Advanced search

Proposal that people with donor cards are given priority over those that don't when needing an organ?

(252 Posts)
angelos02 Thu 11-Jul-13 11:21:01

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?

MoaningMingeWhingesAgain Thu 11-Jul-13 11:26:24

Priority should be on medical need only. Not judgement.

Maybe they wanted to be a donor but family objected. Maybe they forgot. Maybe they don't want to be a donor.

Doesn't matter.

Who needs it most, gets the organ.

itsallshitandmoreshit Thu 11-Jul-13 11:27:35

Sounds fair to me.

angelos02 Thu 11-Jul-13 11:29:49

If their family's opinion is opposed to donating organs, then I assume they are equally opposed to receiving organs?

I think it is a good idea as it may encourage more people to carry donor cards. 3 people a day, die waiting for organs.

PavlovtheCat Thu 11-Jul-13 11:30:09

I don't like that idea. I can't put my concerns/thoughts about it into words yet. It just doesn't sit well. Let me think about the reasons. But gut instinct says it feels wrong.

PatsyAndEddy Thu 11-Jul-13 11:31:20

People have choice over their bodies and long should that remain the case.

PatsyAndEddy Thu 11-Jul-13 11:32:54

That's an incorrect assumption though.

I can't articulate this properly but it doesn't sit right. We, as human beings, cannot dictate what people do with their bodies before, during or after death. We just can't.

TanglednotTamed Thu 11-Jul-13 11:33:12

I am on the donor register (to give, not to receive, I mean!) and don't think I should get priority if I need a transplant - should be medical need.

Otherwise you get into all sorts of territory. What about people who are willing to pay? Should they get priority?

CarpeVinum Thu 11-Jul-13 11:33:18

I haven't read the link, but where would that leave children or very young adults who may not have been making their decision independently and free of coercion ?

I would prefer an opt out system, where you had to declare yourself a non donor and put yourself on a non donor register rather than an opt in system.

I am not sure I am at all comfortable with the idea of making that punitive whereby if you opt out of donating you also opt out of being a recipient.

I kind of feel it ought to be a purely medical decision based on likelihood of success in the short, mid and longer term, and urgency of need ....rather than "oh dear, you die cos you picked wrong when you thought you were immortal or these things only happen to other people".

That's a big price to pay for the crime of an uninformed and knee jerk choice.

I'd guess people opposed to donation because of careful, considered, or profound moral issues with the concept would be opting out in either direction anyway.

Maybe if we went for opt out not opt in there wouldn't be such a shortage and an idea like this would be superfluous to requirements anyway.

NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Thu 11-Jul-13 11:33:35

YABU some people's religion will not allow them to donate organs. Aside from that, as someone else said it could be an oversight that they're not donors.

mimitwo Thu 11-Jul-13 11:33:41

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jeee Thu 11-Jul-13 11:34:25

Getting a transplant is not some kind of reward for good behaviour. It is, and should remain, purely a medical decision.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Thu 11-Jul-13 11:34:35

If it helps improve organ donation then I agree.

Also agree that if families are anti donating then it stands to reason they would be anti receiving too.

Jengnr Thu 11-Jul-13 11:34:50

Absolutely not.

The donor system should be opt out, rather than opt in though.

ThingummyBob Thu 11-Jul-13 11:35:53


I wish more people would register as donors but I cannot imagine it not being a free choice to make.

The feelings of family members or really not relevant. What if someone has no family?

I also imagine that many donor recipients cannot be donors themselves for medical reasons so seems ill-thought out at best hmm

Recipients of organs should be on a medical priority basis as nothing else is fairer.

samandi Thu 11-Jul-13 11:36:38

Hm, I do wish there was an option where I could choose not to donate my organs to those that aren't prepared to do the same. Sadly, there isn't.

PatsyAndEddy Thu 11-Jul-13 11:37:01

I agree with the opt out argument. But you jsut can't reward people for donating therefore penalising those that don't in this way.

It's rather chilling.

Justfornowitwilldo Thu 11-Jul-13 11:37:24

Donation should be opt out not opt in.

TheSmallPrint Thu 11-Jul-13 11:37:42

I find this quite distasteful to be honest. Priority should be on need not what you're prepared to donate in return - it's not swapshop.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Thu 11-Jul-13 11:38:23

neo I recently spoke to a nurse involved in promoting organ donation. Virtually all her talk involved religious views on donation, she said there is no religion that bans organ donation.
There are religious leaders (usually older and more traditional ones who are against) but she said most religious leaders say there is no problem with organ donation.

I'm no expert on this by the way, I just had a really interesting chat with a nurse involved in organ donation

PatsyAndEddy Thu 11-Jul-13 11:38:50

I don't think you can attach conditions to gifts like that though.

I might not like my liver going to an alcholic who might just carry on drinking (just examples btw, not my views) or to someone who has commited some awful crime but if I choose to give I give freely, without condition.

angelos02 Thu 11-Jul-13 11:38:57

Neo surely if someone's religion won't allow them to donate then equally they would not receive an organ. I don't have words to express how I feel about someone that would take an organ but not prepared to give.

JaquelineHyde Thu 11-Jul-13 11:41:29

What an utterly ridiculous idea.

I for one would not want to donate my organs based on this criteria.

I want organs of mine to go to the recipient with the best possible chance of successful transplant, not just to the person who remembered to go on the donor list.

What next, no lung transplants for smokers, or liver transplants for drinkers. After all these are choices just like being on the donor list.

This makes me so angry

FyreFly Thu 11-Jul-13 11:41:39

Of course it shouldn't be like this! Deciding to donate your organs after death is a deeply personal decision. It is a gift which must be given freely, not taken under coercion.

Medical need must be the ONLY deciding factor. Whrre you have two organ donors needing transplants, do you pick the drug addict whose life is in most danger or do you pick the "deserving" paediatrician who spends his weekends helping at a soup kitchen and could live a few more months yet? The concept of "deserving" should never come into it, or we will end up with organ donation by coercion, which is very, very wrong.

mimitwo Thu 11-Jul-13 11:43:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: