Proposal that people with donor cards are given priority over those that don't when needing an organ?

[angelos02]

DM Link if you want more detail:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359972/Is-fair-dont-Organ-donors-jump-transplant-waiting-list-NHS-plans-boost-donation-levels.html

I can't see why anyone would argue against this. I do think an exception would have to be made for people that can't be donors due to medical reasons. Apart from that, why on earth not?

It seems like an emotive subject for you and I can see that you are not really getting what I am saying. Let me reiterate I have no problem with organs being used after my death and i'm sure my family wont either.

What I strongly believe in is this an individual has domain over their organs/body parts and that to allow the state to collect organs because for a variety of reasons the person has not opted out is not a road I like the sound of.

What about the people who have reduced mental capacity and may not be able to give consent one way or the other. Should a fundamental right like deciding what to do with your own body after your death just be ignored for people like this. How do you propose to get around this ethical question? If they never fully understand what they are consenting to does that mean the NHS takes their organs anyway simply by default of their reduced capacity.

2beornot - most of them yes, though usually the lens of the eye can still be donated, sometimes other things like heart valves tend to go undamaged and can be donated, but most overall you're right.

It's nice that altruistic living donations are on the rise for kidneys and a liver has be done for the first time in the UK. Living ones last a lot longer than cadaver ones, maybe something to think about OP?

Those who prefer not to donate organs..presumably they feel it is somehow wrong or distasteful?

ooh it feels a bit icky, they're my organs, MINE MINE MINE

Those are two almighty assumptions to make about why someone might be uncomfortable with the idea of their organs being cut out of their body after their brain has died.

One of the reasons I don't want to donate, and one of the reasons I would refuse permission if the decision was mine over my DHs or dcs organs is that I don't want us to be kept on a ventilator after we are essentially dead. If it were possible to allow a body to completely die, as in blood has completely stopped pumping even by artificial means, then I would be more open to the idea.

littlespork thanks for those links, I've been on the bone marrow register for years, but to be honest, had never really thought about kidney/liver. Know what I'm starting tomorrow...

What affected me for a long time, and therefore meant I was reluctant to donate, are the tests used to determine death. Because, the person is on life support and you have a doctor in front of you telling you that person is dead when to all appearances they don't look it.

Apparently the death of the brain stem is the key factor. But I am sure I have come across at least one report that a person has made a recovery after the brain stem was tested and they were declared dead. I also saw a report that some doctors are querying whether testing the brain stem is actually the right way to determine death.

I have also struggled with the reports that anaesthetics are used when harvesting the organs. If a person is dead, do they need these?

And don't forget the influence that popular fiction has on people. There are many novels, tv programmes, films, etc, that in one form or another have featured the idea of someone being wrongly declared dead and who may or may not escape the peril of being killed for real.

I think donor reluctance is the modern equivalent of being buried alive, it's the question of "is this person really dead?".

And that is probably a big reason behind a lot of donor reluctance. It certainly affect me, but I'm happy to donate if the time comes.

fryone at the risk of sounding flippant... If I wasn't dead before they turned off the life support, I sure as hell will be after they've taken what they need, and (not that I think this would happen) if I WERE alive by mistake, it'd be a quicker and more painless death than being buried alive....

Would those who think this is a good idea allow those that would be affected to reduce their national insurance contributions?

YABU, this is a terrible idea. I am on the donor register. My organs come without moral conditions attached. Due to my medical problems, it is quite unlikely that my organs will be suitable but I am fully prepared to accept that they will go to someone selfish like a few of the above posters. I'm ok with that. I think they're selfish and hypocritical but if their organs are failing, I still believe they deserve the chance to live.

how about I get a tax rate cut provided I have a healthy lifestyle and keep my organs in good nick so they can be used when I no longer need them.
(only joking)

Clouds and Fry, the 'is the person really dead' concerns seem very valid & relevant to me, there are also issues around the idea that doctors might let one person 'go' in order to use his organs to save the lives of others in need of transplants

bakingaddict
What about the people who have reduced mental capacity and may not be able to give consent one way or the other. Should a fundamental right like deciding what to do with your own body after your death just be ignored for people like this. How do you propose to get around this ethical question? If they never fully understand what they are consenting to does that mean the NHS takes their organs anyway simply by default of their reduced capacity.

There are several possible answers to this, and not one of them is a legitimate reason not to switch to an opt-out system.

Option 1. People who are defined somehow as having "reduced mental capacity" are put in the same category as children and assumed not to be capable of giving consent. Therefore they are "opted out" by default.

Option 2. They are treated the same as other adults and assumed to consent unless they say otherwise. To be honest, if you can't understand the question "what would you like to be done with your organs after your death?", you're not going to care one way or the other.

Option 3. Deciding what to do with your body after death is not a fundamental right. Dead people don't have rights. That's why it falls to relatives. In which case, the next of kin of the people with "reduced mental capacity" make the decision on their behalf. As they're the ones left alive, they're the only ones who are possibly going to care anyway.

Every single one of these is a better option than sticking with the current crap opt-in system simply because there are some cases which need to be treated differently.

(Incidentally I could do without the patronising claim that I have difficulty understanding your posts. It's really not that complicated.)

Personally, I don't believe that doctors would let one person go in order to save another, that isn't really the issue for me. I just can't imagine being given the worst news possible and then having to wait for my loved ones to be properly dead before I could be with them/their bodies.

I would be able to believe that we were really dead as in there is no chance of recovery, but if that happens, I want to be allowed to be dead. I don't want there to be waiting around in between two types of death. I just can't get my head around that.

I would assume than anyone who believes opting out of the organ donation is selfish is also vehemently anti abortion. But that would be wrong.

I agree. Opt out with care taken over those not able to make an informed decision.

If you opt out you are also opting out of accepting organ donation.

cloudsandtrees "I would assume than anyone who believes opting out of the organ donation is selfish is also vehemently anti abortion. But that would be wrong." ????

Why on earth would you assume that?

I have a vision of Patsy in her grave, rotting gently through the years, clutching her festering organs and muttering 'Mine, my precious, all mine, no one shall have them. Miiiiine'

Gosh that's actually quite disturbing, was it really necessary?

I don't, but it seems to me that if you think badly of one person that makes a decision based on what they feel they can cope with despite it leading to someone's death, then you would think badly of anyone else that does the same.

I've been on the donor list since I asked my mum to get me a card when I was 14. My husband joined the list when I asked him to and our DS has been on it since he was born.
I don't really care what happens to my bits when I die. The doctors can put them in a bag and swing them round their head if they like and it won't make a blind bit of difference to me because I won't be about to experience it.
However, having to face up to my son and husband's mortality wasn't any thing like as easy.
At the end of the day its the NOK who have to make this decision so prioritising those on the donor register over those not might increase the numbers on the list but there's no guarantee it'll increase the actual rate of donation.

' would assume than anyone who believes opting out of the organ donation is selfish is also vehemently anti abortion.'
would you care to explain your logic here Cloud?

clouds Since you've (a) equated the termination of a pregnancy with the death of an adult/child, and (b) have dragged abortion into a discussion to which it has no relevance, I assume that you hold extreme anti-abortion views?

No, not really - to both the posts addressed to me.

I don't hold extreme anti abortion views, but I do resent being called selfish because I don't want to donate organs. I don't think it's fair or correct to call someone who has an abortion selfish, and I don't think it's fair or correct to call someone who wishes to retain their organs after their death selfish.

Both are decisions that people make according to what is best for them, even when it has an effect on someone else. That's where the comparison can be made. But I don't want to derail the thread with too much talk of abortion, that's not what this is about.

Clouds, you cannot retain your organs after your death, it is a logical impossibility, when you are dead there is no you to retain anything, you are no more, you have ceased to be

and the analogy with abortion is so weak that it's useless

Of course you can retain your organs after death!

They either get buried/cremated/dropped in the sea with the rest of your remains or they don't. If they aren't deliberately taken out, then they are retained.

I don't think the abortion analogy is that weak. They are two very different things obviously, but they are both decisions that we have the right to make because they are both decisions that affect our own bodies. They are also both decisions that will make a difference to whether someone else lives or dies.

Of course it's selfish if you'd be willing to accept an organ if you wouldn't give! Be resentful all you like and yeah, the truth isn't always pleasant.

'I don't think the abortion analogy is that weak...They are two very different things obviously,'
duh...oxymoron
I give up you clearly have idiosyncratic idea's about logic and analogy!

I used to think I'd automatically accept an organ if i needed one despite the fact that I feel uncomfortable about it. Threads like this have made me re think that. Unless my children or my husband were particularly dependent on me, I genuinely don't think I'd want an organ from someone who only wanted me to have it if I have the same thoughts about the subject as they do.

I'm sure that having an organ from a stranger inside your body is something that many transplant patients feel weird about, and I can only imagine that it would feel a hell of a lot worse if you had to wonder whether your donor would judge you as worthy or not.

I also think there's a lot of ways to be selfish and there's a lot of ways to be considerate and generous. It's a bit sad if a persons whole right to life is judged on one single thing.