Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Opt out does not mean compulsory. Religious reasons or not, people literately have a lifetime to opt out
Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Opt out does not mean compulsory. Religious reasons or not, people literately have a lifetime to opt out
No, I don't believe it is
all for it
they will be no good to me when I am dead so hopefully anything useful could go to extend or improve somebody elses life....surely you would have to be utterly selfish to think otherwise
if you opt out though..you shouldnt be eligible for donated organs!! you cant have it both ways
they will be no good to me when I am dead so hopefully anything useful could go to extend or improve somebody elses life....surely you would have to be utterly selfish to think otherwise
if you opt out though..you shouldnt be eligible for donated organs!! you cant have it both ways
Last edited:
JWs have rules about blood transfusions and about blood being spilled, but there have been stories of transplants being carried out without any loss of blood.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
For people who are freaked out by the idea that someone else could be walking around with their organs after their long dead and so would opt out, would you also turn down someone elses organs if you are in need?
Surely it would be equally if not far more freaky and intrusive to have someone elses organs inside you when you are alive?
Surely it would be equally if not far more freaky and intrusive to have someone elses organs inside you when you are alive?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Posts
- 4,067
- Location
- North Wales
I'm very strongly in favour of this, luckily i live in Wales where it's already the case.
My wife had a kidney transplant 6 years ago so i know first hand what a transplant can mean to give someone life.
I'd always spin it round to and say if you were dying would you refuse an organ donation? It does annoy me when someone who was on the register dies and their family block it despite the deceased views but it seems to happen all too often
My wife had a kidney transplant 6 years ago so i know first hand what a transplant can mean to give someone life.
I'd always spin it round to and say if you were dying would you refuse an organ donation? It does annoy me when someone who was on the register dies and their family block it despite the deceased views but it seems to happen all too often
This is , sadly, very true.
Another reason to ensure your next of kin is fully aware of your position and carry out your wishes.
We're all just slabs of meat in the end. If I can help someone live when I die, that would be great.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Sad thing is that many families go ahead and deny them despite knowing this. I can't think of anything more selfish as far as grieving goes, than knowingly going against the wishes of a dead family member to deny saving another persons family member, just to fulfill some weird thought at the back of their head. What reasoning do people have for doing this sort of stuff?
I think it's a generation thing as my dad was the same. I remember watching the hospital staff doing absolutely everything they could to try and save my old man....
But I think most informed people know that isn't the case.
Last edited:
Given how hard it is to be sure that even one transplant will work out, I think they'd rather save one person for sure, than maybe save a few people.
If you’re all running short on discussion points:
http://history.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/The Survival Lottery - John Harris.pdf
Taking it to the extreme: the survival lottery. There are numerous people who could potentially benefit from a transplant organ from one single person and as an individual you are far more likely to benefit from or require an organ from the scheme than being forced to donate, does it seem like such terrible logic that one person should die and give up their organs for the greater good? The paper makes a few assumptions (100% transplant success rates) and can’t answer questions on individual moral cases (which individuals are more worthy of life than others), but I find the concept interesting all the same.
Some people altruistically donate a kidney, an incredible act of selflessness. If a kidney lottery were set up you’d be far more likely to need a kidney and receive one than actually donate, especially once the waiting lists were cleared. The added bonus of this scheme is that you wouldn’t need to kill people to provide benefit to others as we have 2 kidneys. An added benefit is that a kidney transplant is roughly the same cost as one year on dialysis, so early transplantation or pre emotive transplantation before dialysis had started can save money.
If I’m dead, I don’t need my organs. Someone else might need them. The potential benefits to patients are enormous.
http://history.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/The Survival Lottery - John Harris.pdf
Taking it to the extreme: the survival lottery. There are numerous people who could potentially benefit from a transplant organ from one single person and as an individual you are far more likely to benefit from or require an organ from the scheme than being forced to donate, does it seem like such terrible logic that one person should die and give up their organs for the greater good? The paper makes a few assumptions (100% transplant success rates) and can’t answer questions on individual moral cases (which individuals are more worthy of life than others), but I find the concept interesting all the same.
Some people altruistically donate a kidney, an incredible act of selflessness. If a kidney lottery were set up you’d be far more likely to need a kidney and receive one than actually donate, especially once the waiting lists were cleared. The added bonus of this scheme is that you wouldn’t need to kill people to provide benefit to others as we have 2 kidneys. An added benefit is that a kidney transplant is roughly the same cost as one year on dialysis, so early transplantation or pre emotive transplantation before dialysis had started can save money.
If I’m dead, I don’t need my organs. Someone else might need them. The potential benefits to patients are enormous.
I'm very strongly in favour of this, luckily i live in Wales where it's already the case.
My wife had a kidney transplant 6 years ago so i know first hand what a transplant can mean to give someone life.
I'd always spin it round to and say if you were dying would you refuse an organ donation? It does annoy me when someone who was on the register dies and their family block it despite the deceased views but it seems to happen all too often
You're "spinning around" a different position, which makes your comparison invalid.
Being opposed to a move which removes the need for consent and will at best result in a miniscule increase in the number of transplants and at worst reduce the number of transplants is not the same as being opposed to transplants.
You are aware that a forced donation scheme can't possibly result in any significant increase in the number of transplants in the UK, right? If not, then you have no business talking about a subject you know nothing about.
Your choice to not bother spending a couple of minutes doing something you think you should do is not a valid justification for removing the need for consent.
1) Removing the need for consent will at best get very few more people on the transplant register and may reduce the number of people on the transplant register.
2) The number of people on the transplant register isn't the biggest factor in the number of transplants done because a very small proportion of people die in a way that makes it possible to use their body for parts and it's not always possible to keep a harvested organ viable for long enough to transplant it to a compatible person who needs a transplant. As a result, even if removing the need for consent did change the number of people on the transplant register by the very small amount that it might do, the effect on the number of transplants would be far smaller than even that small amount, if there was any change at all.
A significant increase in the number of transplants done would require a significant increase in the number of people dying in hospital on life support because it's only those people who can be used as a source for organs for transplants.
The most effective route with existing technology would be to make roads a lot more dangerous. Ban various safety features in cars, remove or at least reduce penalties for causing death by reckless driving if the victim's body was able to be used for parts for transplants, that sort of thing.
This scheme to increase state control over people while also pretending to be Doing Something About Something Important is a good thing for politicians but it's useless for transplants.
Why is anyone claiming it would make a significant difference to the number of transplants?
Last edited:
So we're clear here, say everyone born on a Tuesday could speak Magic Words and create functional organs from loaves of bread. That would increase the number of transplants done.
Neither your "clarity" nor mine is realistic, but at least mine would result in a significant increase in the number of transplants done. Yours wouldn't. Even if everyone in the country was put on the donor registry and nobody was allowed to opt out, it still wouldn't do much to increase the number of transplants done.
Forcing it is a knee jerk response. Nobody who has spent even a couple of minutes learning anything about the subject thinks that forcing it would have any significant effect on the number of transplants done. It might very slightly increase the number. It might very slightly decrease the number. It might have no effect at all on the number.
The number of transplants done will probably increase over time due to a increase in the population and improvements in medical technology making transplants possible in circumstances in which they would not be possible now, so it will probably become possible to falsely claim the removal of the need for consent has been a success, but that's just more political lying. Although the number of transplants might decrease over time too, as improvements in safety and medical technology result in a smaller proportion of people dying in hospital on life support (which is what is required for a transplant to happen).
If we want a significant increase in the number of organ replacements done without a significant increase in population and/or a significant increase in preventable deaths (to increase the number of transplantable organs available), we need a different source of replacement organs. The ideal would be to grow replacement organs from the person's own cells, since that would also solve the very significant problem of organ rejection.
@Angilion I suggest you read up on the process of organ donation after death which would not change whether you were assumed or not to be on the register. It’s an extremely sensitive process performed with the utmost compassion and respect for the person and family who go through it. Far from the “forced donation” which you speak of. The process of consenting to organ donation would never be removed. Removal of consent is tantamount to the survival lottery that I posted above.
I happen to agree with you that the overall effect of an opt out system might be small, but even one extra organ available for transplantation as a result is surely a good thing? The system of organ utilisation through NHSBT is hugely complex and there are so many factors at play.
I happen to agree with you that the overall effect of an opt out system might be small, but even one extra organ available for transplantation as a result is surely a good thing? The system of organ utilisation through NHSBT is hugely complex and there are so many factors at play.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Posts
- 4,067
- Location
- North Wales
You seem a very angry person, i was merely pointing out the person i love most in the world is still here because of organ donation and anything that could even possibly have an impact on that happening to even one extra person would be amazing.
And put your tin foil hat away, the government isn't trying to steal your body.
You weren't merely doing that. If you were, I wouldn't have replied.
Anything? Really? Increasing the number of people who die in traffics accidents would definitely increase the number of transplants done, so that's far more effective than "anything that could even possibly" result on "even one extra" transplant. Should I believe you really meant what you wrote?
Thank you for acknowledging that you are so wrong that all you can do it make up nonsense and pretend I said it.
And yes, I am angry. Angry that people would cheerfully risk reducing the number of transplants done so they can either feel righteous or improve their media image with a scheme that they know can't have much beneficial effect. Angry that people would ignore reality and stop thinking when it comes to something this important. Angry that people campaign for consent to be treated as being of less importance than public image.
I read up on it 30 years ago when I put myself on the donor register, which was why I told my family members that I had done so. I've read up on it again since this thread.
If nothing is changed, then this idea is not a change and nothing will happen. Clearly it can't be the case that nothing is intended to be changed unless you're arguing that this whole thing is a media stunt by the government. Which is possible, I suppose, but I doubt if all the people (in this thread and elsewhere) who are in favour of changing the system to remove the need for consent are all working for that hypothetical media stunt.
When the need for consent is removed and that has no effect, what is the next step? If this passes, the need for consent has already been removed, so the logical next step is to stop family members blocking it. Which is already being put forward as a good thing, including in this thread.
No, I don't think it might be small. I know that it can't be anything other than small unless it results in a more than small reduction in transplants as more people opt out (and I think that's extremely unlikely).
You'd get more than one extra organ available for transplantation by ignoring any relatives who have any objection to the dead person's body being used for parts. So that is surely a much better thing? You'd get more than one extra organ available for transplantation if it was impossible to opt out. So surely that is a much better thing?
This is the part where I come unstuck. If this is true, then clearly the whole thing is pointless. Can you link to some sort of study on this? Another country where it's been attempted and shown to fail in its aims?