To think no-one should be able to over-rule a dead person's wishes on organ donation?

[angelos02]

I was disgusted on seeing the news that 547 people that had wanted to be organ donors were unable to do so because family members over-ruled their wishes. The patient's wishes could have improved the life of over 1200 people.

How is this allowed to happen? I can't possibly imagine the grief that these people were going through but you can't deny another human being's wishes?

Conversations have to be had with your family about your wishes.
I would be very clear that if they went against my wishes in terms of funeral/organ donation, they would not receive anything from my will. It would go to charity.

Denying someone on the transplant list if they haven't signed up to be an organ donor sounds pretty nasty to me too.

Are there any other conditions people would put on who they donated organs to, or is that the only thing that you use to measure whether someone is worthy of a transplant?

What about if a person had committed a violent crime? Or if they donated blood regularly and were on the bone marrow register and still didn't want to donate organs? What about people who have signed up to be organ donors, but have stated they will only allow kidneys to be taken and nothing else?

Organ donation should be a gift freely given, without prejudice and with the support of the people who loved that person, not something that is given with conditions attached.

Nothern I think you are painting a very negative picture of organ donation and I'm not sure why.

Recipients of an organ are in no doubt as to what the process entails and of all the risks.

Yes, compliance can be poor, but that can be the case with any medical treatment, does that mean we shouldn't bother?

Recipients of an organ might be aware of what the medical side of the process entails and all the risks, but quite often the donors themselves won't be. That's why we need more public information, so people are encouraged to make an informed choice, and are prepared for what could happen if they ever find themselves in a situation where they are asked to consent for a loved one.

My Granny had always expressed a wish to donate her body to medical science and had filled the the forms back in the 70s. By the time she died my Mum (her DIL) was next of kin with full power of attorney (my Dad was an only child and already dead). Mum simply couldn't be arsed with the extra hassle of sorting out the body donation, speculated without checking that they probably wouldn't want her as she was 90 and just went ahead and arranged a cremation. I was very angry but could not convince her and had no power to overrule.

Before my Mum herself died 5 years later we had time to talk to her about her final wishes and carried them out to the letter. But I must admit to finding that slightly ironic.

Osolea - In order to for consent to be given for organ donation, it has to be an informed process. No one is told "Yes, these donated organs will 100 save someone's life".

Subsequent to the Human Tissue Act, every potentiality as to what might happen to the organ also has to be explained.

I don't agree that only those who donate should receive an organ, as it would be a massive breach of our everyday health ethics and practice to refuse to treat a patient.

However, to try and make a scientific case against organ donation, as some on this thread are trying to, is nonsensical and wrong.

Euphemia - how can you live with yourself - your husband wants dying people to benefit from his organs when he is dead, to given them life, and you will deny him and them, condemning up to 6 people to death by going against him expressed wished. Quite dreadful - can't wait for the opt out scheme to become universal across UK so that people like you can't over ride a dead person's wishes.

I'm certainly not making a case against it and I'm not (I think) giving a negative picture. It troubles me though that the dialogue at the moment goes something like 'Organ donation is an absolute good, everybody must donate their loved ones organs or be WRONG'
Organ donation is a complicated issue. If aspects of that discourage people from donating, well so be it. I think that at unless you have a recipient of a donation in your family and see their whole journey, you are less likely to be aware of all of the ramifications and certainly the campaigns that run don't seem to go in to those aspects. If you come forward as a live donor though, you will absolutely be made aware and rightly so.

The dead person knows nothing about it after they've died. If the living people feel so strongly about it then they should be able to voice their opinions and change the choice if they wish. I am registered as are all my family. Yes I'd be really angry if someone overruled my wishes to help people after my death but I wouldn't have the chance to be angry would I? I'd be dead!

Northern so for you, there aren't sufficient numbers of people dying while awaiting a donor organ, you'd like to increase the numbers?

Most people can grasp that for those with a serious illness, magic wands don't exist, treatments which can improve or prolong life do.

The poster upthread who received a corneal transplant didn't skip out of hospital with 20/20 vision, but it has given her a quality of sight she otherwise would not have. That is a very common reality of organ donation.

For anyone with a serious illness, there aren't any magic wands, just treatments which will mitigate some aspects of that illness.

My body is mine and I'd like to be able to state what happens to its contents when I'm done with it.

If I have no rights over my carcass as a deceased person then either the rights should go to the state or to my NOK, but I'd prefer it to go to the state if there was a discrepancy between my wishes and the expectations of my NOK. Shame there isn't a legal process to do that as some people would sign up, especially if you knew your wishes would be ignored.

I had an ex who laughed about my intention to donate organs - he often said he'd have overruled my wishes (like I'd have given him the option FFS). I have to say it's not the reason he's an ex but it adds to why I'm glad his gone!

Equally I've had the age appropriate conversations with my children. Goodness knows what I'd do but I've always heavily advocated organ donation and they have always seemed to suggest that it's a nice thing to do. However I don't think it's my place to say how those who've lost children should feel. Definitely think there should be a set of guidelines for over 18's (who can make their wishes known) but I don't feel the same for children.

Ipity, I have never believed, or implied that I believe any relative asked to consent is ever told anything other than the full truth.

You are talking about information given at the point where relatives are asked to give consent. I am talking about how people need to have more information at the point when they decide to sign the register or not. I don't think everyone who has signed up is aware that there could be a significant amount of time where they are kept artificially alive, or that they will be in an operating theatre when they are finally switched off. I realise that won't be an issue for many people, but it is for me, and it may well be for other people.

I think if people were prepared for what donating a loved ones organs actually means for them at the time of death, then there would be fewer families that refuse consent despite knowing that their relative was on the register.

How can more truthful information be a bad thing? How else do you think we could reduce the number of relatives that refuse consent?

But what gives a hospital more authority over a dead body than a relative to the point they can enforce the dead person's wishes over that of an alive family member's wishes?

I do not believe any hospital or member of staff in that hospital has any right whatsoever to do that.

Pseudonym I would prefer a hospital to carry out my wishes rather than have my father (technically my NOK) go against what I would like to happen when I die.

Can I ask, would people also go against their dying loved ones wishes re their own funeral/scattered ashes etc? Really not trying to be insensitive, but I wanted to follow my mums wishes as far as I was possible.

I am just wondering under what authority a hospital would be acting? Remember Alder Hey when they were not acting under any authority, which caused things to be changed?

Hospitals have no rights to withhold dead bodies from relatives.

There is no law preventing you from wheeling out a dead relative's body (in your own wheelchair or trolley, of course....)

Wills carry out a persons wishes and relatives can't just overrule them so why can't a similar vehicle be put into place to ensure a persons wishes, for or against donation, are carried out.

Pseudonym But about those of us with relatives who don't/won't carry out our wishes - not because they are grief stricken but because they are arses? What do people like me do then?

Osolea you seem to understand exactly why relatives refuse to consent. Now I know the exact process of what donation is I have explained it to my partner.
At 23 I couldn't even cope with the tests for brain death carried out on my mum. I couldn't deal with the concept of leaving her in the hospital knowing her heart would still be beating or that she would be in theatre alone. Although I know she wanted to donate and it was a possibility, I know she would not have wanted the real possibility of me having a worse break down than I did because I'd gone with her wishes. If when you signed the register there was some info about the practicalities of donation, it might not be such a shock when you might actually be faced with the decision.

YANBU

From reading some of the posts on the thread, it appears that this is a decision that is made by relatives while the person is still alive, has registered what they want to happen in that situation but is no longer in a position to reiterate their wishes to the medical staff at that time.

Which has got me thinking...

I have heard of living wills where people can indicate that, say, if they were in an irreversible coma, that they either do or do not want the life support machine to be turned off. Is that legally binding or are relatives asked whether they want to comply with it or not? ie If someone indicates that they wish to be kept alive, can a relative say, 'no, I'm finding it too difficult to see them like that/need some closure and to move on' and overrule them and instruct the medical staff to let them die? I kind of assumed that the individual's wishes were respected in these cases - or can families overule them?

In the case of organ donation, if the dying person has indicated in advance that they want to be kept alive until their organs can be harvested, isn't this a similar situation - ie whether relatives can instruct medical staff to let the individual die against the individual's express wishes?

Ipity for some reason you seem to be wilfully misreading my posts . Of course I don't want to see more people die on waiting lists but neither should relatives feel compelled to donate nor make that decision based on incorrect assumptions. If you decide to donate a kidney based on that by doing so you are giving somebody a chance of a longer life, bearing children, a better quality of life then you're making that donation based on an understanding of the facts. If you think you are 'saving' a life and you have no other information then you haven't been fully informed and I think there is a risk too many people make decisions based on that sort of information only.

Northern - what exactly is that risk?

I decide that my organs can be donated. When my organs are taken. I will have absolutely no concerns about what happens to them on the grounds that I am dead. There is no risk to me personally if they are used or not used.

For my relatives, the consent process will cover what will happen if they are not used. What is the risk to them?

Organ donations definitely do save lives, even if that life might be considered to be of an "impaired" quality, or limited in length, so I'm not sure why you would consider that to be an uninformed opinion.

Where people are uninformed is exactly how common various types of organ failure are. It's more likely to happen to them or a lived one.

Pseudonym - The Alder Hey case involved organs taken for medical research, not donation.

Pontipines I am aware of what Alder Hey was. I used that as an example of a hospital doing something it did not have the legal authority to do, and making relatives believe it did.