To wonder what reasons people give for being willing to accept an organ but not donate

[crashdoll]

What the title says really.

I am happy for all my organs to be donated when I'm gone. I'd also accept an organ transplant if I was in that position. I know there are religious reaons for not donating certain organs but I do wonder how people can rationalise not donating organs if they are willing to accept.

Part of the problem is that we don't on our bodies after death, so even if you really wanted to donate and are on the register the next of kin can still refuse. In my ExH's case, he was on the register and carried a card but it was still up to his parents to decide. His Father didn't want to do it but took my word for it that he was on the register and did want to donate, if I hadn't have been there it wouldn't have happened.
I think there should be away of making your wishes legally binding, next of kin should have to respect your wishes.
ExFIL got a lot of comfort from the experience in the end and completely changed his opinion, I often wonder how often this would be the case for others.

AThing My DH's opposition to being an organ donor is considered in the FAQ section of the Organ Donation website:

Which is:

13. Can I be sure doctors will try to save me if I am registered as a potential organ donor?
Yes. Health professionals have a duty of care to try and save life first. If, despite their efforts, the patient dies, organ and tissue donation can then be considered and a completely different team of donation and transplant specialists would be called in.

He is skeptical about this about this because in practice it is impossible to tell whether they will follow their hypocratic oath or will just (in a subtle way) let him die. If there is presumed consent, his anti position is going to be stronger.

Yet, he is one of the 4% of the population who gives blood and has 44 donations to his name. Last time he gave blood, he indicated a wish to become a platelet donor as apparently his blood group allows his platelets to be given to anybody. However, they did not take a sample for his platelet count as they did not consider his veins prominent enough. He can still give whole blood however.

Yet to you, he is scum.

Maryz He probably would be but he is unlikely to insist that his blood be used to only save the lives of non blood donors.

Oh, and he knows when he is being emotionally blackmailed.

milbra - yeah, if would accept an organ from someone he thinks was allowed to die to provide it, he's pretty scummy.

That's no different from buying organs on the black market.

If he thinks organ donors are being killed so their organs can be harvested and he's OK with that as long as he doesn't donate, he's not a good person.

I'd say on a moral par with a drunk driver.

AThing and MAryz In practice, nobody will even know whether someone is allowed to die because of the knowledge that their organs are likely to be harvested. Nobody who at sometime gives organs or blood can consider that by saving a person their life, that person may later go on to murder someone or be a paedophile.

Why is DH's position on a moral par with a drunk driver? He is not accountable to you for any of his values in life.

I think being prepared to accept organs you think we're harvested by killing the person who provided them shows the same lack of regard for the lives and wellbeing of other people as getting behind the wheel when you've had a few.

If organ donation is wrong because people will be allowed to die to get their organs, then you can't think it's OK to accept those organs.

maryz I would like to say that I do appreciate you continuing to put across well reasoned polite arguments on this thread even against someone as stubborn as me

Unlike some athing!

This thread has given me the needed kick in the bum to register my details with the NHSBT

I think I was registered already, years ago when I lived here as a student, but I've done it again to be sure.

I signed up to donate when i got my driving license. Our kids are also on it too.
If your willing to accept one to save your life, why not offer the same in return to save a life.

I've just amended some details on mine. Thanks for the link HoldMeCloserTonyDanza

I am signed up, but to answer OP's original question, my mum she would take an organ if it was a life or death situation, and has had a transfusion before, but she won't sign up.
She is a very anxious person, and she thinks that if doctors have relatives waiting for organs and "see" that you are on the list somehow, that they will let you die. This is in part due to her father dying in very poor care conditions at hospital which I don't think helped her opinion, but she is very anxious anyway, so there can be all sorts of reasons people won't sign up but will take them.

I think also some people might be thinking of relatives, and some families might find it harder to cope with the death knowing they've been chopped up etc after, while others might find it easier knowing some good has come of it. I guess a lot of people would put their families first in that circumstance as it will be a hard enough time anyway.

I wonder whether those who say they would accept but not donate would actually feel like this in practice. I'm interested in how many of those who say this have been in a position where a close relative needed a transplant. I think the view might be very commonly held by those untouched by the need for an organ and very rarely held by those who have been. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of wholesale conversions take place at this point.

I'm very disturbed by people here saying they wouldn't want to donate to certain groups of people (e.g. alcoholics), or that you shouldn't be able to receive if you're not willing to donate. I wonder what other moral criteria people would like to impose on recipients - perhaps some people wouldn't like to donate to Tory voters, or to benefits claimants .

Nobody can own a body - even a dead one. The whole system of organ donation works purely on good will and generosity, and as soon as you start loading donation with societal moral expectations those things just break down. It's a wonderful thing that many people do want to donate and that their families enable this, but getting all judgy and saying not being willing to donate is on a par with drink driving is just silly and counter productive. Generosity with conditions attached isn't true generosity.

I am on the donor list, but I would never want my organs to be allocated according to some sort of subjective moral hierarchy. I want them to be made best use of medically - to go to the people with the best tissue match, who stand the best chance of living a healthy life with them. If that means they go to a neo-Nazi, or an alcoholic, or a porn baron, or someone who is not on the register themself, then so be it.

I don't have children, so I don't know if I'd be able to donate their organs, or the organs of anyone I love. While I could donate for myself, I don't actually know if I would be emotionally capable of doing it for someone else until it came to the crunch. Which I suspect would be true for many of us, and nobody should be vilified if, in that moment of grief, it is too big an ask for them.

"The whole system of organ donation works purely on good will"

Exactly.

And good will breaks down when people know there are freeloaders abusing the system who will take but feel there is no reason to give.

Not wanting to donate to freeloaders who make the system weaker is different from not wanting to donate to Tories or to neo-Nazis or to alcoholics.

This is a medical situation in which some people will due because of a lack of organs to treat their condition.

People who directly contribute to that lack out of selfishness should be given a lower priority than people who are part of the reason we have organs to donate in the first place.

If people want to opt out of organ donation (not necessarily in a opt-out system) then that is up to them. No moral judgment should attach.

But people who want in on the benefits but not on the generosity should not be allowed to take organs from people who are fully on board with the whole thing.

Getting rid of the freeloader problem will increase the organs available, so there is a definite moral argument for doing it.

It's very different from bullshit about neo-nazis.

And bleating on about what characteristics "true generosity" should have is laughable.

Who cares?

What matters is that organs are available (with proper consent) and that freeloaders aren't able to bring down the system. As they currently appear to be doing.

"nobody should be vilified if, in that moment of grief, it is too big an ask for them."

Absolutely.

Nobody can know how they would react at a time like that. Even the most ardent supporter if organ donation might find themselves unable to go through with what their loved on wanted.

But there has been no vilification of that situation.

The vilification is reserved for people who, in the easy situation of not having to make a decision think "I'll have your organs, thanks. But you can whistle for mine."

Those people make shortages worse in two ways. People die because of that attitude.

It deserves vilification.

It's not even close to being a morally neutral standpoint.

People could die as a result of your selfishness.

And you think that coercion - in the form of 'you can't receive unless you are on the list for donation' - is the way to get proper consent?

If people feel attempts are being made to bully people into being on the register or into donating relatives' organs it will be counterproductive for the whole transplant program. Potential donors and their families will feel alienated and get pissed off that other people think they have a right to parts of someone else's body.

Would you prefer organs to go to waste if there was nobody they were a match for except someone who wasn't on the register? Do you care more about punishing that person or about the potential of saving a human life? If it's the former, well, that's pretty fucked-up.

Well as I've said before my ds is waiting for a kidney but I still think an alcoholic or drug user should be treated equally as that way lies madness. Addicts are people too with feelings, fears and family.
Addiction isn't a choice once it is addiction.
How about smokers and fat people can they be saved?
As for the fear of not being given the best chance so their organs can be harvested, anyone who has ever worked in a and e would tell you just how hard the team will work to save a life. The question of organ donation doesn't enter anyone's mind as the total focus is on saving the patient in front if them at that moment.

I despair at the amount of selfish fucking people who would accept donations but not donate themselves, they should be ashamed. How can they feel ok thinking like that? There have been some on this thread who have said they won't donate but they would be happy to receive if they needed it! Hideous hideous people.

Law should be that in order to receive you need to be registered to donate. Simple.

And as for you lot who would take but not give - shame shame shame on you.

MY selfishness, athing? Did you not read the part where I'm on the list?

I actually think there's a stronger argument to be made for criticising families who block donations than individuals who won't go on the list, because they are ultimately the people who have the power of consent and make the call at the end of the day, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. My guess (because I didn't see the documentary) is that if organs aren't being donated when they could, it's usually because families won't do it. Having said that, I'm not up for hectoring relatives - I think you have to go with the current softly-softly approach because people are very vulnerable at the time when their loved ones die - at times of grief some people simply cannot cope with the idea of donation, which is fair enough.

I would if I could. I carried a donor card for years but my cancer treatment means my organs wouldn't be suitable for donation.