then they wont.
again how is that confusing to you?
if they can process 100 organ donations but get 120 then 20 jist won't get done.
Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
then they wont.
again how is that confusing to you?
if they can process 100 organ donations but get 120 then 20 jist won't get done.
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,478
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
Your estate is divided out following a simple formula if you don't leave a will. It's only if you haven't left a will and there is no surviving relatives however remote it goes to the state.
so exactly as the case with your organs.
if there is no relative to say no it goes to the state.
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,478
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
You do know you're talking about the nhs don't you? They'll be a new procedure. Someone will devise a protocol to follow. They won't suddenly employ more people and someone will have to complete the paperwork and if it's not followed someone will chastised and more statistics will be fiddled.
oh ok yes magic will happen.
but no those that can't be processed in time jist won't be processed in time.
Jesus Christ I swear common sense is non existent on these forums any more.
it's all retarded conspiracy theories or utterly tedious arguments over semantics and pedantry
I was never a doner because I had never really bothered to look into becoming one so this is pretty cool.
But now you HAVE to opt out, will this information be public? It'd be like a dictionary of who is a scumbag and who isn't, before this people had the excuse of being lazy.
But now you HAVE to opt out, will this information be public? It'd be like a dictionary of who is a scumbag and who isn't, before this people had the excuse of being lazy.
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,478
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
It's not a bakery. I doubt there's many options on the nhs computer systems with a tick box for 'didn't have time'
so for those saying this robs them of thier choice because the state assumes consent.
that the default should be No unless you say yes.
if you're unconscious paramedics should assume you Connor want treatment so as not to force the states assumsion of consent on you?
that the default should be No unless you say yes.
if you're unconscious paramedics should assume you Connor want treatment so as not to force the states assumsion of consent on you?
I'm not sure that people know just how many people are eviscerated for post mortem. If you die suddenly or a doctor isn't happy to sign your cause of death off then you'll have a post mortem, which means all your organs, including the brain, are removed anyway for examination (and replaced afterwards).
Organs are pretty much only viable if they are kept supplied with oxygen after death so that rules out people killed by trauma in accidents in most cases unless they survive until A&E and ventilated. Eyes are up to 48 hours after death.
You have no use for them and no awareness of their removal. Might as will give others a fighting chance.
Organs are pretty much only viable if they are kept supplied with oxygen after death so that rules out people killed by trauma in accidents in most cases unless they survive until A&E and ventilated. Eyes are up to 48 hours after death.
You have no use for them and no awareness of their removal. Might as will give others a fighting chance.
This kind of information would fall under the data protection act, I very much doubt individual details will be publicly listed and/or searchable under FOI
The person is still breathing and alive when they harvest organs, plenty if videos you can watch on medical/gore sites. They PRESUME brain death but science knows NOTHING about conciousness. They dont even know how general anaesthetic works.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ing-consciousness-the-mystery-of-anaesthesia/
The whole thing is very sketchy.
I don't need to look up videos, I work in a mortuary as an Anatomical Pathology Technologist.
They know if people are dead, they aren't kept alive to harvest organs. After death they keep the organs and tissues profused with oxygen with ventilation machines. The same basic premise as cpr.
If they didn't, cell death would render the organs useless very quickly. The effects of anaesthesia and death are two separate things.
Yes they cut the good stuff out while their heart is still beating. My issue is with how little is scientifically known about conciousness and brain death. People have been fully concious with their cerebellum missing for instance.
They presume they are dead from no response to stimuli but nobody has a clue what the mind is actually experiencing. Would you be happy to harvest from a coma patient who simply has a little bit if brain stem response compared to a brain dead person?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Perhaps a soft-in option as dowie describes would do this but should it be time limited in some way? e.g. if you're included on the list through the default mechanism and have remained there for say five years then it's considered to be the same as a choice to opt-in. But maybe it just gets a bit complicated and bureaucratic for what might be a comparatively marginal number of additional organs.
I can appreciate some of the arguments that it changes the presumption of consent and so some people will choose to take themselves off the register as a matter of principle but for what it's worth I was on the organ donor register before so removing myself to make a point would feel a little counter-intuitive since my feelings regarding organ donation itself haven't changed. I've made sure my family knows my views on organ donation as it's not something I want them to have to make a decision on at what is probably quite a traumatic time for them so if I'm a suitable candidate I'd expect them to follow my wishes and for my organs to be donated - that being said if they ignore my choice there's not much I'll be able to do about it and indeed I'll be beyond caring at that point anyway.
A bit of a necro here, which is sort of appropriate to the topic anyway, as the issue has made the news again.
I think that a key point was made by Professor Chris Rudge, who is as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone and far more so than most people.
I said the same thing about the results of removing the need for consent(*), but his words should carry more weight than mine on the subject.
Should...but probably won't because the decision has little or nothing to do with transplants. It's mainly about image, about being portrayed as doing something good even if it's useless or harmful or about feeling righteous. Anyone who bothers to spare a minute finding information and thinking would know that at best it might result in a tiny increase - most eligible people are already registered donors, most if not all of the rest would opt out, some people who are currently registered would opt out on principle and on top of all that only a tiny proportion of people who die do so in a way and at a time that makes it possible to use their corpse for spare parts. But it's much more popular to mindlessly emote and bask in your own righteousness, so it's politically astute for politicians to pander to that to improve their image.
* Although I would not consider it very good even if there was any reason to think it would increase the number of transplants done. A tolerable trade-off, maybe, but definitely not very good.
I think that a key point was made by Professor Chris Rudge, who is as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone and far more so than most people.
I said the same thing about the results of removing the need for consent(*), but his words should carry more weight than mine on the subject.
Should...but probably won't because the decision has little or nothing to do with transplants. It's mainly about image, about being portrayed as doing something good even if it's useless or harmful or about feeling righteous. Anyone who bothers to spare a minute finding information and thinking would know that at best it might result in a tiny increase - most eligible people are already registered donors, most if not all of the rest would opt out, some people who are currently registered would opt out on principle and on top of all that only a tiny proportion of people who die do so in a way and at a time that makes it possible to use their corpse for spare parts. But it's much more popular to mindlessly emote and bask in your own righteousness, so it's politically astute for politicians to pander to that to improve their image.
* Although I would not consider it very good even if there was any reason to think it would increase the number of transplants done. A tolerable trade-off, maybe, but definitely not very good.
Funnily enough I came on here to post the exact same thing but you beat me to it.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2016
- Posts
- 693
So we're clear here, say no one opted out, and everyone in the country was opted in. That would increase the number of transplants done.
As always a better option would probably be education on the matter, rather than forcing it and provoking a knee jerk response.
