ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Proposal that people with donor cards are given priority over those that don't when needing an organ?(252 Posts)
DM Link if you want more detail:
I can't see why anyone would argue against this. I do think an exception would have to be made for people that can't be donors due to medical reasons. Apart from that, why on earth not?
no, not thought through - some people cannot donate due to medical reasons.
however anyone who opts out as a non-medical choice, including for religious reasons, should not be eligible to receive.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
OP, what if your child and another child needed a transplant. You and your family are on the donor register and the other child isnt. What if the donor decided he/she didnt want their organs going to someone who IS on the donor register as they dont believe in this new "law". Would that be fair?
Transplants should never be judged on who is on a list and who isnt.
I pretty much agree o anything that boosts organ donation but I'm bias, I have a son who is highly likely to need a new pair of lungs in the not too distant future.
The opt out thing is clearly the best way forward though.
I'm not registered.
There's just something about it that doesn't sit right with me and the relentless campaigning seems to have an opposite effect of me. It's my body, I don't like to think of it being cut open and passed around as soon as I pass. I just don't.
But, logically I know it's a good thing to do and will get round to it. There is no argument not to really other than how I feel about it which is personal to me.
If something happened and I needed a transplant tomorrow would I take it?
In an instant.
What next, no lung transplants for smokers, or liver transplants for drinkers.
I think there are limitations placed on people who do stuff that would impeed the success of the transplant. I may have got that idea from Holby City/Casualty though. So it might not be particulary accurate. But think it was still based on a medical not "moral" requirment, in the sense that still drinking alcoholics and still smoking hard of breathing people would be less likely to survive longer term with a transplant than those who had kicked or didn't have habits that lower sucess rates. But I don't think they take them off the list, they just slip down in priority.
Or something like that.
I carried a donor card in the Uk, but have to confess I have not the vauguest idea how to opt in here in Italy.
DH and DS both know I want all and everything useful to be taken. However I think it's still better to do it offically.
<pootles off to google to deal with info gap>
Im much more worried about the family not having the final say. Im not on the register and don't plan on it, the way I think is that my husband can decide depending on how he feels at the time.
I think it will stop people signing up.
I don't think Id be happy to offer my children or husband for spare parts.
I particularly hate the idea of their organs going to supposed re-formed druggies.
Does that mean me and my family should come further down the list should we need a transplant? I guess so, seems only fair
I don't agree with this. Organs should absolutely be allocated by need alone, judgements shouldn't be made about how morally 'deserving' they are.
On a practical level, at the point when you require a donor organ your organs aren't likely to be much use to anyone else anyway, so it's not as though you will be likely to actually be able to donate them if the worst happened. I know the idea is to get more people on the register, but there are better ways of doing this.
I completely agree with an opt-out rather than opt-in system.
The key word there goodtouch is 'reformed' people who made mistakes but rectified them....
Jesus I'm gonna hide this before the rage gets me.
Oh it's ok, we are presumed opt in if nothing written can be presented by the family to demo opting out was declared during lifetime.
And, actually, only being eligible to receive organs if you are prepared to give them is kind of a trade. Any kind of trade in human organs sits very uneasily with me indeed.
So you'd take someone's organs in an instant but not give any away when you die Patsy how very generous of you.
I'm down to donate if I die but I would want my organs to go to whoever needs them most, even though I can't get my head around why anyone wouldn't want to be on the list to give.
I do not agree with this new proposal, I think an opt out system would be so much better.
I highly doubt this will ever happen anyway, it's just the DM shit stirring.
Why the sarcasm and face? I'm being honest about my feelings here, feelings I find hard to square within myself, over my body parts.
I'm happy to discuss it but sarcy comments like that just grate - have you got anything useful to say?
Sure tits, I know what it means, I just don't think Id be inclined to sign over a loved ones organs to someone like that. It must be a horrible decision to have to make when you've just lost someone and that is something which puts me off.
There are lots of stories of organs being wasted on alcoholics who carry on drinking after they have a nice new liver.
Oh hey, something where Italy doesn't limp in the bottom of a league table !
<proud by proxy emoticon>
EXTRACT...The European scenario of deceased organ donation is extremely varied with a few nations with yearly donor rates over 20 per million population (pmp) (Spain, France, Italy, Estonia, Belgium, Austria, and Latvia); a major block of countries with yearly rates between 10 and 16 pmp (Ireland, Norway, Finland, Poland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovakia, Denmark, Lithuania, Germany, the UK, and Malta), and a few like Greece and Cyprus whose deceased donor rates fall below 5 pmp1
There are lots of stories of organs being wasted on alcoholics who carry on drinking after they have a nice new liver
A whole liver ? Are you sure, cos I thought these days people got a portion of a donated liver, cos it's the one of the few organ that can "regenerate" itself.
yanbu. in conjunction with an opt out system and applied to over 18s only, it seems eminently reasonable.
if you opt out of being a donor, either for religious reasons or just pure selfishness (as in patsyandeddy breathtaking post above) those reasons apply equally to taking someone else's.
all the people on this thread saying they don't fancy the idea of someone else having their organs, but would happily be a recipient- the mind boggles.
it is not a 'trade' or a 'swap shop', it is choosing to participate in, or opt out of, a collective system whereby we try to help others live after our own deaths.
I disagree with this. I carry a donor card. This should not mean I can jump the queue for organs should I ever need one. Medical reasons only.
have you got anything useful to say?
Yes, stop being so selfish and get yourself on the donor list.
Can I ask those of you who don't like the idea of donating their body parts exactly what it is you plan on doing with them when you are dead?
They will either be burnt and turned to ash or buried in the ground for the worms to eat...How on earth is that better than giving someone else (regardless of their history) a chance at life.
I find this really difficult. In theory I agree, that you have to be willing to give in order to receive. (Based on choosing to/not to give, rather than medical ability. If a person is under 13? 16? 18? They can have anyway. If they cannot give because of medical conditions, they can have. Religious reasons? Tough shit. Likewise "I just don't like the idea of someone rootling round my organs". Well if you don't want someone rootling around to take your organs out when you're dead, you certainly don't want them doing when you're alive, do you?!) However in practice, I want my organs to go to the person that needs them the most. If (unlikely I know) there were two people requiring my organs, with exactly the same problem, at the same stage, etc (so identical requirements) I'd prefer they went to the one that had been willing to give over the one that wasn't. Having said that, I know it's so unlikely for that to happen, I'd rather it was a purely medical reason. And I'd rather my organs went to a smoker/an alcoholic than burned with me (again, assuming they were appropriate for noone else).
Also, yes, yes to opt out, rather than opt in. But I've apparently been on the register since birth anyway. Thanks mum and dad!
Personally think that donation should be based on medical need not conditions or bribery.
This may also be because I cannot donate due to medical condition / medication which makes most of me unusable. I was registered as a donor prior to being diagnosed/treated but I now would be unable to donate but have a greater need now due to the crappy condition of my body and the stresses placed on it by both disease & medication.
I think opting out would be a better solution than opting in as those who have strong feelings can decide not to but the apathetic are covered. I suspect more non donors are due to not getting round to it rather than strong personal feelings.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.