@Angilion - I think there is a very important distinction here. Consent is not being removed. The process of consent is being altered. Will you be able to consent to donating your organs when you are in an actual position to do so (altruistic kidney donation aside)? The consent process has always and will continue to be a pre-emptive process. The theory is that more people will be approached to discuss organ donation. There is not a government drive to increase organ harvesting by any means possible.
Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
The reason that the opt-out system doesn't massively inscrease the number of potential donor organs is because legally a discussion still needs to be had with the family - and this is anohter bug-bare of mine.
I could register as a donor, carry a donor card yet somebody else can still override my decision - that is wrong. If I have registered as a donor then my wishes should be honoured no matter what anybody else says.
Now if we had an opt-out system where no discusion was required, then we would see a massive increase in donor organs and those waiting lists will get a lot shorter - but that will never happen.
So we go for the soft opt-out option, which means everybody is a potential donor (unless they feel selfish about their organs after death or are suffering from the god complex - I decide who has my organs) but a final discusion is still had with relatives.
I could register as a donor, carry a donor card yet somebody else can still override my decision - that is wrong. If I have registered as a donor then my wishes should be honoured no matter what anybody else says.
Now if we had an opt-out system where no discusion was required, then we would see a massive increase in donor organs and those waiting lists will get a lot shorter - but that will never happen.
So we go for the soft opt-out option, which means everybody is a potential donor (unless they feel selfish about their organs after death or are suffering from the god complex - I decide who has my organs) but a final discusion is still had with relatives.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
If the donor has clearly expressed their desire to donate their organs then should family members have the right to override their wishes? And if so why? We, as a society, typically respect the wishes of the dead in the form of a will about how they divide their assets (albeit some are challenged) - realistically with transplants you usually don't have the luxury of time to challenge them through the courts as you might with a will and there's perhaps a moral implication regarding not causing further distress to the family but on the face of it there would appear to be certain parallels in respecting the choice the deceased made during life.
I'd be seriously miffed if my surviving relatives chose to ignore my wishes to donate my organs were I to be a suitable donor - hypothetically of course, at that point I'd expect to be beyond any feelings at all.
You appear to have misunderstood what is being proposed. It isn't approaching more people to discuss organ donation. That's been done in the past and has already been as successful as it can be - most eligibile people are already on the donor registry. It's removing the need for consent for organ donation. It would be replaced, presumably temporarily, with a possibility of consenting to not donating. The lack of any effect would then be used as leverage to remove the possibility of consenting to not donating.
Using another country wouldn't be relevant unless all the circumstances are the same as in the UK, but the key point is in the existing numbers in the UK. Most people who are eligible to be on the organ donor registry in the UK are already on it. There simply isn't any possibility of a significant further increase in the proportion of the population that's on the donor registry. There's no need to do a study on that - the population of the UK is counted quite accurately, the ages of the people in the UK are counted quite accurately and the number of people on the donor registry is counted very accurately. We know the relevant numbers.
The proportion of the population who are registered donors isn't the bottleneck on the number of transplants done any more, if it ever was. Even if it was increased by a further couple of percent (which is the best possible outcome of removing the need for consent), it wouldn't make much, if any, difference. People have to die on life support in quite specific circumstances for it to be possible to use their body for parts and only a small proportion of people die that way. Also, there's a limited storage time after the organs are disconnected from the donor body. Usually very limited, sometimes so limited that it's not possible to get a transplant done in time.
Nobody with any knowledge of the subject thinks removing the need for consent would result in any significant increase in the number of transplants done. Not a single person. Since there is no reason to think that removing the need for consent would increase the number of transplants done, the known factors indicate that it's impossible for removing the need to consent would increase the number of transplants done and nobody with relevant knowledge thinks that removing the need for consent would increase the number of transplants done, I think that the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that removing the need for consent will in some unknown and unexplained way increase the number of transplants done. Or if not proof then at least some vague suggestion of how it could possibly happen.
The point isn't to increase the number of transplants done. It's public image. So in that context it's not pointless - it might buy some votes from people who haven't bothered learning anything about it.
I agree. I would have far less objection to removing the power that family members have to override a person's consent to donate than I have to removing the need to consent to donation.
Putting the two together, which is obviously what's intended, would be worse. I wouldn't be comfortable with, for example, telling the parents of a baby who's just died that they can have a bit of their baby's body for a funeral at some point in the future, but that's all they can have. Sure, it doesn't really matter what's in the box for the funeral, but it probably matters to the parents.
So googling suggests there’s about 21 million people on the register. The uk population is about 66 million but we can rule out about a quarter of that as kids who’d need parental consent as they can’t consent themselves. Beyond that I assume we’d need to discount... who?... smokers? Drinkers? Drug users? Presumably there’s some way of cutting the 50 or so million down to the 21 or so that you’re saying we’d be lucky to get much above?
I note from searching around that in 2016 there were about 4,000 transplants from about 1,400 donors. There were over half a million deaths in 2016, so you’re clearly right in saying that the number of people dying in time, manner and place fitting for a successful donation. Only 0.28% of deaths resulted in one or more successful transplants.
@Angilion - exactly, there will still be a process of consent, however it will be withdrawal of consent to donate. The process of approaching the family about organ donation will remain. They will still have the final say unless you have been extremely proactive and have got an advanced directive or given power of attorney to someone unrelated. I think you are jumping way ahead with your argument.
I would guess the elderly probably are discounted as they are near end of life anyway so any organs would not likely last very long? People with health problems?
Didn't someone earlier in the thread mention they had a 60+ yo donor?
Edit : here it is
I wondered that, but there’s talk of successful donations from people in their 90s. I’m sure they’re rarer, though.
I guess we’re back to the problem of someone dying right under someone’s nose so they can get an ambulance out to put them on ice ASAP, rather than them rotting for a day before they’re found.
The latest figures I found were 23.6 million on the registry, for July 2017. Which, apparently, is ~70% of those eligible.
Other relevant things are:
1) If possible, relatives are asked to decide regardless of whether or not the dead person was on the register.
2) A person does not need to be on the organ donor registry for their organs to be used in transplants.
3) Last years, 37% of families refused consent to have their dead relative's organs donated.
So removing the need for a person to consent to be a donor is even more useless than I thought it was since the organ donor registry isn't crucial or even particularly important to transplants.
Some numbers directly from the NHS for the 2016/2017 year:
1413 donors.
3713 transplants.
3144 families asked to consent to organs from a dead relative being used for transplant.
1972 of them gave consent.
1172 refused consent.
So clearly removing the need for consent in order to maybe get a small increase in the number of people on the register isn't an effective way to get more transplants done. I think consent is far more important than politicians getting a media boost and some people feeling righteous about forcing the removal of consent on other people.
Removing the involvement of families of dead people would be a far more effective way to increase the number of transplants done - that might increase transplants by as much as 37%. But it's not yet certain to be a good image move for politicians, so it won't be proposed yet.
Health problems yes, elderly not necessarily. The only hard limits are 80 years old for cornea donation and 60 years old for heart valves and tendons donation (according to the FAQ on the organ donation section of the NHS website). I expect a donation is less likely to be useful from an older person, but they're not entirely ruled out.
So you completely disagree with me and reply with "exactly", as though I said the same thing you're saying. Please don't do that. It's very misleading.
I'm not jumping way ahead with my argument.
The proposal is of no use for increasing the number of transplants done. Therefore the only possible reasons for it are image and/or laying the groundwork for the next step after it fails to make any difference. Since the proposal is to remove the need to consent and lack of consent from relatives plays a far larger role in limiting the number of transplants, the obvious next step is to remove that. Which already has some support, as you can see from this thread.
EDIT: The NHS' own page in support of removing the need for consent from donors centres on this point. They don't claim that it would have any significant direct effect on the number of transplants done, presumably because they know it won't. Instead, they suggest that it would reduce the proportion of families refusing consent on the rather dubious basis that some other countries that don't require consent also have a smaller proportion of families refusing consent.
A consent process remains. Is this not the point you were trying to make? This is what I was agreeing to.
I think you’re going too far in your argument if you think that we’re going back to Victorian body brokers for medical science. It’s also going too far to think that people’s organs are going to be taken without consent. This would be a complete minefield and no one is going to let that happen in this country.
The conditions for organ donation are extremely specific and the process is rightfully very cautious.
The proposal is to remove the need for consent to donate. So no, you are not agreeing with me.
Eh? Where did that come from? I haven't mentioned Victorian body brokers. I suppose it's possible, given the trend towards privatising everything, but I don't think it's definite or even likely any time soon.
That's exactly what is being proposed. That is what this proposal is. So it's obviously not going too far to think that, because that is what is being proposed.
It's being publically promoted as a good idea and will probably happen soon.
The process can be changed. That's what this proposal is all about.
Although removing the need for consent from the donor will be useless unless the need for consent from the family is also removed. Which is already not legally required and there is already significant support for removing the custom of going along with the family's decision. So that will very likely be the next step.
You’re talking about the opt out system which presumes consent - correct?
http://organdonationwales.org/Organ.../Who-will-the-system-change-apply-to/?lang=en
This is the document detailing the law for Wales - this will be mirrored in the rest of the UK.
You may still opt out (withdraw your consent) - still a process of consent.
Your family or close relatives may still raise objections following death.
There are many exclusions. An opt out scheme still has a process of consent and relatives will still have to give consent for their relative to donate after death.
The reference to body brokers is because you’re making quite exaggerated claims about organs being taken against people’s will.
I don't get the point in naming it, would've thought that'd make things more difficult.
Anyhoe....
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/health/pregnant-hull-mum-carries-baby-938143
Pregnant Hull mum carries baby she knows will die at birth - so she can donate unborn child's organs
A Hull mum who knows her unborn baby will not survive is continuing with her pregnancy - to donate the baby's organs to a dying child.
Hayley Martin was told at her 20-week scan that the baby she is carrying will die during labour or shortly after birth.
She was offered a termination to prevent her going through the trauma of a stillbirth.
But Hayley, 30, and husband Scott have decided to complete the pregnancy instead - so their daughter's organs can be donated to other babies.
Anyhoe....
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/health/pregnant-hull-mum-carries-baby-938143
Pregnant Hull mum carries baby she knows will die at birth - so she can donate unborn child's organs
A Hull mum who knows her unborn baby will not survive is continuing with her pregnancy - to donate the baby's organs to a dying child.
Hayley Martin was told at her 20-week scan that the baby she is carrying will die during labour or shortly after birth.
She was offered a termination to prevent her going through the trauma of a stillbirth.
But Hayley, 30, and husband Scott have decided to complete the pregnancy instead - so their daughter's organs can be donated to other babies.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,362
Should be opt out. Not that there is any good reason to opt out.
I guarantee there will be someone who gets an organ but still opts out.
I guarantee there will be someone who gets an organ but still opts out.
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Wow, thats incredible. Putting yourself through such trauma and heartbreak to help others live is truly amazing and inspiring.