To not like the organ donation pressure?

[AtSea1979]

Don't get me wrong I fully support an opt out rather than in policy.
However DD (7 yo) has come home with a form and is asking lots of questions and it all seems a bit much. She has asked me what would I do if she died and whether I'd let them remove her organs etc and whether I'd do the same if it was me. The head cheerfully informed me they have an important letter we all should sign.
I find it all a bit bully tactics, surely it's a personal choice and nothing to do with anyone else.

[RealityCheque]

50bales

It is, only if you would accept anothers organ for yourself or a loved one.

[Simmi1]

I agree Greendiary, I have a relative who has just had a kidney transplant donated by his sister, as the waiting list for donations is so very long.
I also saw a story on the news about a man in the states who was shot dead when his daughter was a little girl. His heart was transplanted to another man. The recipient of the transplant walked the daughter of the donor down the aisle at her wedding. It's such a lovely story. I'm definitely pro organ donation and of course I would want to receive if it ever came down to it.

[Osolea]

It's not possible to accept an organ for a loved one, we only have control over our own bodies.

[LucyBabs]

I'm not sure if any of the opt out posters have said why they wouldn't donate their organs?

[5OBalesofHay]

I don't understand that, realityCheque

[5OBalesofHay]

LucyBarbs I don't have to justify my choice

[RealityCheque]

Osolea.

As a parent, of course you can.

[RealityCheque]

50 - Which part do you not understand? It's pretty clear, imo.

[LucyBabs]

I didn't say you had to justify your choice 50
I was merely wondering out loud why

[5OBalesofHay]

Sorry to ask you to clarify Reality, I really am a bit of a duffer.

Did you mean that it would be morally reprehensible not to agree to donate if I would accept?

I think I've already answered that, but if you meant something else then forgive my dufferdom.

[FeralBeryl]

OP I initially thought you intended this as a sensibly discussion until I saw your goady comment about binning the information before you read it properly

It is a very personal, individual choice that no one can nor should be forced into.

My own personal feelings are that if you would be willing to receive, you should give.

With regards to children, there are such a shortage of tiny organs, it's important to get the message out there to parents. I remember asking for a donor card when I was about 7.

There is never a good time to talk about it, so far better to arm us all with the details should the unthinkable happen. Especially when it comes to the death of a child.

Also, I lost my father fairly recently after a short illness, we were still able to donate his eyes and this was a massive, massive comfort to think that he's helped someone even in death.
We received a letter letting us know he's helped four people regain or improve vision.

[MapleandPear]

Organ donation is never going to be a perfect solution for people who need new organs, for the simple fact that someone has to actually die, and only in certain ways, for a lot of organs to become available - pretty much for anything other than a single kidney.

We are getting much better at preventing accidents in the first place and also dealing with internal injuries and so on, which means that not so many people die from things that they would have done before, which means that fewer organs are available.

The way in which organ donation is talked about sometimes reminds me of how people talk about giving blood, neatly forgetting that someone has to die first. I first signed up to carry a donor card as a teenager, but I don't actually intend to become one if I can at all avoid it!

The answer, which is probably some years off, is artificial organs, plus being able to prevent the things that cause organ failure in the first place.

I can see the benefits of an opt-out system, but for the reasons above, it doesn't necessarily mean lots more organs will become available. The principle does slightly worry me though, that it is something that happens by default rather than by choice. Seems to go against the definition of "donation".

If I or a loved one needed a replacement organ, I would look at it in the way that they are very ill, and will mostly likely die, and would be very fortunate indeed to receive an organ, knowing that someone has most likely had to die first. Sometimes the way it is talked about in the media (not by these patients or their families) is as if there is some entitlement for the NHS to provide an organ, or some right over someone else's body. Organ donation should, by definition, be a rare thing.

[Sirzy]

I was about 8 when I told my mum I wanted to be on the donor register. I think it is so important that these things are discussed when people are alive and well so that if that time comes you can act confident knowing you are doing what that person wanted rather than having to second guess either way.

It may not be something nice to think about but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be thought about and discussed.

[Bovneydazzlers]

Encourage anyone to listen to this short talk, beautiful talk about a lady who donated her baby's organs and the good it did (also how it helped her own grieving process to know her baby had helped others).

itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/tedtalks-audio/id160904630?mt=2&i=368480675

[WannaBe]

"The way in which organ donation is talked about sometimes reminds me of how people talk about giving blood, neatly forgetting that someone has to die first. I first signed up to carry a donor card as a teenager, but I don't actually intend to become one if I can at all avoid it!" agree with this entirely. The reality is that whenever anyone talks about how if you weren't prepared to give then you shouldn't receive seems to gloss over the fact that you are actually far less likely to ever be in a position where your organs will be harvested anyway, and that from a human instinct level, none of us actually wants to be in a position to give because nobody wants to die.

The giving part is a hypothetical. Thought only, yet none of the vitriol exists re e.g. Giving blood or being on the bone marrow register. And the thought that people wish other people, including children, dead if they were to ever face a life-limiting condition based on the fact that they may or may not have signed up to the hypothetical possibility of one day being in a position to donate their organs says far more about those judging than those not on the register.

And where does this denial of treatment end? If you've not given blood should you be denied a transfusion should you ever need one? If you've not signed up to the bone marrow register should you be denied cancer treatments which might include the need for a stem cell transplant? What about if you've had a termination? Perhaps you shouldn't be entitled to fertility treatment? It's not as if organs are the golden ticket to anything else, there are far more immediate factors which should mean people should be denied treatments of all kinds? Never mind the post code lottery, how about the moral inclusion lottery where what treatments you are allowed to receive will depend on what you've given in the first place.

No donations to cancer research? Sorry, can't benefit from the treatment then.

Didn't vaccinate your children? Sorry, if they catch something they weren't vaccinated against they're not entitled to treatment. (Although actually I can see some on MN going for that one.)

The fact is that organ donation is an easy target because the giving isn't a reality.

As for opt out, in a society where we, especially as women, spend years of our lives arguing for the right to bodily autonomy, do people really think that we should essentially live under a culture of presumed consent where our bodies are the property of the state to do with what they choose unless we tell them otherwise? Really? No, at the moment this isn't how it works, because currently under opt out the family still have to consent, but has no-one ever considered that the reason why this is the case is because otherwise they'd never get it through? Reality is that opt out currently doesn't actually mean anything, however it's the opening up of a loophole to allow the potential for the next of kin to have any say over their relative in the event of their untimely death.

I would far rather my next of kin be able to consent to my wishes in the event of my death, as they know me best. But I never want to be in a position to let it be assumed my body is the property of the state should they change the law tomorrow. Therefore, although I have no objections to my organs being donated in the event of my death, if opt-out becomes law I will be opting out. My organs will still be donated in accordance with my wishes which I have discussed with my family, but that will be their call to make, not the state's.

And laying all this organ donation guilt on to seven year olds is despicable and I would be complaining to the school about the heavy handed way in which it was done.

[MapleandPear]

Great post WannaBe.

[scoobyloobyloo]

'I don't feel strongly about it'

I'm not sure you could have come up with a more insulting statement OP.

God forbid someone close to you should ever need one. I imagine you might feel strongly about it then?

[aprilanne]

i agree with op .it is not a thing for to give to children and for the head to encourage it is beyond his remit .i am not on register because my husband has told me he would never allow it .he does,nt ever want to accept either .i have told the children well young men really that if he dies first they can do what they think is right with me when i go .my eldest is on register but hopefully i never have to make that decision

[Trifleorbust]

I think it's massively inappropriate for this conversation to be taking place at school. Not every parent wants their child ruminating on their own death like this: some children are too sensitive at 7 for that thinking process. I would happily bring it up with my own kids, but not someone else's.

[Simmi1]

I disagree with your post wannabe. With blood donations you have to inconvenience yourself and there are loads of medical reasons why people can't give blood. No one has to die to give or receive blood 🤔. When you're dead your organs are of no use to you whatsoever. You're not inconvenienced at all.

And actually there is a push for the treatment of self inflicted illnesses (smoking, alcohol, obesity) to be prioritised lower by the nhs which I agree with. With all these arguments yes where do you draw the line but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[SanityClause]

I would like to know what objections people have to donation. Obviously, there are those whose organs are not suitable for donation. That may well be the case for many who would actually agree to donate their organs.

But I don't really understand why people would object. I don't agree with an opt out system (although I do find it bizarre that a dead person has more bodily autonomy than a pregnant woman in England). But, I would be interested to know what reasons people have for refusing. I'm not demanding answers, just to be clear. People can obviously choose to say or withhold what they want on an Internet forum.

[Basicbrown]

When you're dead your organs are of no use to you whatsoever. You're not inconvenienced at all

Well you are kept 'alive' for 18 hours on a life support machine in intensive care while they match your organs to potential recipients. Then they take you off it, wait for you to die. If you take too long to die it is all in vain. They then take the organs out and decide if they are usable, again no guarantees.

I speak from recent experience of going through it as a relative when dm died. She wasnt brain dead, I think the process is slightly different if you are. It truly was the worst 24 hours of my life.

It was the right thing to do, I hope that the recipients are doing well. We prayed for them at her funeral, I think about them sometimes. It isn't a comfort as such because I dont know if they are well or not. I would do it again, I still carry a donor card but having been through it changed my perspective. I would never judge a relative for saying no, or someone for not wanting to donate.

[ShiroiKoibito]

no one has actually said why they don't want to donate after death?

religious reasons? I'm not religious, so I can't comment on that, but I (unintentionally goady) will just go past that
however, 'I feel a bit icky about it' isn't a reason for not being prepared to donate. what are the reasons for not wanting to?

I would donate after death because I believe it's the right thing to do, I believe that it has the opportunity to improve or save someone's life.

[JassyRadlett]

And the thought that people wish other people, including children, dead if they were to ever face a life-limiting condition based on the fact that they may or may not have signed up to the hypothetical possibility of one day being in a position to donate their organs says far more about those judging than those not on the register.

No one has said that, from my reading of the thread. What some posters have said is that if people are willing to accept organs for themselves or their loved ones/children, but are not willing to donate (medical etc reasons aside) then the position is in the views of those posters morally reprehensible or hypocritical.

Shielding children from the realities of life and death, or treating death as a taboo subject, can be hugely problematic. Because children could come up against the reality of death at any time, and if they do not understand it, it can be incredibly difficult.

My brother died when I was six. My parents were in no state at that time to have open, straightforward conversations with me about the realities of death. Fortunately as a family we are open about talking about death (wills, wishes, organ donation) etc without squeamishness and as such even at that age I had a basic understanding of what death meant. It was a horrible time but I am immensely grateful to my parents that I had the basic understanding to process it. I have a very sensitive DS, who is nearly five. We have tried to treat death and discussions of it in a similar way with him, despite DH's family having a very different approach.

I had a friend who also had a close family member die when she was a young child. She grew up on a farm where animals were 'put out of their misery' if old and unwell as the best thing for them. When her family member died, she had lots of people saying to her that it was for the best, that the person was suffering too much and they were better off not having to suffer any more. She says that for years she thought her dad had put the family member down as he did with injured or ill farm animals, because of the identical language being used. And no one had ever talked to her about human death, or the death of this family member, in a straightforward way.

[Basicbrown]

No one has said that, from my reading of the thread. What some posters have said is that if people are willing to accept organs for themselves or their loved ones/children, but are not willing to donate (medical etc reasons aside) then the position is in the views of those posters morally reprehensible or hypocritical.

But organ donation from dead people isn't the answer long term is it? In 50 years time I suspect that when I tell the story (if I am still around) I told above young people will be did they really used to do that? By then it will probably be possible to grow them in the labfrom stem cells removing issues of rejection.

Remember only a tiny proportion of deaths each year are able to donate anyway, whether they want to or not.

I don't care whether the people who had dm's kidneys are on the register or not. It has no relevance at all to the situation.