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.

The point is though it's not your DHs choice, or a doctor's - it's yours.

but those organs aren't lost because someone didn't fill in the form, they are lost because the next of kin say no. in 47% of cases where someone is on the register, the next of kin still say no. If someone hadn't opted out the next of kin would still be in a position to say no.

Nothing changes other than that you have given presumed consent if you don't tick the box/fill in the form. And what about your children? should you as a parent have to opt them out as well? make a conscious decision?

My body should not be the presumed property of the state just because I haven't filled in a form. What would that entitle the state to? to take my DNA at birth perhaps? to insist I be a blood donor if there is a shortage? what about live donors? If there were a national shortage could the state call on those who haven't opted out to be tested as live donors in the event that more organs were needed? given I haven't opted out n all....

JohnCusacksWife The poster above you, Hairy offers a very pithy and convincing reason.

Lack of "no" does not mean "yes"
Think about how that could be applied to other scenarios like rape - "Well, she didn't say no". Presumed consent is an immensely dodgy premise to promote.

Lozza Bodily autonomy protects you from rape, from murder, from torture. It offers reproductive choice, freedom of movement, the right to not be enslaved.

If you think that bringing up the concept of bodily autonomy in a discussion that threatens to encroach on bodily autonomy is "point scoring" and "petty", you need your own head examining. IMO, the right to bodily autonomy is pretty much the most basic there is. I rate it higher than the right to life.

Bit of a leap form organ donation to rape! And I still haven't seen a single argument here that would convince me why an opt out system isn't at least worthy of consideration.

People saying their organs don't belong to the NHS, are you as attached to the rubbish you throw away? Because it is as much use to you.

I also think that if you say you would opt out, would you honestly refuse to receive?

Apart from anything else, changing the system would be a massive waste of money, given that your NOK will still get the final decision.

If an opt out system is beyond the pale for some what do you think about removing the right of veto by next of kin, assuming the deceased person had opted in and was on the register?

How about an argument that says bureacracy and bureaucrats can in no way be trusted with the immense responsibility of cutting up my body and doing what they want with bits of it.

I really can't see how you don't see this point. What do you struggle with?

Bit of a leap form organ donation to rape!

Why? Both focus on the issue of consent.

We discussed this on here a few months ago. I am uncomfortable with an opt out system. However, I don't think next of kin should be able to overrule your wishes, so if you are on the donor register and are a match for someone, that should be that.

People saying their organs don't belong to the NHS, are you as attached to the rubbish you throw away? Because it is as much use to you

Irrelevant. The issue is not how people feel about their organs (I'd hope that most people would be willing to donate). It's about how the system works in terms of presumed consent.

I thought it was surgeons who remove and transplant organs, not "bureaucrats"?

If an opt out system is beyond the pale for some what do you think about removing the right of veto by next of kin

I absolutely agree with removing the right to veto.

was in that case would you refuse an organ for yourself or a loved one if there was an opt out system? Geuine question?

freezing I don't understand your question? Are you suggesting that because I believe in an opt out system I agree that living people should be forced to donate their bone marrow?? Surely not that's completely different!

I would always want my NOK to have the final say.

DH knows my wishes, however if the time ever came for him to make the decision, I'd want him to make the easiest and best decision for him and DS at that time.

Not really.. Organs save lives. So does bone marrow. Once you're dead you don't need your organs so why not donate them? Donating bone marrow is done fairly easily with no lasting ill effects. If you have to opt out to donate organs, should you have to opt out of donating bone marrow too?

Surgeons will do the work, but only on instruction and/or consent. They don't get to make these decisions themselves (you honestly think they would?!).

Wannabe, go back and read my post that you pasted in bold

"In the rare circumstances"

It's going to be very rare that two people with identical medical problems need the same organ at the same time. But - in the RARE circumstances that it does occur then someone who was a registered donor should have priority. It's only going to impact 0.001% of donors, but it's an incentive to donate even if small.

And thanks for pointing out that people having life saving operations are probably not in a position to donate any more, I hadn't thought of that........

No. By all means encourage people to state their wishes on the new register either way, but the state should not be allowed to steal organs of those who have not said no.

Perhaps sex should be 'opt-out' too. That wouldn't go down well either, would it?

If your family or appointed representatives cannot be contacted, donation will not proceed.

This is the devil in the detail of the Welsh system. The presumption is fundamentally unchanged; unless your family can give the green light for harvesting of organs, donation WILL NOT proceed. This is exactly as it should be. Nobody else gets to decide in the absence of the person themselves or their trusted representative (presumed to be a family member).