New Opt Out Organ Donation System comes into effect today

‘This thread is mad. You'd rather risk someone dying without a heart transplant to avoid the extremely unlikely event of somebody born male being given reproductive organs. I question self ID, but not to the point of hurting people.’

What on earth are you talking about? Women unsurprisingly do not want their genetic material harvested. This is a massive human rights issue. Not everything is about transgenderism.

Thanks for posting about this OP. Horrifying that this has been done during a pandemic.

Yes. It's opening a door that we would all be better off keeping firmly shut.

The counterargument will of course be that our governments would never do that

This sort of thing ends up with such shit legislation, I'm not sure how anyone can say it with a straight face.

I have no doubt that people in our various governments would find that idea horrific. I am a lot less sure that will be the case 50 years from now. People's attitudes can change, a lot.

here in Canada we now have assisted death, and there is increasing pressure to widen it's availability, removing many of the safeguards that were purposefully included to prevent abuses. This is within less than a decade.

If people don't think these kinds of laws can be pushed into totally new uses they are fooling themselves.

I wonder what happens if a overseas visitor dies in England. Or someone from another part of the UK, that hasn't signed up for this legislation yet. Do you think their organs will be presumed consented? How will they know? Sometimes people are in accidents and don't have ID. If the presumption is to harvest - they could do it do anybody. literally any body. yes?

And then there's what's happening in China with reported organ harvesting of prisoners and Uighurs in detainment camps. The counterargument will of course be that our governments would never do that, to which my response is "maybe, but I'd rather not create a situation that would make that easier to get away with".

They can't presume consent to implant organs, I don't think.

Could I ask what concerning changes you see happening as a result of this precedent being set?

It has to do with issues around who ultimately "owns" the body. The foundation of our autonomy is rooted in the self, which includes our body. We get to decide about our own flesh, because it is us.

There are clear questions around how strong consent is when it's an opt out system. There is at the least a presumption that most people would want to do it. And there begin to be an assumption that the state's view of the dead body as an empty shell is the right one, which is also certainly a philosophical position and not one held by everyone.

There are also questions around when is a person really dead - this isn't necessarily as straightforward as most people think. If the body belongs to the state when it is dead, there could be consequences of that.

Crikey. I hadn't considered that.

I'm on the register, they can have everything except my heart (for sentimental value), but I'm going to have to think about this, I never realised it could mean use of my eggs

I think it should be a rule, if someone opts out of organ donation, They then shouldn't ever be entitled to an organ if they ever needed one !

I've been on organ donor register forever.

My eggs are totally off limit. Thanks for flagging.

Reproductive tissue is or at least will be up for grabs for sure.
There has been a suggestion that sperm should be on the list of tissue that can be taken donated.

I have already talked to my daughters about this. Imagine, if their father died and his sperm was taken - they could have half siblings they know nothing about. It's a reprehensible suggestion.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/sperm-donor-dead-men-supply-medical-ethics-a9293736.html?amp

I don't know about the state of research or current practice regarding ovarian tissue but it will also be highly sought after.
In this podcast, towards the end, there is discussion of persuading women seeking an abortion to have a late abortion so that ovarian tissue can be collected from the fetus. Fetal farming he called it. Around 24 minutes in though I recommend listening to it all.

It's a very interesting podcast with insight into the Brave New World around the corner.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000456653311

My ovaries are long shrivelled up but I've opted out on principle. My family know my main organs are available but the state does not own my body.

I find the whole framing of this sinister, and had a massive falling out with a friend who was very much in favor of it being framed this way a few years ago. They're trying to social engineer everyone into donating whether they're comfortable with it or not, the gender wankery is only a side note of just in case you thought we respected your boundaries here's a reminder that we don't.

I signed up to donate age 18 but hate presumed consent and don't want my uterus harvested for a male. I'm starting to get too old for most bits to be desirable anyway

The basic tenet of consent: absence of a no does not constitute a yes.

I was opted in for years when I was able to know as a certainty that no unwilling citizen would be harvested for their organs, and this during the years when the majority of the population wasn't opted in.

I opted out when this legislation was proposed, and made my reasons known to the transplant service. My hope was that they would have second thoughts about the effectiveness of abandoning explicit donor consent.

I am a potential donor who will not be part of a national register of people who have not expressly consented to be harvested. If the transplant service value express consent, they can ask my next of kin what my wishes actually were. However they seem to have now adopted a system where the binary options are 1. We will take your unvconsented organs if you have not explicitly told us otherwise or 2. We will exclude you entirely if you expect us to ask.

It appears to boil down to "we'd rather lose you as a donor than be expected to ask your explicit consent"

As Goosefoot said, I regret bitterly that we have set a precedent of 'no consent needed' in law, for such a matter of importance.

Presumed consent is an oxymoron.
If it's presumed, it isn't consent at all.

This thread is mad. You'd rather risk someone dying without a heart transplant to avoid the extremely unlikely event of somebody born male being given reproductive organs. I question self ID, but not to the point of hurting people

I can't speak for others but I don't want anyone regardless of what sex, gender or whatever they are, using any part of my reproductive organs. That has always been my position.

I could not care less if the registration form asks about "gender"- that certainly won't put me off being a donor.

I oppose almost all methods of assisted fertility. I've carried an organ donation card since forever and always made clear that no reproductive tissue or organs can be used. I have that as a note with the card and my husband knows my views.

If the Scottish version does not permit an opt out of those organs I will opt out of everything but leave it to my husband or son to permit use of any other organs. At my age I expect that reproductive tissue and organs would be of little use other than for research but I don't even want that to happen.

I don't see why people who choose to opt out of organ donation should be allowed to change their minds

Eh?

I've been on the register since I was a teenager. But I will NOT be coerced or manipulated or hustled into donation. To me that is a gross invasion of rights by the state. If they want to ask me for bits of my body, the very least they can do is treat me like an adult and with respect. TBH the reproductive bits and the 'gender question' is only a small part of it, it's the main principle of presuming consent that bothers me.

Thank you, MotherForkinShirtBalls. My family and NoK are aware of my wishes but I thought it best to have them recorded so they're less torn if it happens. Personally, on reproductive tissue, while mine is unlikely to be of much use at this stage, I really don't care what happens to it.

I would say to those opting out over the gender question: have you considered that your organs could save the life of a gender critical rights crusader?

If they can legally assume everyone admitted to a hospital is a donor then they need not bother with gaining permission when harvesting marketable organs. If they are later informed that the person opted out it is unlikely they can return the organs.

Gronky having your wishes in your will is effectively useless, the decisions around organ donation will be made long before anyone goes digging out a will. Whatever your choices may be, let your family and next of kin know sooner rather than later.

I'm very torn on opt out. I'm happy for anything useful of mine, except reproductive tissue and organs, being used but I fully understand how people fear the creep of this legislation.

but to me the precedent being set is the problem

Could I ask what concerning changes you see happening as a result of this precedent being set?

I don't see why people who choose to opt out of organ donation should be allowed to change their minds or be eligible to be a recipient themselves later, should circumstances change.

Really? So if you've never given blood, you shouldn't be able to receive it?

I see your reasoning, but it just doesn't pan out. Give what you want, don't require anything in return, that's called altruism. If society needs more donation, persuade people. Don't force it.

Reproductive tissue?

I'm all for organ donation as a rule - I'm dead, I have no use for it, take what you need, but things like eggs? As a rule, I trust NHS doctors, and previously I would assume that basic ethics would be followed around this, but the way the wind sometimes blows these days, I think I would want to explicitly exclude 'reproductive' tissue, just in case - assuming there's no way to be specific about this - I wouldn't want my eggs to be used for surrogacy.

This thread is mad. You'd rather risk someone dying without a heart transplant to avoid the extremely unlikely event of somebody born male being given reproductive organs. I question self ID, but not to the point of hurting people.

I don't see why people who choose to opt out of organ donation should be allowed to change their minds or be eligible to be a recipient themselves later, should circumstances change.

We are moving to this system in my province amd I've felt that the whole idea of assumed donation is just something I can't condone.

They keep saying - oh, but the family will always have the last say and we allow an opt out - but to me the precedent being set is the problem. I think it's become very clear that legislation based on the idea that it won't change the way people think about basic issues is naive, and that it won't be used to set precedents and go farther later on, is foolhardy.

So I will opt out after being a donor since I was first able to choose.

Weirdly, it's probably resulted in the most hostility from people I talk to about it of any decision I've ever made.