but you like most of the people in society can’t spend literally a couple minutes of your miserable lives to sign up because you are too lazy and as a result people die because of the lack of organs, then you are attributing to the problem. If the majority of the supposed 80+% that profess to care can’t be bothered, then majority of those people are dicks.

You just hate the world don’t you?

 

[Meridian]

This is gonna sound weird, but...


Currently I am on the donor list, and carry the card. But if this goes through I will rescind my wish, and tear up my card. As things stand, making the donation is an important thing - a statement. But if assumed consent passes than my donation is cheapened; something done by anyone who couldn't be bothered to decide either way. I understand the views of those who need the organs, but this takes the decision away from me and gives it to parliament. That leaves me with a decision I can make: no.

 

[Sider]

How is that relevant to whether or not consent should be obtained?

Because a better understanding of how the system works would aid opinion and decisions to opt in or out. Don't know about you but I tent to research things before making decisions.

 

[Bear]

You just hate the world don’t you?

Nope I love the world, travelling is one of my passions in life and I spend much of my time and money seeing and experiencing as much as I can. I don’t necessarily like people especially if they are full of ****.

 

[iamdjdz]

I feel that it should be compulsory with no opt out clause as when you're dead your body isn't much use to you and someone else may survive longer from what's left of you. Also they only take organs that are useful so when you're old you're left in peace.

My wife is an A and E nurse and refuses to put herself on the organ donor list as she is freaked out by it but to me this makes no sense and she saves lives almost daily so don't know why she wouldn't.

 

[Angilion]

Because a better understanding of how the system works would aid opinion and decisions to opt in or out. Don't know about you but I tent to research things before making decisions.

Then you would already know that removing the need for consent would make at best a small difference to the number of transplants done and possibly no significant difference at all (*). So why are you in favour of removing the need for consent?

Anyone in favour of removing the need for consent is better off with people not understanding how the system works because virtue signalling and emotion-based advocacy work better in the absence of relevant knowledge. Although it's a poor show when it's considered virtuous to remove the need for consent for no good reason, that's where we are so it does work as virtue signalling.


* For anyone who doesn't know why, here's a summary: Most eligible people in the UK have already opted in (and opt-in rates are increasing even more) and most people who die do so in a way that doesn't allow for their organs to be used for transplant because the organs have to be functioning when removed. The official figures from the USA are 3 in 1000 registered donors who die and I see no reason why it would be any different here. So at best you're talking about 0.3% of the relatively few eligible people who aren't already opted in anyway, but even that's not at all realistic because it assumes 100% of donated organs can be used in a transplant and that's not true. I wasn't joking when I said that making roads more dangerous would have a bigger effect than removing the need for consent. People fatally injured in a traffic accident are relatively likely to be taken to hospital quickly enough to die on life support and thus have parts suitable for removing to transplant into someone else (if there's someone else suitable who can be given the transplant in time), so increasing the number of traffic accidents would increase the number of parts suitable for transplants and I think it would do so more than adding a relatively small number of potential donors (almost all of whom will die in a way that doesn't allow for transplants to be done).

 

[The_Abyss]

This is gonna sound weird, but...


Currently I am on the donor list, and carry the card. But if this goes through I will rescind my wish, and tear up my card. As things stand, making the donation is an important thing - a statement. But if assumed consent passes than my donation is cheapened; something done by anyone who couldn't be bothered to decide either way. I understand the views of those who need the organs, but this takes the decision away from me and gives it to parliament. That leaves me with a decision I can make: no.

Yes, it does sound weird.