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?

I am probably totally off the mark peggy but are you a Jehovah Witness?

It is natural to die yes. No arguments there, death and taxes are the only certainty in life as the saying goes. As you have said you have stood by your beliefs re blood donation previously. Could you stand by and do the same for your child? That isn't a goading question, I am curious because often children will change the most strongly held beliefs. As far as I know doctors can override parental decisions such as these in practice and have done.

There is so much else they could do to improve transplant rates before completely overhauling the system we have.

We could stay with opt in, and have a massive public information campaign to change opinions and motivate people to join the register. It could be like the no smoking/drink driving/breastfeeding campaigns. We could remove the right of a relative to overrule the potential donors wishes so that no organs go to waste from someone that was registered to donate. We could encourage people to think about it by asking them at GP appointments and clinics, on forms for passports, driving licences, European health cards, bank accounts, benefits.

It would be wrong to move to an opt out system without trying these things first. Especially when the only right way handle the transition to an opt out system would include doing the above so that it is made easy for people to opt out if they want to.

Clouds I agree.

I don't think we are asking enough questions about the practicalities of a opt out scheme in reality. Yes the idea is appealing, if it was in an ideal world.

But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in an era of medicine where budgets rule, targets are king and the best interests patients aren't necessarily top of the list where they should be.

We have elderly who are victims of institutional abuse, we have massive scandals over coverups in several areas of the country which lead to unacceptable levels of deaths, we have widespread reporting of issues over neglect of patients.

And we are not questioning the implications of this system in this context?

We should be.

Clouds I completely agree.

I must admit I always felt a bit weird about donating my eyes until my Nanna had two cornea transplants,years ago now. Having seen the difference it makes to her life I am ready and willing to donate all I have that can be used when I die.

Making it "you're either in or you're out" will not solve the problem re not enough people donating. We will see in a couple of years time if it actually has a detrimental effect. I am Welsh and live in Wales. I have lost count of how many people who have said they will now opt out because their option to choose what organs they gift to somebody after their death has been removed.

Organ is and should be an act of willing, well charity if you will. Removing people's right to choose at all could well have a massively detrimental effect on organ donations as a whole.

clouds I think you have picked on one of my biggest bugbears there- why should my wish to donate my organs be overridden by my hopefully grief stricken next of kin, just because they're squeamish/don't agree/whatever. It's MY body, and MY choice. As an adult, in full control of my faculties, I think this is the only time a non qualified person is allowed to overrule my decision, and I think this needs to be addressed first...

I am surprised that so many on this thread are so la-di-da about death, as if personal ideas and beliefs about death are not to be taken seriously, all this "you're not you any more" etc.

Even without a particular religious teaching which forbids organ transplants, surely many people have very complex feelings about dying, and those probably play a big part in the decision not to become an organ donor?

'surely many people have very complex feelings about dying, and those probably play a big part in the decision not to become an organ donor?'

yes of course, but I think it then follows that they should also not be an organ recipient.
To say that you don't agree with organ donation and then accept a donor organ is blatant hypocrisy...a clear case of having your cake & eating it

A clear case of having your cake and eating it? Really?

You mean when you are facing death and contemplating leaving your children bereaved you are 'having your cake and eating it' if after waiting for months you are lucky enough to get an organ having previously been uncomfortable about the idea?

A clear case of having your cake and eating it?

Maybe it is. But we are talking about human and human nature which has a tendency to be hypocritical.

It doesn't make people 'bad' though. Just they have conflicting views.

It is perfectly possible that you could believe that you think your body shouldn't have organs removed, but you could believe that if others are willing to do it, that it would be unacceptable to let them go to waste and refuse them.

That might offend some, but then beliefs are generally complex anyway.

'It is perfectly possible that you could believe that you think your body shouldn't have organs removed, but you could believe that if others are willing to do it, that it would be unacceptable to let them go to waste and refuse them.'
Red of course you can believe that, but it's irrational given that you're happy to let your own organs go to waste.
Obviously anyone can believe anything but it makes sense to give less weight to those which are not based on clear reasoning.

Clouds how can a sane and moral person let their own discomfort at having organs removed after death stop them from helping others who are facing death and contemplating leaving their children bereaved?

It is perfectly possible that you could believe that you think your body shouldn't have organs removed, but you could believe that if others are willing to do it, that it would be unacceptable to let them go to waste and refuse them.

That doesn't make sense though as you would refuse at the point of being put on the transplant list when there is no actual organ to waste. Refusing simply gives someone else the chance at life. Also, don't they have more than one recipient lined up foe an organ?

I don't think its a very practical idea.

I'm not convinced that there is an accurate register of potential donors - my impression is that the best way to ensure donation is to talk to your family about it, and that in the end your family's wishes have more influence than your own.

Also, it seems to go against general medical ethics that require a doctor to treat on basis of need, not moral judgement.

On the other hand, if somebody were squeamish about donating organs, presumably they are also squeamish about receiving them...?

I'm a registered donor and I would prefer my organs went to whoever needed them with no conditions attached.

I find this proposal very sinister. :(

CloudsandTrees If I remember correctly, when you apply online for a tax disc, there is the option to register for organ donation. Not sure about other online facilities though.

I think there are lots of things that can be done to encourage people to register as organ donors - I'm even quite happy with an opt out policy, though I think close relatives should also have a say after the death (so policy did not cause distress to any families)
However I don't think this is a good way to "encourage" donors, because it puts too much pressure on people waiting for a transplant. Let's just treat everyone equally, and yes talk to them about whether when their turn comes they'd be happy to be a donor to others - I'm sure many would if asked. But I don't think it should have an effect on their wait for a donor organ, that seems very simplistic and unfair to me.
Let's just raise awareness and ask more people if they'd consider carrying the card.
DD just signed up for the card, so that's making me think - it arrived last week. There's probably a lot of people like me who'd be happy to donate organs after death but just haven't quite got round to commiting themselves/ signing up for the card.
I think an opt out system with some safeguards for any strong family feelings would be a good way to go with this.
I do also think that with many people waiting for donors more should be done to raise awareness and encourage the slightly reluctant/ reassure people/ encourage commitment to this.

I agree with the majority on supporting a opt out system. I think it's also important that the decision is not placed on grieving relatives. I have experienced this; there is nothing worse when having just received devastating news of a death to then start arguing about what the deceased would wish. At this early stage having to start thinking of some posthumously is really really tough. Opt out would really help and not leave one family member with the burden of having been the one to say yes.

That's the kind of reason why raising awareness and having everyone talking about it more would surely help Charing

Am glad that DD has signed up for the card and decided she'd like to donate her organs after her death. Of course I hope it's not something I ever have to think about for her, but am glad I've raised a DD with such a generous and thoughtful heart.

I'm sure having these conversations with our loved ones can only be a good thing.

How would you judge, someone who is diagnosed with a serious condition who then rushes out to get a card to bump themselves up the list or because it is the first time they have been forced to think about it, who decides if they count? What if a potential recipient runs a fundraising or awareness drive and signs up a hundred additional people - would that also increase their chances?

This is a horrible idea, putting pressure on the most vulnerable. It is usually the families who refuse, people being asked to grieve before their loved one is completely dead in their eyes, often the first time they realise there is no hope. I hope my family would donate any part of me but could also be sympathetic to how difficult it would be. I think, irrationally, I would find or harder to donate the organs of my DC than my DH, I hope I could, but it would be harder.

I would like to see a breakdown of the refusers, is it parents or spouses, what their reasons are and if they felt differently down the line. Ask them, in a non judgemental way, what might have made the decision to donate easier and take it from there.

juggling ref your post at 14:19, I'm not sure I've read it properly, do you mean consult close family if a person has not opted out (should this come into play) or if a person has opted in (current system). Sorry, it's Sunday, it's hot and my brain isn't working!!

Well when I was talking about having an opt out system I meant that you'd be "in" ie considered as a donor unless you'd specifically opted out of this (As has recently been put in place/suggested in Wales I think)

But personally I'd prefer them to also consider the feelings of close relatives. For example if a child dies I think the parents (and possibly siblings) wishes should be considered too. I think in Wales some doctors have said that in practice they wouldn't want to go against wishes of close relatives ? But I'm not exactly sure what the new position is. (I have a feeling the suggestion was of no over-ruling my relatives, so if anyone hadn't opted out of donation they'd be considered "in")

Hope that clarifies my earlier post a little Lusty

I also think it's a bad idea; a gift should be altruistic, without conditions attached - who are we to judge who is worthy?

Also very impractical, and would lead to the issues others have mentioned, about other ways to move up the list, determine worthiness, etc.

I don't mind the idea of opt-out, as then it might make people's wishes clearer. I am not sure about refusing to let families object, though.

I am both willing to donate and receive organs. However I also understand the inconsistency of some people saying that they feel uncomfortable about donating, but would still receive. It doesn't seem that illogical to me - if they have their own doubts about donating, then that should be respected, but presumably the person who has already donated didn't have those same doubts, or they wouldn't have done it.

I know there are some people that say you shouldn't eat meat unless you are willing to kill it yourself. I do eat meat, and yet I don't think I'd want to kill an animal myself, and I think there are other people who think the same - whether it's morals, squeamishness, or whatever variety of other reasons. Yes, perhaps somewhat hypocritical, but not uncommon, I think. However I do still eat meat, and I presume the person who is doing the killing has decided it is something that they are able to do. Clearly this is nothing like the issue of donating or receiving organs, but it does show that there are some issues where people can hold somewhat inconsistent, hypocritical, or selfish view, and not be regarded with total lack of understanding because a lot of people share that view. It's not saying it's right, but it is common - and I think that most of us have some sort of moral inconsistencies within ourselves, things that we perhaps just choose not to think too deeply about. Becoming aware, non-judgementally, of these contradictions in ourselves (and knowing that we all will have them) is one of the best ways to start considering other options and ultimately perhaps changing our minds.

This subject totally irritates me, we should all make a visit to a kidney dialysis unit and chat to the patients and see how dire their lives are as they wait for a probably never arriving new kidney. For many it is a very slow death.

Why all the pussyfooting - it is beyond me - just make everyone a donor and those wishing not to be can fill in several forms/ have a small tattoo/ wear a bracelet saying they are out.

End of.

I do agree JustinB that all that's needed is a bit of proactive awareness raising. It should be cool to be "in" - and agree a move to opt out only is a great idea.

As a tangent (and after watching some interesting programmes on workhouses recently) I wonder if some of the culture slightly against donating organs might come from the time (not so long ago really) when poor people dying in the workhouse had their bodies given to medical science without any permission sought from family.

Also the traditional funeral service places a big emphasis on the body and coffin - personally I prefer a thanksgiving style remembrance, celebrating the person's life. And of course the body is still given back to the family and undertakers for burial after organs have been donated to others.
So, shouldn't be an issue really.

I feel that it's the powers that be pussyfooting, as they do about just about everything in the uk. Whenever anything is in dire need of fixing the gov demands a report into it (which takes months/years and often then doesn't result in improvements).

I mean what is the down side of saying we are all opted in? (but can opt out if wished)

The "down side" is that the state automatically gets to decide what happens to your body and for many people that is not right.