You've lost me as to what this brings to the debate or was that some way to illustrate your Googling/adding pictures to the forum skills?
Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
You've lost me as to what this brings to the debate or was that some way to illustrate your Googling/adding pictures to the forum skills?
Soldato
We are just meat. Agree and in.
Soldato
Good point, do they not use the organs for medical science research in that case?
Soldato
Been a donor for ever and they can everything except my eyes. Don't know why just gives me the shivers thinking about
You know, there is a movie plot in there somewhere.
Organisations with access to peoples medical records hacking into their autonomous cars in order to make organs available to order....
Man of Honour
Well that got dark quickly.
I think it's true, though. The increase in the number of registered donors dying would be smaller but the proportion of them who die in a way that makes a transplant possible would be far higher and it's that proportion that's the main restriction on the number of organs available for transplants. What you need for a transplant is someone who's alive when they are taken to hospital and dead soon after they're hooked up to enough life support to keep their organs working and who was killed by something other than disease or toxins that would affect the organs or make transplanting them a risk for the recipient.
But in films cars explode when they hit something because that's how cars work in the world of films
Murdering someone by crashing their internet-connected car will happen (and might already have happened), but it's a bit hit and miss for that plot. The killers couldn't be anywhere near sure that the desired organs would be viable and the number of matching donors would be too low to just go on a car crash murder spree until you get lucky.
I think you'd have to extend the options a bit. The more the internet of things spreads, the more chances there will be to use things to kill people remotely. Medical implants are the next most obvious one (some have already been recalled because of the risk), though that would be harder to pass off as an accident. There's no indication that security will ever be good enough on the IoT to be of much use and hardly anyone seems to care much if at all. I recently read a news report about a security advocate who took the reporter on a trip around town taking remote control of people's sex toys (easy to do nowadays) and even that very media-friendly thing attracted zero attention to the problem.
How is the NHS going to cope with the sudden availability of organs? Retrieving and also implanting.
This is the question nobody seems to be asking, the government's only source of pleasure is in gutting public institutions, so how is a barebones NHS ran by a skeleton crew going to manage the influx of organs? They don't have the budget allocated to them to do their current tasks as it is, and each new Tory budget slashes it even further. I foresee a lot of mismanagement and downright wasted organs.
I am completely in agreement with automatic opt-in BTW, but our NHS needs to be ready and prepared to take full advantage of it. When properly carried out, this scheme will save so many lives.
Sounds like a prime candidate for outsourcing and or privatisation. Will they be bought and sold like a commodity. Will there be a value based on age, sex, ethnicity and health?
See I don't know about organ donation, not religious or anything and it seems a waste however I dislike the idea of being cut open when dead, I've always told myself that if I ever get a donation then I will 100% sign up though, giving when receiving the gift N all.
Man of Honour
That won't be an issue because the number of available organs won't change much.
1) Most eligible people in the UK are already registered organ donors.
2) Almost everyone who dies does so in a way that makes it impossible to use their organs for transplant.
3) Many organs that are available for transplant aren't a match for whoever needs one right now and since the viable storage time for organs is very short (as low as a couple of hours for some organs) "right now" is what counts.
So the increase in transplants would be a minority of a tiny minority of a minority. At best.
There won't be any "sudden availability of organs". There won't be any "influx of organs" (as KNiVES phrases it in the post below yours).
This scheme is political, not practical. It's a possible solution to part of the current government's public image problem, not a solution to the shortage of matching donor organs.
Man of Honour
Put that way it does sound rather more appealing
Although I'm imagining it in Kenneth Williams' screen voice, unsurprisingly, despite the lack of any Matron in sight.
Soldato
Didn't know the government owned my body parts 
they will take those they can and not take those they can't.
how is that confusing to you?
Didn't know the government owned my body parts
you realise its no differnt to any property you have.
if you don't will it to somone it goes to the state.
also it's thebstate that will dispose of your body if you have no family why is it ok foe them to burn or bury you but not to take the organs before they burn or bury you
They haven't got the resource to keep afloat at the moment let alone having to keep a watch on every single death for potential donors then ensure the organs are removed and transported properly.
Which is wrong.