Organ Donation by Default

Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
Ulfhedjinn said:
Do you have any idea how much flak and sueing there would be if that happened? :o

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2005
Posts
13,779
frosty03 said:
yea, we know you can opt out, but the default should be OUT not IN....

"This is not a rule saying that it's compulsory for you to donate organs"

While your statement is correct, practically, when the default position is IN, i am sure attitudes to those opting OUT will change.... nobody knows to what end, but i am sure that it will....

What about those who do not know that the default position is IN? Is it fair on them and their families that just because they didnt sign a card to opt out, they would be harvested? I am sure you will agree that is wrong, but how then do you cope with the situation where the family knows the victims position to opt OUT, but just didnt get round to signing the opt out form?

As someone working in healthcare, I think this is a very bad idea and should be stopped, as it was 3 years ago....
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.

sr4470 said:
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.
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.

Biohazard said:
How can a clerical error magic up a Donar card signed in someones wallet?

Are you serious??

Edit: And no, I was not hinting at convenient errors, however look at Harrold Shipman.
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.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Jul 2004
Posts
1,778
Location
England
Ulfhedjinn said:
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.

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?
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2005
Posts
13,779
frosty03 said:
You're forgetting about, the disabled, the elderly, those with learning difficulties, psychiatric illnesses, dementia, the blind, the deaf... need I go on?
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.

frosty03 said:
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?
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:
Associate
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.
 

v0n

v0n

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,129
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....
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2005
Posts
13,779
frosty03 said:
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.
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.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Jul 2004
Posts
1,778
Location
England
Ulfhedjinn said:
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.

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.
 
Soldato
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,156
Linoge said:
it should always be the choice of the person. It's better keeping the system that knows the donor names.

It still is the choice of the person. If you do not want to donate, then you can opt out.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jun 2005
Posts
8,395
Basher said:
It still is the choice of the person. If you do not want to donate, then you can opt out.


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.
 
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
13,548
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
Basher said:
It still is the choice of the person. If you do not want to donate, then you can opt out.

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.
 
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.
 
Associate
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:
Top