Organ donation should be opt out.

[m1nniedriver]

Just that really. If people have strong feelings on the matter then they are free to opt out, I really fail to see the issue with it.

Absolutely not.

My body is mine, the presumption is that it must always remain mine. The default should never be that it belongs to somebody else. If I am incapacitated, my NOK will communicate my wishes. The very idea of a presumption of lack of autonomy horrifies me. It's my basic right as a human.

Before you ask, I am an organ donor (specific organs) and my DH knows my wishes (and I know his).

Organ donation should be opt-in.
NOK consent (or not) should be abolished.
No moral judgement when deciding who gets an organ.

Should donating bone marrow be opt out then?

I think it should be opt out but it is problematic for people who do not understand how to opt out e.g. they have a learning disability.

Or, since you only have to be alive and fairly healthy to donate bone marrow, and the fact that it has no impact on your own health, should EVERYONE be forced to donate bone marrow???

Also my mums brother died at 3 months. The NHS stole his organs at ponder fields hospital.

When my nana found out about 20 years ago, it broke her. She never recovered from his death, that just tipped her over the edge again.They presumed as he was dead it would ok?

So no I don't trust the state to assume autonomy over my body. What do they do if the organ doesn't make it into someone else in time?

Do they keep it for testing etc? Or are next of kin given proof it's destroyed? Or destroyed and retuned to the body before burial?

Agree enjolrass and sorry to hear about your brother. Too many grey areas, it won't happen.

I agree with you in theory, that if someone opts in, their next of kin shouldn't be able to over ride that.

But in practise, are you really going to want to tell the woman whose son has just died, that you will be taking his organs against her wishes? It would be barbaric.

I know organ donation is a wonderful thing, and of course i'm in favour of it, but its grieving human beings we're talking about.

sushi your husband would be devestated I presume if something hapoened to you. In his state of devastation and grief he may not allow it. So you have no control whatsoever over your body in that situation. in an opt out situation the form you would fill in would be identical, you dictate what organs you wish to donate, you know your wishes will be carried out. Under the current system, you've filled out the forms, but your DH can override it.

It would be barbaric, it would be totally unethical and I know, personally, doctors would never do it.

yes, not receiving an organ if you're not prepared to donate essentially says that someone not prepared to donate their organs (regardless of the fact they may never actually be in a position to do so) deserves to die.

on mn people constantly talk about "your body, your choice." except that by having opt out you remove that stance entirely and you become the property of the state unless they decide that your body is not fit for purpose.

Opting out isn't proving a point, it is preserving my right to bodily autonomy. I don't believe for a second that vew would be a minority one.

Not really adding to the debate and I wasn't aware of the NOK point so this may have the same weakness.

But, I like the California way of doing it. When you apply for a driving licence there is a check box re organ donation and your licence is marked with a dot to show you are a donator.
It's not a huge difference to the organ register in the UK, but applying for a licence is something the majority of people do and at least will put the majority in a position where they have to make a decision. Our current system relies on people voluntarily adding themselves. I'm sure donor numbers would increase
Plus it's got to be more administratively efficient. You wouldn't need to operate the donor register and it would just be a case of adding a box to the online licence application.

Not being able to receive donated organs if you are not a donator is a bad idea.

Although it may be a good idea to say if you are a registered donor you would take priority over a non registered donor in those rare circumstances where two people otherwise have an equal claim (bad word, but all I can come up with) to that organ. It would at least provide a reasonable incentive (not that one is needed) for people to tick the box

pinderfields hospital

Thanks freezer , it was devastating for nana and mum.

I think you get an organ donation form on the bottom of your paper driving licence? I am old, though....

I bet. I'm sorry to hear about your nana too what a very sad story x

That's what I think lurking

Add it to driving license applications, passports, visa application etc

NOK should not be allowed to over-rule - yes they may be upset, but then so are the people whose family members die due to lack of organs.
If a person has opted in as a concious descision, then they have expressed their wishes very clearly and do not need NOK going against this.

Opting out isn't proving a point, it is preserving my right to bodily autonomy

I used to evoke the right to bodily autonomy argument here. But that's slightly at odds with my stance on termination, where a non-sentient being without the power of choice cannot be afforded the right to bodily autonomy.

So it's a bit of a sticking point for me at the moment.

You can't rely on your NOK to communicate your wishes - a large percentage of donor's wishes are not being respected because their families are saying no. If there was a way of ensuring that your decision is final and cannot be over-ruled by relatives, I would support it.
I have first-hand experience of this - my dad died a few days after having a stroke. He was always matter of fact about death with me, saying that a body is just a vessel, and when the hospital told me that he carried a donor card, I wasn't surprised. But I was completely taken aback when they said it was still up to me and my DS! We had the final say, even though dad wished otherwise. This isn't respecting your loved one in my opinion.

"Although it may be a good idea to say if you are a registered donor you would take priority over a non registered donor in those rare circumstances where two people otherwise have an equal claim (bad word, but all I can come up with) to that organ. It would at least provide a reasonable incentive (not that one is needed) for people to tick the box" priority should only ever be made based on medical need, not on who is prepared to give something back in return.

besides which, by the time you are in need of an organ the likelihood is you would no longer be eligible to donate anyway due to whatever illness brought you to the register, but it would essentially create an elitist system of eligibility, once you start down that road the possibilities are endless...

I completely agree with you that it should be an opt out system. I've yet to see a single reason why it shouldn't be. Those who feel strongly enough can opt out so no one is forced to do anything they don't agree with. NOK also should not have the right to override someone's clear wishes.

Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to see opt-outer a shouldnt get treatment I do think it's a morally indefensible position.

Organ donation should be opt-in.

INFORMED CONSENT.

Otherwise we are stealing organs from the body of a person in knowledge that this was without their consent. Consent isn't just about filling out the correct paperwork. Absence of an opt-out form is not equivalent to consent.

I can think of plenty of scenarios where reasonable people understand that lack of "no" does not mean "yes".

Our bodies are not the property of anyone but ourselves.

Really don't understand some people's view point, a lot of people simply do not bother to fill out the application form which is why they are not organ donors. It's not about a silly principle of who 'owns' your body it's about getting everyone who is willing to donate their organs to do it. There would be more organ donors this way which means saving more lives and anyone who argues against that to prove a silly point about 'owning' your body needs their head examining tbh.

I trust my DH to make what I would consider the best decision - it may well be that this means overriding my previously-stated wishes. We have DC. I've never been in a life-or-death situation before. If I'm a goner, he knows to put our DC first and then my fellow humans whether for donation or research. Whatever he thinks would achieve that in the circumstances is fine with me.

There is really no circumstance I can think of where my distraught DH wouldn't do a better job of decision making insofar as it relates to me, than any officer of the state / official / bureaucrat.

Opting out is morally wrong for me.

Still wondering if those who agree it should be opt out think the same about bone marrow?