To think donating someone's organs without their consent is a serious ethical issue..

[BabyX]

I'm referring to the news today that a newborn baby's organs have been donated after doctors diagnosed her, at birth, as brain-dead. Her parents have been able to give the chance of life to others, I see that. The recipients and their families must be incredibly relieved and grateful. Hopefully that will comfort the parents of the baby, who is now, of course, dead. Organs can only be taken while the donor is still alive.

But AIBU to think you cannot just decide to give away the organs of another human being without their consent? Is it our choice to make?

I'm not sure if I am unreasonable to think this or not. I may just be clouded by sadness at the death of this poor baby who never got a chance at life. It's heartbreaking. Had my child not survived her birth, the thought of carving her up for parts is horrifying.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, I'm just struggling to concur with the general reaction that this is a wonderful "selfless" act.

ledkr It was kidney failure which killed my father and I've had a serious weep over your post.

if only the op of a topic was allowed to be addressed there would be no such thing as discussion on mn. topics would go like this:

"ibu to think the sky is blue?" "yanbu," "yanbu," "yanbu," "yabu, sometimes there are shades of green, and I actually think the sky looks beautiful when it's grey." "that wasn't the question asked in the op, can you please start another thread."

The op of course was misguided in her question about consent, but the question has quite logically prompted opinion that there should be an opt-out only system. Of course that is relevant when talking about consent for transplantation.

Resorting to personal insults and name-calling because people are not sticking to the letter of the thread and daring to have alternative opinions is hardly constructive either, is it?

Yabvu

Attitudes like yours are why we are heading for an opt out system.

I've just watched DH well up watching the C4 coverage of the story and the interview of a mother who bravely donated her 14mth old DD's organs.

I'm not sure if I am unreasonable to think this or not. I may just be clouded by sadness at the death of this poor baby who never got a chance at life. I

I'm very sorry for your loss but YABVU. Hopefully this means one less grieving family in the world. That's hardly worth crying about. I'm sure the parents involved are also clouded by sadness but are doing the right thing.

Sorry I misread your OP and thought that you had lost a child. You are ultra unreasonable now.

I think it's quite distasteful to make it out that you are so devastated when it's another family's pain as well

I agree with WannaBe

I also don't believe in an opt-out system. Organs are a gift, to be given freely. Not something to be taken on a legal loophole, or a "duty", or something to be coerced into by being threatened with refusal of potential medical treatment in the future. What's next, if you don't donate blood you can't receive it? Our health system isn't based on people's "worthiness".

If someone wants to donate, that's wonderful. If parents make the incredibly difficult decision to donate their childs organs, before the child is old enough to make their own decision, that is wonderful too. If someone doesn't want to donate their organs, then that's just fine as well.

It's not about worthiness, but if you don't think its right to take organs from anyone, how can you take them when you or yours need them? You can't have it both ways.

If everyone gave their organs there would be enough for everyone. It isn't fair that people who would donate die because some asshole who wouldn't give would happily take.

I understand that some parents can't bring themselves to donate their children's organs but there is fuck all excuse for an adult not to do it.

I hope never to be in the situation where I have to decide.

In my hearts of hearts I would, because the organs will rot away. While I would hypothetically bee dealing with a horrendous lost. I think it would help me a little bit if I knew a part of my DC was still living.

The opt out system will operate in Wales before it kicks in elsewhere in the UK. The ethics behind treating an entire country like an organ farm for the rest of the UK is troubling, to me.

Organs given willingly, either by consent of the person donating or the parents of the child donating, is a positive thing.

Obviously a baby cannot consent. We, as parents have to do what we think is best.

When I was pregnant with my boys, we knew one of them, my Ciaran, was going to die shortly after he was born. We spoke to the consultant dealing with us, about donating his organs, as we felt that something positive should come from his death. Sadly it wasn't possible for us to donate any of his organs as he wasn't brain dead, but we very much wanted to.

One thing I want to say... is that when my boy was born, the doctors worked on him, and eventually came to us for permission to withdraw treatment, as they had done all they could. We, his parents, had to agree to end his life. We had to make that decision, no one else. If we were deemed competent enough to make that decision, a decision of life or death, I am bloody well sure that we are capable of deciding weather our child's (generic our) organs should be donated.

I feel only huge respect and empathy for the parents of the baby girl that were faced with this heartbreak.

OP you haven't answered the question. Would you consent on behalf of a child of yours to receive an organ?

I agree with others who have said go for opt out and both ways - if you don't agree to donate, you don't receive.

Not a nice opening post though.

My dad donated corneas. My friend's dad received a cornea transplant at about the same time, (obs not my dad's), and his sight was saved - and my friend was so happy for him. Mt dad made that possible for someone - and I loved him for it. We are all on the register including the kids.

Wannabe. I will leave aside the fact that I didnt call anybody names or personally insult anybody (perhaps why you have sympathy with those who don't read properly?). Pointing out that people have either not read or understood the OP, news story or the thread is not personal, a name or an insult. It's a statement of fact.

It's not a question of not wanting people to discuss the subject in more depth or different facets of it. It's the fact that the title is misleading and the fact that some people are only bothering to read that before they comment.

People on this thread are just reading the title and seeing the word baby and posting things like 'this is terrible, it should be opt-in', when that is totally irrelevant to this case because the parents would have opted in anyway. And 'this is a slippery slope' because they think the organs were donated without the parents consent. I have no objection to people discussing the opt in/out system but I do object to people misguidely applying it to this case when it is irrelevant.

As some people are clearly finding the title confusing it should be changed.

I think your earlier post also entirely misses the point. You ask that people who do not wish to donate their child's organs are respected just as much as those who do. And they are. Nobody is arguing that parents who do not wish to donate their child's organs should be forced to, or that it should be done without their consent or that they should feel bad that they have made what they feel is the right choice for them.

The only argument on this thread arguing that outside wishes should be imposed on bereaved parents is that of the OP who you are supporting. She believes that grieving parents should be denied the choice of donating their child's organs because it is not something that she personally would choose to do. I'm not quite sure how you can demand respect for those who don't wish to donate their children's organs when you appear to be supporting a poster who is demanding that choice should be denied to parents whose views are different from her own.

Far from this case presenting an ethical problem the OPs own views pose far more of an ethical problem because she wishes to impose her values on other families against their wishes for no more reason than it's not something she personally finds easy to deal with. I understand why people may not wish to donate their own children's organs, I do not understand why those people cannot empathise with those who do and understand that when it comes to their children their own preferences overide those of the OP. She simply wishes to impose her view on others. I think those who are lacking the 'respect' you demand in these cases are you and the OP.

Enegekia, I don't agree that if you don't give you shouldn't receive. Some parents really would genuinely find it very difficult to do this and I don't think it would help to pressure them by giving them that choice. I know a friend of mine lost her child to cot death and his organs were stored in a hospital for a long time without her consent or knowledge which devastated her and I understand it's really emotive.

But, on the other hand, if you are like the OP and you are prepared to argue that child organ donation should be banned altogether, for other people as well as yourself, simply because you don't like it, then you shouldn't be prepared to accept an organ for yourself if you are effectively arguing that other people should be condemned to death and other families wishes should be ignored in order to satisfy your own personal sensibilities.

I would never agree that a parent should turn down an organ for their own child because they themselves weren't prepared to donate their child's organs. Because the child has no ability to give consent so their parents lack of consent shouldn't affect their eligibility to receive an organ. You can't condemn a child to death because of an unrelated decision their parent has made.

OP may have been insensitive in the way she phrased her question but there are some absolutely awful and dehumanising and distasteful things some posters have said in response regarding the value of a baby that never got a chance to live in the world. One poster said that donation was to the supported as otherwise the baby becomes "worm food" or "fire wood". Imagine how phrases like that made me feel as the mother of a stillborn baby who did not have the option of donating and cremated her child. Another poster said that all the baby in the news ever brought to the world was grief until it's parents made this decision. Actually that baby was alive through the months of pregnancy and I'm sure bought wonderful joy to its parent while it lived just like my daughter did for me while she was alive in this world in my tummy. Losing a child at the beginning of its life is no different to losing a child when they are older - I don't feel any different about my joy and wonder and love between my stillborn daughter who I had the privilege of getting to know while pregnant and my 2 year old daughter who I get to see everyday.

I fully support comments regarding donation and the amazing gift that is but it seems to me that a lot of people are quick to judge the language used by others while being oblivious to their own insensitively. As for the phrase "carving up" - this was exactly how I felt about and why I refused an autopsy for my daughter. I think if donation had been an option I would have embraced that however I would have still needed to reconcile my gut feel about my daughters body being cut into just as the image of it being burned haunts me. To me she felt alive when I held and cuddled her even if I knew logically she was not - I wanted to keep her tiny body intact forever even though I knew it was not possible. So I understand the type of language and questions raised by the op and would encourage everyone to simply be open to discussion on this incredibly serious topic.

You are shockingly unreasonable.

I think we need a lot more education on this matter.

of course people are judging parents who would choose not to donate their child's organs. How many posts are there on this thread which ask the question "if you wouldn't donate would you be prepared to turn down an organ for your child?" or "if you're not on the register then you shouldn't be allowed to receive an organ." The implication is clearly there that people who wouldn't donate theirs or their children's organs are selfish and should be denied treatment if they were in a position to need it.

So imagine this scenario: a child dies tragically in a car accident, and when approached the parents feel they are unable to donate their child's organs and do not give consent. So the child dies and the parents have to carry on their lives without them. Until in a couple of years time one of that child's siblings falls ill and needs an organ transplant. At this point the doctors have a look at their list and see that the parents have previously lost a child in a car accident and refused consent for organ donation. At this point the doctors say to the parents "oh I'm sorry mr and mrs xxx, as you have previously refused to donate a child's organs your child is not eligible for transplant and therefore will die." People are in favour of such a system then? a system which will be widely open to abuse because it would be used as a stick to bully people into giving consent "you do realise that if you refuse consent you are also refusing any further right to treatment should you or any of your other children need it?" It's a despicable viewpoint that people should be forced to make decisions they may not wish to, and that treatment is conditional on what people are prepared to give.

Should we refuse lung cancer treatment to smokers? liver cancer treatment to alcoholics? where does the give to receive argument end when it comes to health?

rainbowtoodle what a touching and eloquent post, I'm so sorry for your loss. I think many people do have struggle with the idea of donation because they cannot bear the thought the practicalities of this happening to a loved one's body. I know I really struggled with the thoughts of an autopsy after my dad died and declined seeing his body at the funeral home because of this. I have got an organ donor card but I don't judge anyone who's been put in this terrible situation and decided that they can't go through with donation.

You ignored me first time, Viviennemary...

"I don't think the argument that parents give consent to medical treatment can be used for parents giving consent to organ donation. Whatever the rights and wrongs are. Because medical procedure is for the good of the child receiving it. Whereas organ donation is an entirely different thing altogether and is entirely for the benefit of the recipient. I did not agree with new born babies' organs being used in this way."

Viviennemary - if a newborn baby's parents are being asked to consider organ donation, there is zero chance of the baby surviving - they would have to be brain-dead. If you disallow organ donation from newborn babies, then not only will that baby die, but others may also die, or live severely limited lives, blighted by illness.

How is this a better option than organ donation from newborns?

rainbowtoddle -

People can be so, so, bloody insensitive. I have no idea what goes through their minds. (Not much, I suspect).

I'm so sorry for your loss.

Of course people are judging parents who would choose not to donate their child's organs

Because they are saying that they would rather another child (or maybe more than one) died, rather than that they felt uncomfortable or upset.

Their child is dead already. There is no possible harm to their child whatsoever. The only possible casualty in this is their feelings. And they rate their feelings over someone else's life.

OP it may be "heartbreaking" for you to read about it but "carving her up for parts" is a terrible thing to say could you honestly use those words to either the parents of the child who donated or to the parents of the recipient. I think they have a better understanding of the word heartbreaking.