Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Consultation on new organ donation rules

16 replies

FlibbertyGiblets · 30/04/2019 17:16

the proposed changes around "opt out" sometimes called"deemed consent" will exclude uterus and ovaries without express permission.

GOOD.

There's a link to the consultation if you scroll down.

OP posts:
FlibbertyGiblets · 30/04/2019 17:17

NB long time lurker. Head/parapet.

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 30/04/2019 17:36

I've been meaning to do that bloody form for ages! Thanks for the reminder OP.

allmywhat · 30/04/2019 18:21

It doesn't list vaginas on the exclusion list. It does list penises, and as OP said, wombs and ovaries also. But vaginas are not mentioned anywhere.

I don't know how feasible or realistic vagina transplants are - but vagina transplants into a man seem to me like a more plausible concept than womb transplants into a man. And I've seen TRAs rhapsodising about the idea. I think it needs to be explicitly excluded like all the other body parts on the list.

Womaninnit · 30/04/2019 18:23

Jaysus id never even thought of this! Shock

Barracker · 30/04/2019 18:31

It's frustrating that there exists a two tier system yet a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the ethical problem with "deemed" consent.

If it's deemed it isn't consent.

To acknowledge an exclusion list that requires "express" consent is tacit acknowledgement that the other list is going to be taken without actual consent.

There aren't tiers of consent. It's either expressly given or it doesn't exist. You either have received consent or you haven't. If you've assumed you have it, you don't.

allmywhat · 30/04/2019 19:02

I looked into it more and vagina transplants are actually a thing that has been done (in women.)

I'm now officially creeped out that vaginas are not on the list of excluded organs.

Genderfreelass · 30/04/2019 19:26

I commented that their should be the standard list and anything not on that list excluded rather than 2 lists as then all body parts are covered incl vaginas!

ChattyLion · 30/04/2019 21:28

Thanks OP was coming on to do a thread about this.

ChattyLion · 30/04/2019 21:39

I get it that we should really try to improve the availability of some organs for transplant and I haven’t read the consultation yet but there are some things I don’t understand from the news report- was hoping someone on here would know.

Like WTF- you could have taken out of you (with relatives’ consent) an embryo after your death? What does that even mean? Not an implanted fetus surely? Or would they somehow extract the fertilised egg from your body that hasn’t yet implanted?

Also not very happy to see that the criteria for ‘relatives’ permission needed before transplant’ - covering ovaries and the uterus etc - seems to be only while they are considered ‘rare ‘ or ‘experimental’ transplants.

Right so once these are considered ‘commonplace’ transplant procedures in future... then they will be able to transplant womens’ ovaries and a uterus without any consent under presumed donation?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48103482

allmywhat · 30/04/2019 22:00

Right so once these are considered ‘commonplace’ transplant procedures in future... then they will be able to transplant womens’ ovaries and a uterus without any consent under presumed donation?

I don't think so. It seems that a specific list of exclusions is going to be enshrined into law. Any body part not on the exclusion list could end up being fair game.

However the primary purpose of the consultation is to make sure they've got the exclusion list right. So please do tell them what they've missed out.

Also I noticed the BBC seems to have misreported this in the article above. The BBC says genitals are on the exclusion list. But actually, that's only true of male genitals.

WalpurgisNight · 30/04/2019 22:02

The list says ovaries but doesn't explicitly exclude egg tissue. If you are excluding embryos then I think you need to explicitly exclude eggs (and sperm) so gametes are not collected after death without consent.

This legislation really should just automatically exclude any tissue which is part of the reproductive system. Vaginas not on the list - holy fuck.

LizzieSiddal · 30/04/2019 22:09

Marking my place to read later. Thank you for posting this OP.

AncientLights · 30/04/2019 22:27

allmywhat I'm wondering about uteri +/- vagina. I read an article by medics very recently about uterus implantation in TW. They thought most donations would come via cadavers as it's a big ask from a living one, i.e. transmen. And surgeons would want to take some vagina along with the uterus and cervix for technical reasons. However, the article said at least 6 months should elapse between m2f genital surgery & uterine implantation, and I can't be arsed to work out what that particular time line might look like.

I do wonder though if they'd like to take vaginas for implanting into tw. Surely it would be a better result for the recipient than a length of stinky colon if penile skin isn't suitable. I also wonder if the vagina would perform its amazing feats of self- cleansing and stretching etc if implanted into a male body.

I think uterine transplants/implants should not be done on the NHS for either sex. If women are entitled to it then it seems tw would also be. So let's forget about it.

ChattyLion · 02/05/2019 08:13

allmywhat thank and yes you are right that there is an exclusion list that includes the rare and experimental stuff- but I am still concerned, because the list of exclusions is only for now. And even now, it only means that the family of the deceased person need to give permission first before transplantation can be done.

Over time and as more research is published globally and as more rare and experimental transplantation techniques and scenarios become routine, then these ‘excluded’ organs (ie is still legally usable for transplant with permission from relatives etc) .. as science moves on you would expect these organs (ovaries, uterus etc) to be reclassified as routine transplants?

The proposed exclusion doesn’t mean ‘can’t be used’ on principle and isn’t a permanently stable category.

I think that’s what is missing here. There isn’t any permanent list of named cadaveric body parts that are on principle never to be made available for transplant from a dead person.

If you had such a list of ‘not to be transplanted from a dead body without consent from that person when they were alive’ ... that would not prevent any of us in our own will specifically leaving our ovaries and womb to our sister (or brother) or alternatively to anyone on the transplant list who needed them if we were to die suddenly and they needed to use them.

If people want to be a living donor of their own reproductive organs or embryos (like already now they can be) then fine that is with their consent. You don’t have to be dead to donate those things. (Though living people aren’t allowed to donate foetuses, so not sure why cadavers should have to.)

I don’t understand the inclusion of fetuses in here- this is not for research it’s for transplantation treatment.. ?? How is that going to work? All seems a bit like moving the window and no consideration of the rights of the child or mother to me. They have not mentioned any system of government oversight or committee oversight or whatever if a fetus is taken from a dead body with the relatives consent. Then what could happen next to it?

And so long as we have a GRC system in the UK I don’t know how you could be able to specify that either in life (if you give your own reproductive organs to a transplant list not a named person) or after your own death under this proposed new system (if you give your vagina plus reproductive organs) that your organs can only be transplanted into a female person rather than someone with a male body who identifies as female.

With various other forms of organ donation you can put conditions on who you want to receive your specific donation of that organ. Not sure why not with this new system. Hmm

I have no issue with anyone having my heart, lungs, pancreas or whatever by the way and in principle I think presumed opt out is a good thing- just not for all organs and not on relatives’ permission.

ChattyLion · 03/05/2019 18:01

I looked up the impact assessment of this proposed change (you can see it via the consultation document) and it’s all about assessing the common transplants and talking about how people die waiting for transplantation. All true and very good to act on in the case of life- preserving organs.

But people don’t tend to die for lack of transplanted male or female sex organs or reproductive organs, embryos or fetuses. It doesn’t mention any justification of why these organs are on the Excluded list. (Meaning only with the bereaved family consent, they can be used in treatment).

Also it says in the consultation document that a committee can take transplants off the excluded list and parliament will consider where legal change is needed but doesn’t mention any public consultation as part of that process. Hmm

There are huge consent issues here for women.

ChattyLion · 03/05/2019 18:03

Sorry should have added to last paragraph: when they take them off the excluded list- that is to add them to PRESUMED CONSENT. Ie they will be used in treatment of others no consent needed. Shock

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread