Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out

Organ Donation Opt Out, what say ye?

  • Total voters
    445
Current choice 'stay a non donor or be a donor'

Future choice 'Stay a donor or be a non donor'

Far as i can see, it is the same choice as long as you choose to make it. If you cba, then you dont deserve the choice tbh.
 
tres said:
Your relatives can still stop your organ donation, even with a valid organ donation card in your dead hand.
Click to expand...

yeah, this needs addressing too (in fact I wonder if this is potentially a bigger issue - what % of people who have consciously opted IN under the current system have then had that decision reversed by relatives) - frankly medical staff shouldn't even need to bring it up with relatives immediately after death, it ought to just be done.
 
Dunno whether it's worth adding a poll option stating that you agree and you're already on the donor list but yeah, I agree.
 
I've opted into the donor scheme since I was 17 and had a provisional driving license. My organs may not be perfect but if I'm dead and someone else can have a 2nd chance, i'm all for it.
 
Orionaut said:
I think there is a concern that, Like a car, If one is badly damaged, the medics might conclude that you are worth more broken for spares than being repaired. and that they might go to rather less effort to save you if there are people actively waiting for organs that you are a good match for.
Click to expand...

If that were a genuine concern then you could easily implement a system whereby medics aren't made aware of your status re: organ donation until after death.

I suspect though that a concern like that is rather detached from reality.
 
Yes, i mean the only reason why organ donors are worth so much is because barely anyone is an organ donor. If almost everyone was by default, then it is not like people will take that twisted viewpoint anyway, as the need for available donors would not seem so great.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Yes, i mean the only reason why organ donors are worth so much is because barely anyone is an organ donor. If almost everyone was by default, then it is not like people will take that twisted viewpoint anyway, as the need for available donors would not seem so great.
Click to expand...

23.6 million registered donors is barely anyone being registered is it?
 
dowie said:
yeah, this needs addressing too (in fact I wonder if this is potentially a bigger issue - what % of people who have consciously opted IN under the current system have then had that decision reversed by relatives) - frankly medical staff shouldn't even need to bring it up with relatives immediately after death, it ought to just be done.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

My family are aware of my wishes and agree with them, I think both my parents are opted in too.

Perhaps they should make it so if you opt in your relatives can't refuse, but if you are only registered because of default 'opt in' status (i.e you haven't opted out under the new rules), they can refuse. Who knows... I'd prefer it so there can be no relative refusal as in my view it's petty and meaningless.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Yes, i mean the only reason why organ donors are worth so much is because barely anyone is an organ donor. If almost everyone was by default, then it is not like people will take that twisted viewpoint anyway, as the need for available donors would not seem so great.
Click to expand...

Actually, I disagree.

Currently, Receiving an organ is seen as being special, something that you will certainly have to wait for and even then may never happen.

If this change in the rules changes peoples perception about the availability of organs, patients are likely to become far more demanding thus putting even more pressure on hospitals to provide transplants on demand.

Bear said:
23.6 million registered donors is barely anyone being registered is it?
Click to expand...

And still there is a shortage, because most people do not die in a manner that leaves their organs suitable for transplant.

You need, in the main, fit healthy young people who die traumatically and can be recovered to the harvesting team quickly.

IE Just the sort of people where the choice might well be between continuing treatment in the hope of some improvement or just calling it a day now and off to the breakers yard...

But, in any case.

The issue here, to my mind, isnt really about organ transplants. It is about the state claiming "Ownership" of individuals.

You are the property of the state, You WILL be an organ donor, whether you like it or not!

Well, you CAN opt out (For now anyway) , but we will put increasing pressure on people who chose to do so by doing things to make them feel bad...
 
Orionaut said:
But, in any case.

The issue here, to my mind, isnt really about organ transplants. It is about the state claiming "Ownership" of individuals.

You are the property of the state, You WILL be an organ donor, whether you like it or not!

Well, you CAN opt out (For now anyway) , but we will put increasing pressure on people who chose to do so by doing things to make them feel bad...
Click to expand...

The state owns you as it is. Do something to upset them and they'll make life very difficult put you in prison or just get you ready for organ harvesting earlier than nature planned(I can't imagine they haven't had a few people moved up the doner list before :D).

What they do with your body after you're not using it should be of little concern to you really.
 
Funnily enough me and my wife were talking about this a few weeks ago.

I had always thought you auto opted in on applying for a driving licence.

I have not read through this thread fully but are there any real valid reasons why everyone should not donate?
 
Oh and some dont want to donate because they can't choose who it goes to. I am not sure why but the comments in teh daily mail article is pretty full on for a article about saving lives.

i think a user or two in this thread have expressed a similar opinion.
 
Orionaut said:
It doesn't matter one jot what "I" might think.

It only matters what other people might think. The fact that there is a burgeoning global trade in organs for transplant suggests that a lot of people do in fact think that way.

Just for fun, I am sure I remember reading somewhere that in China, when prisoners are executed, it is routine to have them "Broken for spares" afterwards, to such an extent that the firing squads are given specific targeting instructions depending on which particular spares are going to be recovered...

I have always felt that Sci-Fi is actually a pretty good predictor of social change, and Sci-Fi's predictions surrounding the organ trade is generally pretty grim
Click to expand...

.yeah thsts china where they have gas vans.

it matter what "you" think because paramedics and doctors are just nornal people like you.

they are the faceless bad guys from movies.
 
Angilion said:
You're right. I thought I'd posted a link already. Here's one from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40564329



Children and people with known medical conditions that preclude organ donation. They can (and do) use children's organs in transplants, but it's the parents or legal guardians who make that decision.



I'd never thought about that. I should have done, since I used to be a blood donor and had to stop when I started having sex with other men (as you rightly point out). I registered before then.

I'd better check the rules...

...well, it seems that I'm OK. I can't find any mention of sexual orientation on the organ donor website. Or on the blood donor website, come to that. Which is surprising, since they told me clearly that I could no longer be a blood donor. Politely, but clearly. Maybe the rules have changed in the last couple of decades. Better screening, maybe? I can find a reference to a change in 2011 which allowed gay men to donate blood after a year of celibacy but nothing else. Looks like I can start donating blood again.

Background info for anyone who thinks the timeline doesn't make sense: I'm bisexual, registered as an organ donor and blood donor at 18, didn't start having homosexual sex until my mid 20s and have been celibate for years now. Works for me - I no longer find casual sex appealing and I don't want a relationship. YMMV, each to their own and all that.
Click to expand...


cheers for the link I googled but only got a pdf saying 35% of the population where registered

blood thing is still 12 months celibacy as far as I know i got knocked back about 6 months ago for it but I'm a **** so never gonns make it to 12 months lol. it also apply to women who sleep with a man who sleeps with men to make it more confusing

they get really confused if you say you've slept with a transgender person who is now legally a woman too lol
 
Skillmister said:
Agreed.

My family are aware of my wishes and agree with them, I think both my parents are opted in too.

Perhaps they should make it so if you opt in your relatives can't refuse, but if you are only registered because of default 'opt in' status (i.e you haven't opted out under the new rules), they can refuse. Who knows... I'd prefer it so there can be no relative refusal as in my view it's petty and meaningless.
Click to expand...

yeah you could have the default being a 'soft' opt in which is equivalent to the current status quo for people on the register ergo the relatives can object

you could then have an opt out and a 'hard' opt in whereby you've actively chosen to be on the register and ergo have removed any potential for the relatives to object

Mynight said:
Religion (not valid imo) and medical reasons other than that no.
Click to expand...

medical reasons/suitability can be determined by the medical staff when considering whether or not to take the organs, it doesn't have any effect on your desire to donate - unless it is some sort of mental health issue that imparts your ability to give consent

religion is as valid as any other reason why you'd chose not to be on the register - if you've got a free choice then any reason is valid for that choice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom