Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

413 replies

dolldaggabuzzbuzz · 29/06/2011 13:31

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?

OP posts:
cantpooinpeace · 29/06/2011 16:52

Their will!

cantpooinpeace · 29/06/2011 16:53

The deceased that is (ffs @ me)

Kewcumber · 29/06/2011 17:01

I try not to have principles which don't make much practical difference to me it makes my head hurt. Two or three principles seem to work just fine for me - don't murder, don't abuse, be kind just about sums it up. I am happy for my organs to be used after my death, I am happy for anyone's organs to be used after their death provided they have the opportunity (and capacity) to object. Surely if you feel strongly enough about it, it isn't too big a deal opting out?

It really isn't a big deal for me so I don't feel the need for a principled stance on my part, but do go ahead if you want one, carrot.

verylittlecarrot · 29/06/2011 17:07

Thanks Kew, I shall!

May I ask though, hypothetically, if a member of your family didn't want to donate, (and had failed to tick the opt-out box, or no record could be found of their opt out) Would you be OK with their organs being taken? Knowing they didn't want that?

JamieAgain · 29/06/2011 17:12

I don't even see organ donation as altruistic. It's just common sense to use what you don't need. Altruism would be live organ donation.

OP YABU.

Let therebeRock >> "I know of people who wouldn't really be able to make an informed decision,but who don't have a legal guardian, LPA in place. So what happens to them?"

What would happen to them would be that they would be dead.

stubbornhubby · 29/06/2011 17:15

what worries me about presumed consent is the opposite of most posters -- it increases the power of families, and their ability refuse the donation. In the current system at least people can mke their own donation wish clear, and more difficult for the family to overrule.

I think we need a system that says 'I know my family won't give their approval, but I want to donate anyway'

JamieAgain · 29/06/2011 17:20

verylittlecarrot - I'll admit it's hard for me to imagine that because most people I know would strongly I wish to donate. I really really find it hard to imagine the logic of any other view. But also, if they had failed to tick the opt-out box, then I'd say that's pretty good evidence that they didn't feel that strongly about it.

JulesJules · 29/06/2011 17:20

YABU

WhiskeyCharlie · 29/06/2011 17:21

I can't see any reason to object to presumed consent besides the 'ickiness' of thinking your body won't all be burnt/shoved in the ground to decay together, which I can't understand tbh. There should always be an easy option to opt-out and information about that must be readily available, but don't see a problem in assuming if you haven't opted out then your organs can be used. Frankly it'd be the easiest thing I've ever been 'made' to do.

I also don't agree that presumed consent = treating your body like a piece of meat. If there's anything I clearly and unambiguously have no more need for then I don't see why someone who has a good and legal use for it shouldn't take it if it won't hurt me, whether that's a plank of wood I've put out for the binmen or a part of me when it's established that I have absolutely no possible use for that part anymore.

Think whatever was 'you' (however you see it philosophically) is gone when you're dead so what's left IS just bits that need to be disposed of and if they can actually be used then that's worth doing. If my family/remaining friends can't manage to deal with the fact I'm dead just because I'm missing a liver/heart/cornea/whatever I think they'd struggle even WITH that part intact. Plus, selfishly, if I needed an organ/something donated I'd want one that's as good as possible as quickly as possible so the chance of that likelihood increasing highly just on the trade-off of presumed consent with opt-out sounds like a better deal than anything else I'm going to get in life.

JamieAgain · 29/06/2011 17:22

So yes, I'd over-ride it. I'd feel very very bad about allowing the possibility of someone else dying because of refusing them an organ. I could live with over-riding a loved one's wishes in this case

cantpooinpeace · 29/06/2011 17:22

Recycle recycle recycle :)

lenak · 29/06/2011 17:34

May I ask though, hypothetically, if a member of your family didn't want to donate, (and had failed to tick the opt-out box, or no record could be found of their opt out) Would you be OK with their organs being taken? Knowing they didn't want that?

I would - if they felt that strongly about it, they should have made sure they opted out - let's face it, it's not like they are going to know about it anyway.

I actually wouldn't be happy about not donating if they had opted out, but as they would have made their wishes clear by a positive action (as opposed to omission, which isn't very clear at all), then I would respect it.

This is why presumed consent needs to be set up in such a way that opt out cannot be over-ridden.

verylittlecarrot · 29/06/2011 17:35

I think some people are confusing two issues.

  1. Whether organ donation is a good thing. The majority of us agree and don't need persuading with "but why wouldn't you want to" rhetoric. This is missing the point.
  2. Whether someone has a right to deny their organs being harvested after their death, and whether we should respect that right, without second-guessing their reasons, evaluating the strength of those feelings and so on.

Whether we think they are selfish or not, there are people who do not want to donate. Do we believe it is right to take their organs against their wishes? There will certainly be consent-refusers who fail to tick the opt-out box but make their wishes known anyway. Should we ignore those wishes?

SevenAgainstThebes · 29/06/2011 17:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JamieAgain · 29/06/2011 17:39

verylittlecarrot - Yes!!! they should tick the blardy box then. It's not difficult. I can't really be arsed to care much about the feelings of people who can't be arsed to tick a box.

JamieAgain · 29/06/2011 17:40

The non-feelings of dead people at that!

cantpooinpeace · 29/06/2011 17:40

Yes because they're just being unecessarily obnoxious - just bloody opt out!

scurryfunge · 29/06/2011 17:41

Those who have a strong view will be the box tickers though, I think. I can see the question being raised in documents in the normal course of life. It will be difficult to avoid the question.

Kewcumber · 29/06/2011 17:42

"Would you be OK with their organs being taken? Knowing they didn't want that?" yes I would. On the basis that I would beleive that no-one who feels that strongly would forget to opt out. If they had made their wishes known to me I would very clearly tell them to opt out because if the decision is left to me - their organs will be donated.

Kewcumber · 29/06/2011 17:44

carrot - you don;t need to justify why you opt out - no judgement required - just tick the box and it will not be left to me as your next of kin to make the decision. Because if I'm making it - you're toast regardless of what you felt.

I shall also spend the money you left me with impunity on whatever I like.

suzikettles · 29/06/2011 17:44

What are the circumstances where you can imagine these wishes being expressed without an opt out being made vlc?

Clearly we don't know how the opt out system would be administered and it's important that it would be easy for people to access in order for them to make their wishes known.

Thb, I'm pretty sure that a verbal report to a member of the medical team of a strong objection to organ donation by the deceased would be considered an "opt out". In such a case I very, very much doubt donation would go ahead - even under a presumed consent scheme.

It's the fact that in the present system of "opt in", and strong objection by the next of kin overrides the wishes of the deceased. I suspect that would continue to be the case, with the difference that the next of kin would have to object, rather than being asked for consent (even when consent has been received from the potential donor).

suzikettles · 29/06/2011 17:47

Actually, it's not even a strong objection that overrides the wishes of the deceased. As far as I know, the next of kin can just refuse to make a decision until the organs are no longer useable and the decision is moot.

scurryfunge · 29/06/2011 17:49

As the law stands the body is entrusted into the control of the family and an executor has to abide by the wishes of the deceased. Nothing much would change there. The body would not be owned by the state -the state would be facilitating donation by making it clear you need to have opted out with regards to your organs. Superstition/Religion is the stumbling block.

JamieAgain · 29/06/2011 17:52

I do agree with you about superstition. I find this issue quite anger-making, and I can't separate that from the fact I'm an atheist

TheOriginalFAB · 29/06/2011 18:01

"I don't understand how anyone could be sad/angry/resentful that a part of their lost loved one was living on in someone else. That's just beyond me. Confused"

*thumbwitch - my mother was furious when she heard I had a donor card and demanded I object to my eyes being taken. Hmm.