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?

"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"

Why on earth would that make a difference? If my kidney let a child have his mother for another 6 months- or even 3- months that's fine by me.

Baressentials it is a difficult one. A hospital does not have the authority to protect a dead patient against relatives going against said patient's wishes. But at the same time why should that hospital have that authority? I would not want a hospital to override my family's instructions in such a circumstance, even if those instructions go against my wishes.

I couldn't possibly judge relatives for doing what feels best at the time. It is unfortunate that the definition of death is blurred and a hard enough time for family.
Also, how does the report (is it a report) know that they wanted to be donors? Where they registered somewhere and the doctors knew this? Or simply carrying a card - but then, how did the doctors know about the card? Do they still hand everyone a card when they pass their driving test?

Nobody has yet, as far as I know,answered this question. If I wrote a will in which I left my property in a way that upset my relations, would they be free to ignore my wishes because it made their grief harder to bear?

Yes, you can contest a will. I also do not believe hospitals, doctors and nurses should be telling relatives that they cannot make decisions after their loved ones have died. They do not, and should not, have that authority.

Of course you can contest a will. But you would get pretty short shrift if you went to court saying "The fact that she left her diamonds to her friend Shirley instead of me made it more difficult to bear my grief so I want you to give them to me straight away"

I think people should have autonomy to say what will happen to their body after death. Maybe part of the process should be to talk to relatives and even to register relatives feelings on this, as in next of kin. In an ideal world this could all be signed up to on line and the potential donor would be able to talk to their parents/next of kin and register their desires on line all at the same time.

Washediris it is totally understandable you feel this way but is it fair that anyone should be able to say what happens to your adult child's body in such terrible circumstances, if this was against their will. Another parent may be grief stricken at the thought of losing their child and a donor operation could save their life.

It is not our responsibility to donate organs against our will (our own organs) but I think it is best to respect the wishes of those who have died, even if we do not agree with them.

"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."

It's 4 years next week and I have finally achieved 6/6 (that's 20/20 in metric!) vision with glasses in the treated eye, and 6/9 with glasses in the untreated eye. 6/9 is legal driving standard, so I celebrated by buying a new car.

And yet my doctors are apologising to me that I will still need glasses for the rest of my life! Fuck that, I can see! And it was a good excuse to treat myself to Prada glasses lol. Bugger it, I sound so shallow!

Corneas last for an average of 15 years, so I'm looking at another graft from the age of 45 or so. I hope we will have synthetic ones by then, but if not I will rely on someone to give me another gift. And I will be just as grateful.

Other organs wear out too, or they are rejected and if there are available replacements the recipient will have to go through additional surgery. A few years ago there was a great bbc3 documentary about a young girl with cf who needed new lungs. She got them at the last minute and went from strength to strength. But they rejected and she needed another transplant. She is currently doing very well, running her own dance studio, when before she could barely walk. I follow her on Instagram and she is amazing.

And what about people needing skin grafts? You do not have just 1 graft, it's a very repetitive process. Sometimes the initial graft(s) are removed entirely, sometimes they reject, are redone or added to, but the skin is cadaveric skin, so is from an organ donor. Katie piper has had multiple skin grafts and a cornea transplant, which are things that need upkeep.

I think it's a good thing donors don't always know all the risks or what their organs might be used for, otherwise too many people might say "What's the point?" and not bother. As i said up thread, not all donated organs and tissue are usable, but they can't find that out until the organ is removed and checkec, so it is actually necessary to have even more donations than needed so that everyone can get their second chance. Most people on the list would treat their new organs kindly, people like Bestie are in the minority. In the USA patients (or carers) are given psychological evaluation to ensure they can cope with taking care of their new organ. If they fail, they don't get their organ, simple as. In this country the NHS prides itself on being for everyone, but if there were concerns about a patient's health behaviours they wouldn't give a transplant until the issue was resolved, however, they can't take it back if someone falls off the wagon. If we start listing criteria of who can/cannot have a transplant it's a slippery slope - too old, too young, too fat, smoker, drinker, did drugs, is disabled, unemployed, mentally ill, too foreign etc.

Still nobody is taking on the point about the way property is left. I can't just ignore somebody's will because I am profoundly upset by the way they have decided to leave their jewellery. Why should I be able to ignore the way they have left their body parts?

Washediris in the gentlest way, what if your dd or ds developed a drinking or drug problem? What if they realised almost too late that they wanted to change and get better? Wouldn't you want them to receive a transplant to give them a second chance?
I believe everyone should be able to receive a donor, those who want to donate should have their wishes honoured and those who don't wish to donate should also have their wishes honoured but still be able to receive if they needed to.

I think nobody is taking that point Bertrand because it's wrong. Body parts are NOT a commodity, not property, not 'assets'. Jewellery, china, paintings, investments etc are not changed by a person's death. A body is. It goes from something living to something dead. The duty of disposing of a dead body rests with the living not the dead and whilst they should imo respect the wishes of the dead, they cannot be compelled to nor should they be.

My mum was an alcoholic before she killed herself and wasn't found for 24 hours (hence why she was not suitable for donation). But her death and alcoholism weren't all she was. She was a well respected social worker, she was a guide leader who put her all in to her pack and took them on fab adventures, she was an amazing mum - all before she got too ill. If someone had said to me before she died that she could have had a transplant but because of her illness for the 2 previous years, her previous 47 years of being amazing were wiped out. I don't know.

Bert, you can't compare property to a person body.

While there may be a lot of sentimental value attached to jewellery and the like, it's just stuff. No one is asked to give up the opportunity to be beside their loved one as they properly die when assets are given away. No one is asked to leave a relative with strangers hospital while their body is still functioning, or wait around in a hospital for an indefinite amount of time after they know their relative isn't coming back when stuff is given away.

Also, someone who has taken the time to write a will and think about who they want to leave their stuff too is fully aware of what the consequences might be. The same cannot be said of someone who has just ticked a box on their driving licence but could well have no idea of what the donation process entails either for their body or for their relatives.

Your point about property and assets is completely irrelevant.

Washediris She was my mum. Of course I would have wanted her to being given another chance.

washediris What about those who weren't life long alcoholics nor were they alcoholics just for a year? Where is the cut off point? Do you say if you have been an alcoholic for less than years you get a transplant but 5 yars and a day and you don't? My mum went through so much, gave so much to others, got beaten, abused, abandoned. Damn fucking right she would have deserved a chance. And no it wouldn't have been wasted, it would have been exactly that, a chance.

Washediris - I really feel you want to say there are deserving and undeserving organ recipients, so just say it.

FWIW it's not for you to judge, it's for the person most in need of a transplant at the top of the list and the hospitals decision. Stop trying to make all recipients look 'unworthy'.

I think an adult who has consented has made their wishes known and I would prefer legislation which would prevent a family overriding the wishes of the person who wants to donate.

The issue of whether the donating person is still alive is more difficult, to be assessed for transplant you must be brain stem dead which means that you are dead and therefore your organs can be donated, but the body is kept alive while the decision to donate is made.

I don't think families should be allowed to override a persons wishes, yes they may be sad at the loss of their loved one but their loved one made an active decision and this should be respected.

if we are talking deserving - my mum would have been far more deserving than a non-alcoholic who did nothing for their community. My mum gave over and above. Regularly. She gave up so much time to be a guide leader. Mine and my siblings friends came to her for advice. We had kids from the children home she worked at join us for Christmas, family days out etc because that was the sort of person she was. Undeserving? Because she developed an illness after being beaten by my dad? Tell my nana (my mums mum) that her daughter didn't deserve to be helped.

Bare I don't think there are deserving B and none deserving recipients, it just seemed to be what washediris was hinting at and it is most unpleasant.

No I know you don't think that Lego, I think washediris does though.
Just wondering if that extends to people who drink over the recommended units of alcohol per week? Is ok to drink 2-3 units over? But 5 units over means you are non starter?