Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

This is gonna sound weird, but...


Currently I am on the donor list, and carry the card. But if this goes through I will rescind my wish, and tear up my card. As things stand, making the donation is an important thing - a statement. But if assumed consent passes than my donation is cheapened; something done by anyone who couldn't be bothered to decide either way. I understand the views of those who need the organs, but this takes the decision away from me and gives it to parliament. That leaves me with a decision I can make: no.

So you're a donor to make yourself look, feel and sound good

I think the thousands of more organs available and lives saved slightly outweigh your weird self absorbed logic on this fella


Ohhhh, and people that don't donate organs when they are dead and obviously useless to them are utter selfish ***** of the highest order, imho of course.

 

[Fishbait]

If it's opt out, how are they going to let everyone know about that?
Going to be expensive to send a letter to everyone.

Personally, I don't think anything should ever be opt out, it should only ever be opt in.

 

[Angilion]

Yes, it does sound weird.

No, it doesn't. They want to make a choice. The proposed change would give them only one choice - out. So they'd take that option since it's the only way they can have a choice.

They said it quite clearly at the end: "[..] this takes the decision away from me and gives it to parliament. That leaves me with a decision I can make: no."

 

[Flibster]

Completely agree, but I'm out.

They don't want my organs or blood due to the varieties of meds I'm on, so yeah... That's fun...

 

[Angilion]

If it's opt out, how are they going to let everyone know about that?
Going to be expensive to send a letter to everyone.

Presumably they won't bother. The whole point of the scheme is to remove the need for consent, so why would they bother asking for consent or even informing people that their consent is no longer required?

Personally, I don't think anything should ever be opt out, it should only ever be opt in.

Agreed. Consent matters.

 

[Angilion]

Is anyone going to address the point that the change would make little difference to the number of transplants done? It's clear some people here think it will, but nobody has given any reason to think that it will or replied to my posts saying that it won't and why it won't - most eligible people have already opted in and almost everyone who dies does so in a manner than makes it impossible to use their body for parts. So you're looking at a miniscule minority of a minority of eligible people. Why is that worth removing the need for consent? Do you think that consent is of little or no importance? Do you think that a miniscule minority of a minority will somehow be a significant increase in transplants? If so, how? Or are you just virtue signalling? Anyone care to answer?

 

[markomania]

I don't see any problem with this at all and have been an organ donor since I was given the choice

Is anyone going to address the point that the change would make little difference to the number of transplants done? It's clear some people here think it will, but nobody has given any reason to think that it will or replied to my posts saying that it won't and why it won't - most eligible people have already opted in and almost everyone who dies does so in a manner than makes it impossible to use their body for parts. So you're looking at a miniscule minority of a minority of eligible people. Why is that worth removing the need for consent? Do you think that consent is of little or no importance? Do you think that a miniscule minority of a minority will somehow be a significant increase in transplants? If so, how? Or are you just virtue signalling? Anyone care to answer?

In my experience most people would agree with donating but aren't currently registered through laziness or ignorance of how to do it. No one could say for sure how many of them would have usable organs but the point is if one did then it's wasted because they didn't opt in.

I really can't see the problem with an opt out system, if you're dead your dead, why not give someone else a chance of a better life if you died in a way that allows that?

Perhaps I'm missing something but I just don't see how anyone can argue this is anything but a good move

 

[Tefal]

A lot of people think that way. Always wondered why it's the eyes specifically.


Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to opt out. Once the person is dead there's no need to keep them whole if they can help another. It's just a sack of meat once the brain is dead.

I wonder how many who have died could have saved another person but didn't.

eyes are the biggest thing we associate woth emotion and expression they personify a person on a very deep level.

plus people think about it as if they're still alive while it's happening (it's very difficult to comprehend your own death) so they have the same reaction they do to eye surgey "aghhhhh"

 

[Tefal]

Is anyone going to address the point that the change would make little difference to the number of transplants done? It's clear some people here think it will, but nobody has given any reason to think that it will or replied to my posts saying that it won't and why it won't - most eligible people have already opted in and almost everyone who dies does so in a manner than makes it impossible to use their body for parts. So you're looking at a miniscule minority of a minority of eligible people. Why is that worth removing the need for consent? Do you think that consent is of little or no importance? Do you think that a miniscule minority of a minority will somehow be a significant increase in transplants? If so, how? Or are you just virtue signalling? Anyone care to answer?

where are you getting most people have already opted in? I know no one who has.

heck I honestly don't even know how you sign up.

 

[Tefal]

I don't have a problem with it now but it does open the door to people being bumped off to order. In the future whats to stop them testing all children in the care system and farming them to match the establishment's needs? I have a gut feeling this will be a road paved with good intentions and septic tanks full of dead children.

voted
Disagree but IN

the fact that most care workers and beurocrats are not homicidal maniacs?

 

[Angilion]

[..]In my experience most people would agree with donating but aren't currently registered through laziness or ignorance of how to do it.

The number of registered donors in the UK is public knowledge and it's most of the people eligible to be donors. Your experience is a very small sample size that does not reflect the country as a whole. You can look at this thread for a very different experience with a much larger sample size - over 85% of people are registered and at least some of the ones who aren't can't be for medical reasons. Or you could look at the countrywide figures from the NHS, which give the whole sample size, i.e. the true answer. Which is that most of the people eligible to be donors already are.

No one could say for sure how many of them would have usable organs but the point is if one did then it's wasted because they didn't opt in.

I really can't see the problem with an opt out system, if you're dead your dead, why not give someone else a chance of a better life if you died in a way that allows that?

Perhaps I'm missing something but I just don't see how anyone can argue this is anything but a good move

OK, so your position is that consent is of no importance. I disagree with you, but your position is internally consistent and indirectly answers the point that removing the need for consent would make little or no difference to the number of transplants done - if the main point is to remove the need for consent, how much it affects the number of transplants done is irrelevant.

 

[Tefal]

I think there is a concern that, Like a car, If one is badly damaged, the medics might conclude that you are worth more broken for spares than being repaired. and that they might go to rather less effort to save you if there are people actively waiting for organs that you are a good match for.

ok you're a paramedic today, you get to an accident, somones really hurt.

are you seriously telling me you'd go "meh may as well let them die who knows maybe somone is compatible"


cause that is a worrying mental state if you would

 

[Tefal]

I am happy to give my organs but as I said before the argument against it is one of principle not practicality. We could mince healthy dead bodies and use the meat as dog food. This would be a practical use of the meat...do we do it...no of course we don't because it's a matter of principle.

this would be a horrifically dangerous health risk btw, there's a reason human tissuebis treated very carefully

 

[Angilion]

where are you getting most people have already opted in? I know no one who has.

I'm getting it from the NHS, who would know. It's publically available information. They did a press release about it.

It's not most people, it's most people who are eligible.

heck I honestly don't even know how you sign up.

https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/faq/organ-donor-register/

It was less convenient when I registered in the late 80s (nothing about it online, obviously), but it still took me just a few minutes.

 

[Tefal]

I'm getting it from the NHS, who would know. It's publically available information. They did a press release about it.

It's not most people, it's most people who are eligible.

.

got a link at all?

as you can claim anything with that argument and its something you very frequently slap people down for posting

out of curiosity how sonthey even know who is eligible till they can inspect your corpse?

also how are you eligible/registered if you're gay? they won't even take blood from you

 

[Angilion]

eyes are the biggest thing we associate woth emotion and expression they personify a person on a very deep level.

plus people think about it as if they're still alive while it's happening (it's very difficult to comprehend your own death) so they have the same reaction they do to eye surgey "aghhhhh"

I think it's linked to the fact that vision is the primary sense of humans so we're hypersensitive about our eyes. I've no problem with any other medical procedures. Some doctors are going to cut open my scrotum and do some stuff in there? OK, not worried. Some doctors are going to make me so deeply unconscious that I'll need to be kept alive with machines? OK, not worried. Med students to study my genitals in the clap clinic? OK, bring 'em in, no problem. They need to learn on a person. Finger up my bum to feel my prostate? OK, lube up and off you go, no worries. Going to blow a harmless little puff of air at my eyes? Going to put a purely observational device close to my eyes? I'm going to be gripping the arms of the chair like they were stopping me falling off a cliff and holding myself rigidly still so I don't instinctively run away, run away!

 

[Angilion]

got a link at all?

as you can claim anything with that argument and its something you very frequently slap people down for posting

You're right. I thought I'd posted a link already. Here's one from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40564329

out of curiosity how sonthey even know who is eligible till they can inspect your corpse?

Children and people with known medical conditions that preclude organ donation. They can (and do) use children's organs in transplants, but it's the parents or legal guardians who make that decision.

also how are you eligible/registered if you're gay? they won't even take blood from you

I'd never thought about that. I should have done, since I used to be a blood donor and had to stop when I started having sex with other men (as you rightly point out). I registered before then.

I'd better check the rules...

...well, it seems that I'm OK. I can't find any mention of sexual orientation on the organ donor website. Or on the blood donor website, come to that. Which is surprising, since they told me clearly that I could no longer be a blood donor. Politely, but clearly. Maybe the rules have changed in the last couple of decades. Better screening, maybe? I can find a reference to a change in 2011 which allowed gay men to donate blood after a year of celibacy but nothing else. Looks like I can start donating blood again.

Background info for anyone who thinks the timeline doesn't make sense: I'm bisexual, registered as an organ donor and blood donor at 18, didn't start having homosexual sex until my mid 20s and have been celibate for years now. Works for me - I no longer find casual sex appealing and I don't want a relationship. YMMV, each to their own and all that.

 

[Orionaut]

ok you're a paramedic today, you get to an accident, somones really hurt.

are you seriously telling me you'd go "meh may as well let them die who knows maybe somone is compatible"


cause that is a worrying mental state if you would

It doesn't matter one jot what "I" might think.

It only matters what other people might think. The fact that there is a burgeoning global trade in organs for transplant suggests that a lot of people do in fact think that way.

Just for fun, I am sure I remember reading somewhere that in China, when prisoners are executed, it is routine to have them "Broken for spares" afterwards, to such an extent that the firing squads are given specific targeting instructions depending on which particular spares are going to be recovered...

I have always felt that Sci-Fi is actually a pretty good predictor of social change, and Sci-Fi's predictions surrounding the organ trade is generally pretty grim

 

[Avenged7Fold]

If it's opt out, how are they going to let everyone know about that?
Going to be expensive to send a letter to everyone.

Personally, I don't think anything should ever be opt out, it should only ever be opt in.

Is a letter going to be more expensive than the cost of dialysis for the 6000 people a year that wait for a kidney?

Making things opt out does not remove power from anyone.

If you don't want to donate, then opt out. You have a lifetime to do it and become aware of it. It isn't about government control or having a say, it is about doing something good despite having so many people being too lazy to sign a document.

 

[The_Abyss]

No, it doesn't. They want to make a choice. The proposed change would give them only one choice - out. So they'd take that option since it's the only way they can have a choice.

They said it quite clearly at the end: "[..] this takes the decision away from me and gives it to parliament. That leaves me with a decision I can make: no."

You have a choice now, and choose to donate. You’ll still have a choice should this be implemented, but would choose differently.

Are you an organ donor for you or for the potential recipient? It sounds a lot like the former, which is fine, but it kind of misses the point about the purpose of organ donation.