organ transplant discussion on lbc right now

Red, thank you from me too for your post. I'm particularly troubled by the thought of the presumed-consent model coupled with a privatised NHS. I am really, very disturbed by that. I also don't like where the country is headed.

I opted in to the organ donor register a few years ago, but only just got my acknowledgement and card last week. I remember I did not tick the box for my eyes (corneas?) to be donated, and annoyingly they have ignored that and confirmed I've opted in for all organs. I didn't call up to change it, but it did make me throw the donor card away because I was pissed off about that (I know the donor card doesn't really make a difference). It just felt like it was ignoring my one request, and it wasn't a nice feeling.

My DH knows my wishes, and that I don't want my uterus being used by a man.

Anyway, back to the thread - I noticed babelfish saying:

Medically this isn’t happening. It’s just not. Our biology is not plug and play and no ethics committee on earth would take the risk with a foetus.

I hope this is true, but in relation to the last bit, I'm minded of the transwoman who breastfed a newborn. That was an unnecessary risk to take on a newborn baby. Ethics were set aside in that case.

I'm a little confused as to the number of people saying they wouldn't donate reproductive organs or tissue. Not confused by that desire, that's fine, but do you live somewhere that allows harvesting of reproductive organs/tissue from dead people? The UK does not, so it's not really necessary to say you don't want to donate it, because it's not on the list of things that gets donated.

Also, watched a doc on BBC about intensive care, and apparently the ONLY people who can donate are people who die on a vent in intensive care, so that's pretty depressing as for most people that won't happen. It's why you need the most amount of people signed up to donate possible, because it increases the population size of 'people who die on a vent in intensive care'.

I think the body farms idea is absolute scaremongering and a bit ridiculous.

I have no issues whatsoever with the organ opt out system. I think it's important to change the way we think about donating too. Like with seatbelt laws and drink driving laws. I want people to see it as a thing people should do if they can.

uteruses aren't necessary to life (well, they are for NEW life, but ykwim) so if people want to opt out of donating their uteruses to stop them being used in these circumstances that's fine too. I'm not convinced about the ethics of uterus donation generally though so I would opt out myself.

Betty Spot on.

In their opinions, it MUST be a gift, it MUST be the donor's choice (or their family's choice, if the donor is too young to be registered themselves), and it MUST be voluntary. Otherwise, both said it would be hard to consider it anything other than theft, emotionally. It's a difficult thing to contemplate benefitting from someone else's death. In my cousin's case, he's not met his donor's family (their choice), but he did write to them to thank them. He feels it's too paltry a gesture for people who literally saved his life, but he respects their wishes. I don't think even meeting them would be enough. He wants to give them the world. In reality, he knows they just want their son back.

Sorry I wrote that incorrectly - not the doctor, the clinic where it was performed

Photo

Just read something of definite interest to this thread. The man who performed the US' first womb transplant and the medical facility where the resulting child was born are both linked to Pritzker, a significant transgender lobby.

Towards the end of this article here:
thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

sociopath

I imagine there can be a kind of survivors guilt for recipients? In which case, you would definitely need to be able to think of the donation as a gift?

I’ve watched some online videos where a bereaved parent meets the recipient of their loved one’s organ and it’s truly beautiful, but yes, absolutely needs to be totally consensual.

Hey toothbrush

Thanks for introducing some really well thought out (and troubling) ideas re: consent and autonomy.

I’ve always been a registered organ donor and I guess I’ve gone along with the ‘opting out is better’ idea because I’ve not given it any real thought.

Now I can see it’s not as I assumed.

Thanks.

(For the record, I would happily let all my bits be used as required, by anyone that can make use of them - my grandad left his entire body to medical science about 35 years ago, so it’s an idea that was introduced to me at a very young age. 2 c sections and a family history of ovarian cancer will render my reproductive bits unsuitable for reuse, but I don’t mind them being learned from - I realise that my position is probably unusual though, and for people whose religious beliefs require them to be buried quickly and entirely, it’s totally unthinkable and that should definitely be respected)

Dehumanisation is ugly whereever it happens and for whatever reason.

think I'm more concerned at the attitude of a teeny tiny segment of the population looking at us in the same way a dog looks at a butcher's shop.

Yep. Regardless of what one's feelings are about organ donation in general the idea of a small group of male people looking at female people as a source of spare parts (that they don't even have any actual use for) is pretty grotesque.

Thanks for opening my eyes. I fully admit my previous bias based on two individual cases that are important in my life. Interestingly, neither my friend or my cousin are in favour of the opt out system. Both feel it's essential, as recipients, that they know their donor gave it to them willingly, freely and without reservations. If that's important to them, it's important to me xxx

I think one of the big fallacies about being against the opt out system is that it means you are anti-organ donation.

Its really not, but some do take it upon themselves to characterise it as such.

Its the idea that if you are opposed to the opt out system you are heartless about individuals who didn't get a transplant in time, but might have if there had been presumed consent.

As I say, I just don't think its that simple and I wish that people would give it more consideration rather than just making the assumption that an opt out system would be better, just because it will help protect safeguarding if the system is changed and it will improve awareness of transplants and the ethics of it even if its not.

I suspect that a change to opt out is a done deal now anyway, but I still think its important to raise the potential problems whereever possible.

I'd agree with you on the erosion of ethics and safeguarding. I'll have to look into everything else before I come to any (likely moveable) conclusions on the opt out system.

I do 100% believe in organ donation, but yes, the opportunity to abuse the system must be controlled and if possible, eradicated. As soon as it becomes monetised, we're finished.

Socio, I would say generally natural but with socially created bias through in there too. I do think there is a possibility of mengele in extreme circumstances or if politics did get particularly nasty. Which frankly at this juncture, with the rise of support for authoritarianism I'm not ruling out.

Its something that was known to happen in China with executed prisoners until very recently. There was a particularly big scandal that was exposed in 2006 regarding persecution of a certain group who were felt to be a threat to the state. Its is claimed that the practice was stopped in 2015, but since there is no way of verifying this there are doubts that this has really happened.

thediplomat.com/2017/03/chinas-organ-transplant-problem/
This is an article from last year about organ donation in China.

Also see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplantation_in_China

This certainly isn't something that happened only in the distant past. The Chinese revelations have continued to come out with suggestions in 2016 that as many as 1,500,000 people could have been the victims of illicit organ harvesting.

I don't think that we are likely to go down that route - certainly in the immediate future - in the UK, but its always possible.

I certainly see erosion of human rights in the US under Trump and how politics are going there, leading to criticism of dubious practices in organ donation being silenced as there are huge potential profits to be made.

In the UK today, I think its more about things like, how far do you go to save someone's life. If they are 'worthier person' or 'higher social status person' do you go to extra lengths compared to someone else who is 'a drain on society'. And does subconscious basis or institutional prejudice also come into it?

Doctors are sworn to do no harm, but in the age of targets and pressure with decreasing budgets who is to say that a hospital might make some dodgy decisions? How do you ensure that doesn't happen. What level of accountability to track who donates and who recieves and their social background will there be to double check there is no disparity going on? How transparent will authorities be about this?

There could be the possibility of 'improving' its number of transplants whilst simulataineously reducing its liability to complex mental health cases. For example that a troubled teen just out of care who 'no one will miss' might not get an equal level of care, if there is a nice middle class family on floor 5 just waiting for a heart to save their 'much loved, beautiful, clever, funny and popular' daughter Poppy.

Or if the NHS is privatised, you might end up with a situation where transplant receptiants are only those who can afford organs and those who can't afford even basic care are much more likely to die in the first place. Presumed consent then therefore only really benefits the rich, but those who are least able to navigate the beaucracy of lodging an objection don't get the potential of the benefit of more organs being available anyway. Thus poor people end up becoming by default the commodity of rich people.

This is why I see the value and importance of donation being a gift, rather than the state having effective ownership of your body unless you make the effect to object (noting that these systems are difficult by nature to navigate and require awareness and an ability to do).

I regard these systems that protect the vulnerable as fragile and undervalued. Its complacency and taking safeguarding for granted that leads to scandals arising. It might be thought of as scaremongering to raise what has happened in China as a warning, but I do think its relevant to put it into a modern day context and to show that authoritarian regimes don't care about citizens who they regard as a 'problem'.

People who are advocating presumed consent, I am positive are massively well meaning and well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am also mindful that many of the most vocal advocates have a real emotional and personal reason to be encouraging a change to the system which has a tendancy to be difficult to put a rational and sometimes seemingly almost cold counter argument in contrast against. People who are naturally disposed to making the world better don't always realise that not everyone is nice like them, nor has someone looking out for their interests in the same way.

I don't know, but I'm seeing a general erosion of ethics and safeguarding in the UK and how there is an increase in private enterprise is frankly profiting from human misery of the poor, vulnerable and minorities.

I find it all deeply disturbing. The timing of everything, makes me particularly nervous.

Ah of course. And are we talking natural deaths or mengele style deaths?

Prisoners, sociopath

Fairly long and unpleasant history of those incarcerated being used this way.

There are specific rules in clinical trial guidelines for prisoners because they are considered an exceptionally vulnerable group.

Kids in care - I meant when there kicked out of care, at 16. Or is it 18?

So who are the vulnerable? Kids in care, obviously. Who else? Immigrants, illegal most like as they could be vanished. Who else can be "disappeared" into the body farm? Asylum seekers? The homeless. Shelter residents? Who could disappear or BE disappeared?

I'm sure others will shoot me down in flames for being some kind of heretic.

I don't think you are. At all.

Redtoothrush I understand completely. I've chosen to be a donor, since I was legally allowed to. I would hate to think that the assumed consent would be abused, but that's a reality I have to open my eyes to. I don't doubt it will be abused, on a national level. No flaming from me. You've made me think, thank you.

I am against the principle of presumed consent for transplants.

I know this is a controversial position to some because "won't you think of those who will die and didn't have to" pov.

Personally I think its a easy way to phrase things without looking at the bigger picture.

Asking for consent, was always about safeguarding frameworks, which protected the most vulnerable - such as those who couldn't consent, had limited intelligence or language skills or something else.

Presumed consent sounds nice in principle, but to be frank about it, I don't think safeguarding vulnerable people within the system is up to scratch, particularly in an age where the politics of the time seems to be heading to more of a hierarchy of worthiness to live based on social status rather than a society which views all human life as equally important.

The state effectively owns your body after you die in a presumed consent situation.

And the idea of all the people you can measure who would benefit from presumed consent, does nothing to consider the number of vulnerable people who would 'lose out' because the mindset this would be a 'never event'. Except never events happen with reasonably predictable regularity. And I simply don't trust the state of politics which has produced Grenfell and Windrush.

The devaluing of human life and the deconstruction of humans into parts which benefits others rather than still seeing humans as humans is a process I feel is dehumanising in its own right. Its all very well meaning, but I think particularly in the context of a certain lack of understanding of how safeguarding is necessary, how it works and how easily rights are eroded or just ignored if someone is vulnerable until its too late it doesn't sit well with me.

I know this will upset people to say this.

I also stress that this does not stop you donating. It just means where the control and power in the dynamic is held is different.

I don't want to comment on the trans angle on this - I think the wider debate is more important and any part of that relates to trans agenda fits neatly within the wider stuff anyway.

For me its simply down to why safeguarding frameworks were build and how they originated and how once again that seems to be forgotten. Who were they set up to protect and why? Why was presumed consent never the default from the word go. It wasn't merely because of ignorance of transplants and emotionally distressed relatives. It went deeper and was about the role of the state and the authoritarianism of the state.

Yes people will benefit from presumed consent, but the who is important. As is who might lose too.

Once the system is changed, what might happen if the NHS was privatised for example?

This isn't a debate that will be held openly. Anyone who expresses views like mine, will be attacked as being 'selfish' or asked the emotive question 'but what if it were your child'. Personally I think it over simplifies the issue and reduces it to an emotional rather than one that seems to look at it from the pov of someone particularly vulnerable but without noisy and powerful advocates. And doesn't place the concept within the politics of the time, which are not as egalitarian nor as supportive of human rights as we might like them to be.

I can see problem, issues and even outright scandals arising which will be swept under the carpet in the name of the greater good.

None of it sits particularly well with me.

I wish I felt differently but I sadly believe that human nature simply isn't always nice or honest or ethical.

I'm sure others will shoot me down in flames for being some kind of heretic. I just don't see this as the simple magic solution without negative consequences that its presumed to be. Nor do I think we live in a political vacuum. Politics are changing and the timing leaves a change in the system vulnerable to exploitation if we are not very careful and aren't properly honest about this.

The goalposts will never, ever stop moving, will they? It started off with "Hey, we just wanna pee, that's all", then came "I'm a lesbian too, don't mind my erect cock". Next up we had 6ft 2" male-bodied "wimmin" winning athletic events, bearded "wimmin" telling us how to be women, redefining the phrase "Actually, my lesbian girlfriend I've a cock down there" as someone's 'sexual history' and now they want to harvest wombs, too. They'll jump the queue, too, you can bet.
Did I just wake up in Gilead??

Its been a while since I filled out my donor card thing, but I am sure that I got options of what I would like to donate. Of course you cannot chose who gets anything too so you would have to opt out of uterus all together rather than sa 'not for male people'...I really really doubt that males will be offered donor uteruses in the near future tbh and I think TRAs are even more head in the clouds nonsense on this topic. I cannot forsee a time when science can ever allow a man to birth a baby tbh. Besides other obvious issues, its completely unethical.

This thread had actually reminded me I need to reregister. When I did it, I said they could have anything (that works..god knows what will) except my eyes as the thought of eyes creeped me out. Sicne then I have thought about it a bit more and I will obviously be dead and unable to feel them poking around in my eyes, and it could help someone so much,

Also, I see identity denier is now the new anti-trans, which used to be the new T-acronym we're not allowed to say any more hereabouts. I was quite happy with the original witch, dontchaknow. I don't know why we have to keep coming with new pejoratives.