to not want to help someone to live after my death?

[dolldaggabuzzbuzz]

I am on the organ donor register. I am willing to donate all my organs to those who may need them in the event of my untimely death.

However, if the new system of presumed consent is brought in, I am opting out. I can't explain why I feel like I do about this. Am I being unreasonable?

Littlecarrot: If people haven't bothered to go to the trouble of expressing those wishes by going to the (very small) trouble of opting out, then yes I thnk tough shit on them. It's like people who moan about the government (any government) but can't be arsed to vote. Sod them.

Also just wanted to say Eggy you did a wonderful thing.

Actually, post-mortems can be turned down by next-of-kin (unless direct consent is given by the patient when they are alive - I wonder why this cannot be done for organ donation?), unless it is requested by the coroner which is unlikely unless the death is sudden and unexpected, violent, and/or the death happens during a medical procedure.

To those who don't want to donate organs, would you want to donate to save someone you loved? Most people have already stated that even if they would not donate, they would gladly take an organ if it was needed. But what if you and DH were in a car accident, you were DOA and DH needed an organ to survive. Would you want him to have yours?

I think for adults who can make the decision to opt out, they should also opt out of receiving.

That situation is kind of the other way around actually Notjust - it's more a case of the coroner's officer asking the NOK if they are satisfied with the decided cause of death and if they aren't a PM is arranged. My aunt was widowed recently and just before the funeral she was asked by the coroner's officer if she was satisfied that the death was natural causes. She was so nothing was done.

No NOK could prevent a PM if there was compelling reason for one, after all who is most likely to bump someone off but their nearest and dearest?

Coroners do not get involved at all if the death wasn't sudden or suspicious. So a post mortem would not be considered.

Surely when in doubt the default option should be that we save life where and whenever possible. In my option the idea of presumed consent simply puts the default as it should be. It will be presumed that you want to save someones life if you can unless you say otherwise. Currently we presume that you don't want to save a life unless you say otherwise, which I feel is a rather damning statement.

And this whole 'its just how I feel and I can't change how I feel' crap is just bollocks. You are a human being with the ability to think logically about something and make the choice to ignore your feelings should you find them irrational. Fine, if you examine you reasons for not wanting to save someone's life so you can instead leave your body intact to be eaten by worms and find these reasons to be completely rational and something you can live with then go ahead, opt out. But don't just blame some nebulous 'feelings' for your desire to let people die when you could save them.

But then I have signed up to donate as much as possible and told everyone I know that anything that isn't wanted for transplant can be given to some medical students to cut up or something. Just as long as it is put to good use and as little is wasted as possible.

Yeah but its the sudden deaths that are most likely to end in organ donation I suspect? If someone dies from a long illness I woudl have thought they would not be an ideal doner? Or am I talking out of my ass? (its been known to happen)

not an ideal doner

Hiding - totally agree. Why must we give credence to nebulous illogical and selfish feelings when real living breathing lives can be saved?

Also, I am not, despite implications, a general wish-over-rider.

I don't think anyone can refuse a post mortem if the coroner thinks it is necessary. I think they are only not done if there is absolutely no doubt as to cause of death. If NOK could refuse one, then it would easy for suspicious deaths to be covered up.

That was my understanding karma

True, but a coroner can force through a post-mortem if s/he is concerned about the cause of death while a hospital cannot and it isn't the automatic thing here in the UK that many people think it is (unlike in some places where it's pretty much automatic unless you're in hospital and under medical care already at time of death). Scotland's post-mortem rate are very low (like 6-7%) and England and Wales were recently admonished for having a post-mortem rate of 20-22ish% so most people go 'intact'/without post-mortem as it were, while someone else said very few do.

Coroner are there to determine cause of death and ensure no bumping off which is why there's can't be turned down. NOK can turn down a hospital post-mortem as those have no legal status - they are purely educational to learn about that medical condition or type of death - so NOK can turn them down (and some tend to purely because they can take a lot longer and they are under less legal hurry than coroners) unless direct consent was given by the person prior to death (which makes me wonder if organ donation could be done in a similar way in a new system).

Are the ones who don't have a post mortem more likely to be old and have died through undisputed natural causes, whereas younger people who have died unexpectedly would be more likely to have one and these are the people whose organs would be eligible for donation? Does the 22% include all the people who've died or would it be a higher percentage if the elderly were not included in these figures? I don't know, have never really thought about this before

The 20-22% is the post-mortem rate on all deaths in England and Wales that have been done by a coroner (so not hospital ones which would make it higher). I am not sure if this is only ones where a coroner has requested one or if it includes ones where family members have requested one from a coroner, but there was call earlier this year for England and Wales to adopt Scottish techniques (which involve external examination, which has proven in most cases to be as effective) as there is currently worries about the high level of post-mortems creating lower standards in autopsies and pushing too much state intervention of grieving families (since they must be done by a pathologists, a large amount would mean greater amount of time from death to funeral which is the opposite of what they want to do).

yes karma, the ones who do not have a post mortem are the ones who have have seen a doctor usually within the couple of weeks before death (so usually the hospital deaths , one would hope) and a doctor is satisfied that they know the cause.

Interesting to know that there is a difference between hospital and coroner ones. I'd kind of assumed that the coroner requests it and the hospital carries it out. I would imagine though that more young people have them than old people, because young people dying is generally unexpected, so am guessing the % is higher amongst this particular group.

This is a horrible thing to think about

yabu. You'll be dead.

When my dad died the first thing we did was to see if they could take any of his organs, sadly they couldn't as the cancer and streroids had knackered everything - even his corneas. But we tried.

They can have whatever they want of me and I'd do the same to my family.

I dislike the idea of my eyes being taken, but I know that i am being completely illogical about it, so wouldn't stop anyone from taking them if they were any good after my death.

I think it would comfort me a bit to know that if the worst happened to a loved one, that something good had come out of it for another family

Bubble... It's interesting what you say about the body being intact. I seem to remember that this was deemed necessary as part of the Catholic religion. This was during the Seventies and earlier, I think. Bodies were buried whole, post mortems were routinely refused. I don't think that this the position now but it was a widely held viewpoint back then.

I'd say that religion is the worst reason to base a decision like this on. For me, it's what feels right inside, I don't need any doctrine or rationale to prop up what I think.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to opt out of presumed consent, so long as you would refuse to accept a donated organ if you needed one, and would refuse one for your child if said child was not of an age to make the decision themselves.

Why must we give credence to nebulous illogical and selfish feelings when real living breathing lives can be saved?

Because they are the feelings of the person who the organs belong to!

I think it's perfectly reasonable to opt out of presumed consent, so long as you would refuse to accept a donated organ if you needed one, and would refuse one for your child if said child was not of an age to make the decision themselves

So you're basically saying that it's ok to emotionally blackmail people into giving up their organs. Nice.

But they aren't the feelings of the person the organs belong to, They are the feelings of the living person, dead people don't have feelings. No one is being blackmailed to 'give up' their organs, that suggests they still have need of them. Do you really want your organs to rot inside your body after you die, when they could possibly save a life?

Thats like burying all your money with you when you die, so no one else can get their hands on it.

By the same token though bubble, is it okay to say "I will take what you offer when it suits me, but I won't give anything in return, because I don't want to"?