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.

The baby/chikd will die anyway, there is no benefit to them either way. Tgey are a shell, they are gone, better other children and people benefit and live.

vivienne what are you talking about? Of course there's ethical questions and its a massive thing in the medical field, however how this can even be discussed never mind debated is completely ridiculous.

If this were to become an issue, then say goodbye to babies and small children getting life saving transplants and treatments.

I cannot imagine what the parents of the donor baby are going through.

But the way I see it, instead of two (or more deaths), there is one (sadly inevitable) death and one (or more) babies with a chance at life.

there has been a donor card in my wallet for years and always will be. Take whatever you want, if I am in the position where brain death is suspected I don't WANT to be revived.

'I cannot imagine the pain that losing a child at any age causes,'

I can. If there were anything I could do to spare someone else living like this, I would. It was not an option for us, quite rightly, I would never wish cancer on anyone, and as she had blood cancer, it was no localised. Her organs were also weakened or failed due to multiple system organ failure (she actually died of respiratory failure, but was in full kidney failure and liver failure, too).

At the same time, I do understand those who chose not to donate their childrens' organs. It is a very intense time, right after a child dies.

'But the way I see it, instead of two (or more deaths), there is one (sadly inevitable) death and one (or more) babies with a chance at life.'

Yes, that is obvious from the outside in.

But I really do understand why some parents simply cannot bring themselves to make the same decision. It is just such an unnatural loss.

The wording of the op is emotive, of course it is, but someone who is not in favour of organ donation would of course think differently to someone who is. Some people simply cannot conceive of the idea of allowing their babies' organs to be donated. Not everyone has the courage to be able to make that decision either for a loved one or themselves. People fear death, and the death of a child is something which many people just cannot think about. It takes immense courage from anyone to make the decision to donate their child's organs at a time of immense grief, it is a completely selfless thing to do, and the reality is that there are no guarantees. But just as someone who does donate their child's organs should not be judged, so someone who feels they cannot do so shouldn't be judged either. It is a very personal decision, and I know many people who are not comfortable with the idea of a part of their child, or themselves, living on in someone else.

I am personally on the organ donor register - I signed up at around the time misdee's Peter had his transplant , however I do not support the idea of an opt out system. It puts far too much of the onus on the individual and takes advantage of the likelyhood that many people simply wouldn't get round to opting out and would then have no choice if the worst were to unexpectedly happen. Plus it essentially means that your body would be the property of the state unless you stated otherwise. It's a slippery slope to go down IMO and once you start making opt-out the law there are too many other possibilities for that system to be abused.

I do however think that if you carry a donor card or are on the register that next of kin should not be allowed to override that wish.

Yabu op! Your choice of language to describe the process is horrible and very, very far from the process to retrieve organs from a donor. I was lucky enough as a student to be able to observe the retrieval process following the brain death of a patient that I had cared for. The death was not expected and the family were deeply saddened by the death, but when approached by a member of staff there was no hesitation that donation would have been what the patient would opt for.
The procedure was undertaken with sensitivity and respect. There was no carving!

No I don't think that's the issue at all and not what the OP was getting at. I can sort of understand that parents may not want to have to go through the donation process. At that time what parent is thinking straight anyway? I wouldn't blame any parent for not being able to come to terms with it

But the OP hasn't debated that. She has centred upon the issue of the baby having consent. That is completely different.

I haven't read all the pages yet but I, like others whose posts I have read so far, thought it was an amazing act by the parents at such a difficult time.

DH and I cried for the baby's parents when we heard this.

We also thought it must be some comfort to them that her short life was not in vain and that part of her lives on.

this is a family who are local to me & I have only admiration for them.

All four of us are on the organ donation list & I wouldn't hesitate to give consent for my parents.

VivienneMary - slippery slope towards what, though? Genuine question.

I think use of organs from tiny babies is very emotive so I understand why it's taken a while to be introduced.

I can see why one wouldn't want to contemplate giving up one's baby for the retrieval - because it would mean accepting his death, and I have no clue how you could even start to do that.

I was brought up believing wholeheartedly in tissue donation of all kinds and I've held a donor card for as long as I can remember. Although I can absolutely understand why someone would block a donation when it came to it, I don't understand objections which are purely theoretical.

It's worth observing that a person who could consent to post-mortem donation would not be eligible to donate organs anyway - they wouldn't be dead enough.

I wonder if Dignitas clients can donate? Presumably not because of the poison they take.

I have the greatest respect for the family who chose to give the greatest gift they ever could. And I hope it helps them too.

I work in a transplant unit and find the phrase 'carving up for parts' massively offensive to our patients, their relatives and our very skilled staff.

Consent for organ donation is always down to next of kin because the very nature of it is that a donor must be 'brain stem dead' with no chance of recovery and therefore would not be able to consent themselves. This state would be confirmed by at least 2 neurologists before any plan to retrieve organs would be made and it is never a decision taken lightly.
The most important thing is to make your next of kin aware of your wishes while you are able and hope they will respect those wishes.
Minors are not legally able to consent themselves so it falls to their parents to make that decision.
I believe that it is 'selfless ' and a very very difficult decision to make, especially in the face of losing your newborn baby, however we would save a lot less children's lives without parents like those currently in the news.

'I can see why one wouldn't want to contemplate giving up one's baby for the retrieval - because it would mean accepting his death, and I have no clue how you could even start to do that.'

You never well and truly 'accept' your child's death.

viviennemary can you explain your argument against organ donation? I don't follow what you're saying.

Eva, I think I read another story like that from an American woman. What a really wonderful thing to do.

I really think Mumsnet need to edit the title of this thread. It's (possibly deliberately) misleading and there appear to be people commenting on here who have just read the thread title and haven't bothered to read the OP, the news story linked to or the rest of the thread.

This isn't a thread about whether or not we should have an opt in or opt out system or if people who would not wish to donate their organs and have consciously not given consent having them them harvested. If people want to discuss that perhaps a new thread should be started?

This thread isn't about that. It's about somebody who believe that parents who are fully consenting and informed should not be allowed to donate their children's organs if they wish to do so because it's something she personally finds it distasteful and difficult to deal to with. She deny bereaved parents the one small crumb of comfort they have at the time of death.

And because some posters appear to be too lazy to read the OP and the story or too dim to understand this thread, despite all the stories shared on here still has idiots posting things like 'this is the start of a slippery slope' when it's nothing of the sort.

The title is misleading and because some people apparently can't be bothered to read anything but that it should be changed.

I agree 'moan

viviennemarie clearly hasn't bothered to read much beyond the title and thinks that the baby's organs were taken without the consent of the parents. Which is why the title should be changed.

You "do not mean to be disrespectful" and yet you were, very, as well as insulting, insensitive, and downright unbelieveable.

I really have no words for whats wrong with the OP. It disgusts me that anyone could even think of starting this thread in this manner.

I found myself weeping at the strength, the courage, the altruism of the parents.

When my father died, and that's almost forty-five years ago, he had been blind for twenty years (all my lifetime, I was sixteen) and I remember the comfort my DM and DSis and I got from learning that his corneas had been successfully transplanted and somebody would now see again.

We did the right thing and so did these parents.

Perhaps it should be changed to 'children's organs should not be made available for transplant'. That would be more accurate as the OP is arguing that children's inability to give consent should automatically be regarded as non-consent regardless of their parents wishes.

Thank you clucky and dusty

Good luck with yours , clucky, DH has had his for 30 years now. Fingers crossed fior many more years.

Yes, MoanCollins, which would of course mean that children would then become unable to receive organs as adult ones would be unsuitable.