1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Organ Donation by Default

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by anarchist, 17 Jul 2007.

  1. Indy500

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 17,481

    Happens already, believe it or not. I recall a case where children's brains were taken for research without permission. Think it was on the BBC.
     
  2. Darkwave

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Oct 2005

    Posts: 13,779

    I'm sorry but I can't really have sympathy for someone who after today doesn't know about this system, it's national news. As for people who "just didn't get around to it", Jesus it'll teach some people not to be so lazy wouldn't it.

    Aye sometimes non-donors get organs taken by accident, but I think he was implying that they would have "convenient clerical errors" so they can steal your organs. Nothing short of a conspiracy theory.

    Genuine clerical errors happen and non-donors have had organs removed. That's an accident though, what you're suggesting isn't really anything short of a conspiracy theory.
     
  3. Indy500

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 17,481

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3015823.stm

    3,500 is not an accident.
     
  4. Darkwave

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Oct 2005

    Posts: 13,779

    Yup I hope they are all banned from practising medicine and/or locked up in jail for a long time, but it's not really got anything to do with opting in or out though that's my point.
     
  5. frosty03

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 14 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,778

    Location: England

    You're forgetting about, the disabled, the elderly, those with learning difficulties, psychiatric illnesses, dementia, the blind, the deaf... need I go on?

    Please, do think about others less able than you, some are not "lazy" but are genuinely unable to understand what is going on, or unable to effectively opt OUT. You going to harvest them too?
     
  6. Darkwave

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Oct 2005

    Posts: 13,779

    People in such dire circumstances get extra care from the NHS when dealing with such issues, I myself suffer psychiatric illness and while I'm perfectly capable of dealing with such issues on my own the amount of hand-holding really is crazy because they need to make sure that you understand everything.

    When it comes to people with learning disabilities and psychiatric problems, they make sure that you get sat down and have things explained to you. If you're blind and deaf, you get extra interpretation for you.

    Such people would probably be able to opt-out easier than able people with the amount of help and the closer ties they have with the health services, so no, you don't need to go on.

    Such people are assisted by carers and social workers, if not their friends and/or family.

    I do know exactly what it's like as a matter of fact, so don't think I'm "looking down on people less able than me" since I'm not completely able myself. :rolleyes: Everyone can opt out, everyone has the option. There is no issue here.
     
    Last edited: 17 Jul 2007
  7. frosty03

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 14 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,778

    Location: England

    Just because you can cope, and "think" there are others that can, doesnt mean everyone will. Not everything is as simple as you say.

    And before you go on, I have dealt first hand with such unfortunate people, and some cant even give (informed) consent to have their hair cut, much less comprehend the issue at hand... and they still do exist (unfortunately) in our society.
     
  8. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,122

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Opt out idea has massive weak point - namely we would create a situation where the more dead the better chance for someone on particular waiting list. Surely everyone can see how this could go potentially really wrong. People in desperate situation suddenly given a chance to improve their odds....
     
  9. Darkwave

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Oct 2005

    Posts: 13,779

    I imagine that people who truly cannot consent either way would be opted-out automatically, it'd only be natural. Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary that says people who have absolutely no ability to consent are still opt-in by default.
     
  10. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,340

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    Im strongly for an opt in system and am against the opt out idea.
     
  11. frosty03

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 14 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,778

    Location: England

    No, we must protect those who are on the borderline as well. That is where i fear the problem lies. There are a great many who on the surface, like you expect, to be perfectly capable to opt out, but in reality are incapable of comprehending what is at stake. It will not be fair on those to have their organs harvested simply because they did not understand or know to opt out prior.

    I am sorry but I cannot agree with your otherwise "black or white" arguments, since in reality, the world is a whole spectrum of grey. And in such a serious matter, we cannot afford to get it wrong. We may end up causing more suffering than we cure by opting "in" by default.
     
  12. red11

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 12 Jun 2005

    Posts: 8,395

    Donating organs is a very worthy cause, if you can help save or prolong lives. However, doing it by default is wrong in my eyes, it should always be the choice of the person. It's better keeping the system that knows the donor names.
     
  13. Basher

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,152

    It still is the choice of the person. If you do not want to donate, then you can opt out.
     
  14. red11

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 12 Jun 2005

    Posts: 8,395


    It should be the other way around, you opt in not opt out. I can't think of any other major decision you make in your life time where the decision by default is made for you and you have to express your wishes against it.
     
  15. Felix Da Housecat

    Mobster

    Joined: 4 Aug 2004

    Posts: 2,667

    Location: In a wheelie bin

    About time too, they should have come up with this idea a long time ago.

    It should be something like this:

    All persons should have organ donation by default, unless:

    1) The childs parent or guardian signs the opt out form
    2) The adult signs the form themselves
    3) Any person unable to make the decision by themselves, then it should be down to either a parent or guardian or doctors.
     
  16. Toryglen-boy

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Nov 2002

    Posts: 2,863

    Location: Glasgow / Canberra


    muslims

    :)
     
  17. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,340

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    If people want to give then they should make the effort to do so not the people that dont. How about charities automatically take money from your wages unless you opt out ??

    If people want to make the gesture of giving then they should make the effort.
     
  18. Nebzor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Jun 2007

    Posts: 1,575

    Location: Plymouth

    I love the way that people are justifying a complete switch-around by saying "it's still your choice!" It's our choice now, there's no point reversing it.

    Plus, no matter what you want to believe, there will be people who don't want to donate who will not (for whatever reason) opt out. I hardly think it's fair to take someone's organs without EXPRESS PERMISSION from that person, or an able person who knows them well enough to communicate their wishes.
     
  19. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,104

    Location: On the hoods

    Is that a constructive comment with any meaningful backing, or are you just trying to be inflammatory?
     
  20. Wang Computer

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2005

    Posts: 1,594

    Never...

    Why should I be forced to 'opt out' of anything? The state doesn't own my body - alive or dead. It is absolutely preposterous to assume that the UK, a largely liberal state, should be given the authority to make such impositions over the individual. What it amounts to, in my mind at least, is another dangerous erosion of personal liberty. Who knows where this kind of idea could lead next...

    Granted, there is certainly a shortage of donor organs, but possibly not through a lack of participation in the donor card system. As we've all heard, even if an person is posthumously found to be a donor, there are all sorts of legal implications that can affect whether the actual harvest can occur, not least the ubiquitous problem of bereaved relatives acting in a guarded and zealous manner.

    In my opinion, the organ donor system needs to be changed radically. A system could be developed whereby whenever an individual visits a hospital or GP practise (and assuming they are of sound mind), they could be quizzed as to whether they want to enter the organ donor programme or not. This information could then be entered on to the individual's medical records, and in turn, a national database. This agreement is thus considered legally binding, unless an opt out clause is exercised. No arguments...

    I realise there is no perfect solution, but draconian measures by the government is not the answer.
     
    Last edited: 18 Jul 2007