New Opt Out Organ Donation System comes into effect today

I would go further, if the state own me and my component body parts, they can pay me for living in entirety. After all they stand a chance of making a good profit when I die

I love MN for issues like this. Emergency rations of pithy thinking.

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

Like this, if you think organ donation should be as widespread as possible this doesn't even make sense. If you want people to do it why wouldn't you want to let them opt back in again? It just comes across as "grr so angry, want to punish even if doing so is counterproductive and works against my own stated goals".

It's the vindictive tone of those comments that always interests me, like the person is so enraged that someone might once have had the capacity to tell them no and so excited that now/soon that may no longer be the case.

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

What, ever? So all the years I carried a card to say I want to donate everything except my eyes dont count? Tell you what if the government make enough changes I might be persuaded to opt back in, but oh no I cant cos you've said I cant change my mind. Try thinking about what you post.

If the state want control over my body then they can pay for my funeral
I would go further, if the state own me and my component body parts, they can pay me for living in entirety. After all they stand a chance of making a good profit when I die.

It does show where demands that we all conform to a certain mindset can ultimately lead us. Re the Covid file breakers, the ones who have parties and unrelated group gatherings seriously piss me off and I don’t have any sympathy for those that catch it as a result, but although I’d love them to refuse treatment on principle, that also goes down a slippery sloop.

Next it will be saying that people who do something else that affects their OWN health, such as being overweight, smoking or taking part in dangerous sports, shouldn’t receive treatment. Though I have seen that actually suggested a few times. Opting out of donating, whether it’s your time, money, blood or organs shouldn’t remove your rights to receive. That’s totalitarian thinking.

Sorry, the above post was two responses to two quotes from two people. Hope that’s obvious!

Most people think of heart, lung, kidneys maybe eyes when they think of organ donation. But the range of human tissue sought, and its uses is extensive. So extensive there is real financial profit to be made from them. I do not trust the state not to seek to profit in this way at some point in the future.

Absolutely.

Also agree that people opting out of organ donation shouldn't be eligible to receive.

Form whatever silly opinions you like, but thinking people will be disquiet about this switch, and we all have the right to protest appropriately.

If the state suddenly turned vindictive against those of us who have been lifelong blood donors, donor card holders etc, merely because we were protesting the new opt-out presumption, they’d look pretty sinister.

I’m pleased this thread is here as it’s opened my eyes to see that there is more to organ donation than I realised.

Interestingly on the daily mail website a man made a comment which I actually could see his point.
“If the state want control over my body then they can pay for my funeral”

People who break the current government guild lines, re coronavirus, shouldn’t receive treatment.

I've seen tons of people making that statement, unfortunately. Also unfortunately from their pov health care workers tend not to agree with the idea that they should stand back and let rule breakers die.

This issue really does bring out the people who're not just authoritarian but loud and proud about it, doesn't it? I wonder if you'd get the same tone if they knew they were speaking mostly to men.

So you are happy to deprive somebody of a much needed transplant because you object to language

Actually, language is very important in this situation. The correct medical term is ‘sex’ as studies have shown that even donating blood from a female to a male, rather than male to male, can have an detrimental affect on that man’s health. Whereas the gender doesn’t matter. I expect a government consultation on a medical issue, to at least use the correct language.

Also agree that people opting out of organ donation shouldn't be eligible to receive.

People who don’t donate blood, shouldn’t be permitted to receive blood*

Unemployed people, furloughed and part time workers who refuse to work in care work, shouldn’t receive care.

Furloughed people who refuse volunteer to pick fruit and veg during the current shortage of farm workers, shouldn’t be permitted to buy fruit and veg.

People who break the current government guild lines, re coronavirus, shouldn’t receive treatment.

And so on and so on. Let’s face it, if you can make silly statements, then so can I. I have opted out my daughter, because she can’t give informed consent, as she has SNs. Is that ok with those demanding that we all consent, or should I just hand over her body to please those who think that the government should own our bodies?

Also agree that people opting out of organ donation shouldn't be eligible to receive.

I read this a lot on forums but it is not medically ethical. If someone donated their organs to save a life, they go to the person who they think it will save their life. They won't skip over a better candidate just to have someone else wither away and die with a new organ just because they're on the donor list.

I don't have the options in my country that you have, I'd love to donate some organs but have a problem with how it's decided/worded now. I'd much rather see that there would be a database where everyone can explicitely state which orgams they want to donate and which aren't. Also, people not on the donor list might have been a blood donor during their life, or given tissue to further medical research.

Thank you for your reply Goosefoot. Personally, I'm not against assisted death as I believe it firmly falls into the realm of bodily autonomy.

I find the consent angle raised by others really interesting but I feel that the default state being 'not donating' is based upon the individual's own views as to what they'd like to happen to their body after their death. I would like to ask why that position takes precedent over, for example, my wishes not being respected and whatever parts of my body that might prove useful being unceremoniously incinerated (which seems like a tremendous waste).

Thanks OP I saw this in my inbox and haven't done it yet but because they ask for gender I might opt out for that reason alone

So you are happy to deprive somebody of a much needed transplant because you object to language ? Ffs, it's not something trivial like you are applying for a loyalty card. Get a grip.

Most people think of heart, lung, kidneys maybe eyes when they think of organ donation. But the range of human tissue sought, and its uses is extensive. So extensive there is real financial profit to be made from them. I do not trust the state not to seek to profit in this way at some point in the future.

amp.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/23/bbc.usnews

Organ donation shouldn't be optional imo. Once you're dead, your body/organs should be available for research/transplants etc.

Wow. Authoritarian much.

So the bodies we live in are just on loan from the state for the duration of our lives?

You do know some religions have very particular rituals after death for preparing the body for burial etc ? I have no idea if their strict adherents ever agree to organ donation - possibly not.

@Stuckforthefourthtime completely agree with you!

This thread is bonkers.

Organ donation shouldn't be optional imo. Once you're dead, your body/organs should be available for research/transplants etc.

Also agree that people opting out of organ donation shouldn't be eligible to receive.

Gingerkitty - "Use of organs, tissues and cells for non-transplantation
purposes, such as research, is outside the scope of deemed consent" - buried in the document.

Are they skirting the issue of reproductive organs though?

Pre-consultation, the legislation they proposed was more ambiguous and I was considering opting out, but it seems pretty clear now - reproductive organs will only be used with consent. Am I missing something?

I was meditating this all day yesterday, but on top of the basic presumption, they are now talking about gender and skirting the issue of reproductive organs. So many aspects of this to be unhappy about. So, after 30+ years of deliberate informed consent to donate my organs, I have reversed my registration.

Thanks for the prompt.

Wow thanks for linking that Nameofchanges. I completed that consultation, after reading about it on here.

I found it quite creepy that female genitalia were not on the initial exclusion list, particularly given that male genitalia were - that was the main reason I completed it. I am quite chuffed and pleased with myself to see it actually made a difference.

There is a feedback option, I have used that to tell them I have a sex but not a gender.

I saw that visitors to England and people who have lived there for less than a year are not included in the opt in system.

I am assuming they would need to know who a person was before they removed organs.

From NameChange's link

i) the regulations have been revised to clarify further that tissue from sexual and
reproductive organs, including skin, will not be transplanted without express
consent regardless of the type of transplant, routine or novel. This is to give
assurance and put beyond doubt that no part of reproductive organs and
tissues will be covered by deemed consent;
ii) linked to the above change, in line with comments, the list of the component
parts of the female reproductive system has been expanded and now includes
vagina, labia, clitoris, vulva, cervix, perineum and fallopian tube(s). Prostate
for the male reproductive system has also been added;

Would those tissues still be taken for research without consent?

Document here seems to be saying reproductive organs are not included in the opt out.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/867918/Government_response_to_opt-out_organ_donation_-_organs_and_tissues_excluded_from_the_new_system.pdf