Donor consent law is being changed...

[flirtygirl]

Aibu to have expected more information before they changes the law, did they do a consultation? I feel miffed that it is now going to be deemed consent and you have to opt out.

But what if the system is down or the opt out which is digital and online, did not get stored properly? What about when you move and change address? Do you have to tell every medical practitioner manually as well?

There is no info it seems on what this will mean. If you have info or any helpful links please let me know, thanks

I am weirdly on the fence about this. I have no issue with my organs being taken, and won't be opting out, but I do understand people feeling a bit weird about it, and thinking it's a bit '1984' with the state taking control.

I know a few people who are refusing to do it, and WILL be opting out, and a couple of them are scared that they will be in a situation where they have an illness or accident that means they could live if they had the right treatment. But someone more important comes along (or 25-35 years younger with many years of work and paying taxes in them,) and they will be saved over them, and their organs will be harvested.

A ridiculous fear? Or could it happen? I don't know, but something just doesn't sit right with me about all of this. I also think spitting venom and vitriol at people who want to opt out, with 'I hope YOOOOOOU never need an organ then' is not helpful.

Do you seriously think everyone who has had an organ transplant, has previously given an organ? No. They haven't. And many of them would not have been on the organ donor list either. So the guilt-tripping and spiteful comments need to stop.

If people genuinely don't want to be an organ donor, they must have pretty good reasons, and their decision should be respected. As has been said, an organ is a GIFT, not a right. So people need to step off their high horse.

I think if you opt out, it is opting out if donation altogether, including donation to medical science. The donation process asks NOK what to do with individual organs, including donating them to science. It is after consenting to donation that you would get to decide whether it goes to medical science or an individual on the transplant list.

There have been some horrible, reactionary posts on this thread. And loads if highly dignified ones. On the whole, I am against presumed consent but I did like the idea of the more nuanced system a PP (trees?) suggested. I am against the idea because I don't think the evidence is good that it will increase donation. However a register for opt in AND opt out, which you have to fill in at certain key parts of ypur life eg when registering to vote, entering hospital, getting a driving license might work to ensure a sort of overwhelming sense of where a person was with all this.

The current thing of requiring NOK to make the decision in the circumstances they have to make it is rubbish. I was in loved in that decision for my Dad, and we are a family unhindered by for example metaphysics or squeamishness. It was still an effing brutal decision to make and a
I agree with PP that had we had to make it under the spectre of presumed consent, we might have stuck our heels in a bit.

For me, our aim should be to increase donations and I don't think this would, I think it will negatively affect them

Please only opt out if you have specific instructions not to waste somebody else’s organs on you if you need them.

Celfish Sunts

For all those people saying that if you wouldn't donate an organ you shouldn't receive one, that is just silly. Thankfully, medical treatment is based on needs, not morals.

it's not about morals, it's that if you had to opt in to receive an organ more people would opt in (or not opt out anyway).

They'd still be morally dubious (only doing it for the organs) but everyone would be better off.

sparklyboots you are right many of those who have received an organ will nit have been in the register. But the big big difference is none of them would have said no one is having one of mine. If you opt out of giving you should automatically be opted out of receiving so someone more worthy, in terms of being a more decent person, should get it.

You can say cunt on here sausageandegg

I think the thing that feels wrong with this is the fact that the state is imposing it, as it does so many things, in a way that feels high-handed.
And yes I can imagine targets and abuse because of them, just because I don't trust the state to run anything right these days.
I think it would have been better if it had been made a legal requirement to state your wishes either way, maybe at the same time as the census or something. Or maybe if they had brought in ID cards they could have added a requirement on there. Or they could add it as a requirement to official documents like driving licences and passports. And you should be able to exempt specific organs. I think with thought there could have been a slightly better way.
It's probably not too relevant to me as I have chronic illness problems which may well make me unsuitable anyway but I just hate it when the state is heavy handed.

@Shortandsweet96

It's my choice. Further, I'm not afraid of death heck, we all will go at sometime. I dont think having more time with the children is a good enough reason for prolonging life. No- I have no interest in receiving anybody's organs. I'm not for blood transfusions either- yes have had the misfortune of needing but survived quite fine with the alternative.

People get so heated on forums- the world is made of all sorts keyboard warriors will not change that.

it's not about morals, it's that if you had to opt in to receive an organ more people would opt in (or not opt out anyway). no they wouldn’t. Reality is that most people don’t think they’ll ever need an organ just as most people don’t think that they’ll ever be in a position to donate.

And to those who say that it’s just a body, you’re dead, you won’t know etc etc etc, does anyone remember the Alderhey hospital scandal where hundreds of children’s organs were retained without their parents’ consent? Do people think that that was perfectly ok given that those children had already died? Because although those organs weren’t retained for donation purposes, does it really matter if the children were dead anyway? I can’t see anyone arguing that that was somehow not grossly wrong.

One assumes pain receptors cease to function at point of brain death

I thought it was said that donation can now take place after cardiac death rather than brain death?

I'm even less of a medic than I am a lawyer, but if the heart's stopped but the brain is still functioning - even if poorly - isn't there still a chance of pain being felt?

Unless of course there's a mandatory time limit before harvesting begins to allow for the brain to die, but if that's the case why not just say it's "after brain death" in every case?

Seniorcitizen1

Its exactly the same thing as the computer simulations do not work as they don't have the correct data.

They don't have the correct data because the original tests which used cadavers were stopped because people -when they found out- stopped the tests as they were against using the cadavers of women and children.

But it could save millions of lives.

But once I am dead my body is no use to me so I would he ok with this.

Thanks for being the only person to reply.

Personally I don’t have a problem with the opt-out system. Someone mentioned earlier that presumed consent goes against all other medical ethics, but it is common in medical situations as far as I’m aware?
In terms of resuscitation, if someone has an accident and is unconscious and needs surgery, they will not faff about with NoK, they will just operate.

I really dislike the idea that NoK can override consent, so I think that dismantles the argument that the ‘state’ owns our bodies, when they couldn’t even be guaranteed them when we had specifically said they could!
I think this law needs to be changed to be honest , I would be welcoming of an opt in or out system at age 18, one way or the other with Noone being able to override that

As for the people hurling personal insults and claiming that the right to receive should be based on the (hypothetical) commitment to give, why do you believe that this is the only time where this should be the case?

Let’s look at a different scenario. Let’s say that you have IVF on the NHS, you have treatment and produce eggs which result in ten embryos. You have one put back leaving nine embryos. Shouldn’t it be argued then that you should donate those embryos to couples who do not have the ability to have their own biological children and that if you say no then you shouldn’t be entitled to treatment? After all, an embryo is just a cell, no?

Or as I stated up-thread, you’re on benefits and have never worked. As a result you’ve never paid tax and national insurance and have therefore never contributed to the NHS. Why should you be entitled to receive life saving treatment then? Or should it be that the more tax you pay the greater service you are entitled to? It’s no different is it? Apart from the fact that it’s very easy to sit and make judgements on situations when you’re never likely to be in them. It’s quite easy to wish someone dead (and let’s be honest here, by saying people shouldn’t be eligible for donated organs you are wishing them dead) when it’s not you or one of yours you’re wishing death for.

Whereas most of us could fall on bad luck. Smoking caused you to have a heart attack? Sorry, no treatment, in fact by declaring yourself a smoker you should be removed from any list which allows you treatment for lung or heart disease. Similarly if your BMI is above a certain number or your weight is high you shouldn’t be entitled to treatment for heart disease. Eat too much sugar? No entitlement to insulin. The reality is that around 65% of cancers are preventable with lifestyle choices, therefore we could cure the people whose cancer is purely a matter of bad luck rather than those who say, didn’t go for their last routine sneer, or mamogram, or who didn’t have the HPV jab. If you’re a smoker then sorry, no treatment for any kind of cancer. Do you have a mobile phone? Well that probably contributed, so nope, off the list.

Every single one of us will have at one point done something which someone else could frown upon in medical terms as it could cause medical conditions. But it’s far easier to have a pop at those whose shoes you never imagine yourself in. After all, on the whole organ donation is something which happens to other people so you don’t have to actually think of it as potentially being one of your children you are hoping will die even if they would never have the opportunity to donate anyway.

NoCauseRebel, I disagree with people who opt out being denied transplants but the difference between your myriad of scenarios is that all of them are based upon choices made as to how a person wishes to live their life. From the point of view of the donor, their experiences are completely unchanged whether they opt to donate or not since they're not going to be experiencing anything once they pass on.

Just checking by the way - those of you in the every organ possible must be donated to SAVE LIVES do understand that:

A) not every transplant op is successful, plenty of organs will never work
B) plenty of recipients will suffer complex complications and all have to take life long meds. How 'well' they are varies hugely.
C) no transplant is a CURE. It's another form of treatment which can be highly effective but it doesn't turn the clock back. No transplant recipient will have a 'normal' life expectancy though many will live, long 'normal' lives.
D) the transplant meds have side effects including a higher incidence of cancer.

But they’re going to be experiencing something if they go into heart or liver or kidney failure, aren’t they? In the same way that if you’re a smoker it could be understood at the outset that if you choose to smoke then you are not eligible for any treatment on the NHS and therefore your decision to start smoking should be taken based on the possibility that you might become ill as a result in say, 30 years time.

It’s no different. Yes, harvesting of organs happens after death, but having a transplant doesn’t. So you would have the choice to remain on the donor register just as you have the choice to start smoking or drinking, as those risks are known before you start, they don’t come as a surprise.

But they’re going to be experiencing something if they go into heart or liver or kidney failure, aren’t they?

Terribly sorry if the point wasn't laid out sufficiently clearly. Simply put, a person who chooses to donate doesn't have their ability to live their life as they see fit impacted in any way while being forced to not smoke, drink or engage in other dangerous activities in exchange for being eligible to receive a donation does.

Again, I don't agree with the concept of limiting organ transplants to donors but there does seem to be a clear difference in the impact on one's ability to live their life for your scenarios compared to being a donor.

Thanks to this thread I went on the website and opted out. I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that the state owns people's bodies after death unless they explicitly say otherwise, and I don't think 'it saves lives' is sufficient justification at all. It's just emotive rhetoric. The donation rate in Wales hasn't increased since they brought in this law - no more lives saved than before.

I donate blood regularly, if that counts as evidence against my Terrible Selfish Cuntiness.

NorthernLurker, the same could be said of many medications but we still give those because the evidence suggests that, on average, it will improve the quality and/or duration of life. Any medicine or treatment that claims to have no side effects probably doesn't have any effects at all.

Regarding a man receiving my uterus, I don't see it as being any more of a potential issue than a woman using the new lease on life granted by whichever of my organs she receives to harm someone. It would be like refusing to give CPR to someone experiencing a cardiac arrest until I were sure they weren't guilty of some horrible crime.

I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that the state owns people's bodies after death

The 'state' will also attempt to resuscitate you if you're unconscious and try to prevent you from committing suicide if you attempt it because the majority of people want to live so it's presumed that you share that sentiment, even if you're unable to express it. This isn't about ownership, it's about ensuring the majority of people's wishes are respected in a way that is positively beneficial for the population while still allowing those with the prescience to object to have their wishes respected too. During the public consultation, around 80% of people surveyed were perfectly happy with organ donation.

Although on average, people who receive a donated organ are likely to need more than one as most organs will be rejected at some point. The survival rate is calculated as five years iyswim, much like cancer survival rates.

Interestingly I have watched two separate programmes/news articles about organ donation and both sold organ donation as life-savers, which in many cases, they are. However, in the first instance the woman involved was born with only half a heart, they showed the operation in detail to remove this heart and to insert the donated one, and when they took her off bypass the heart stopped beating. She went into ICU and in the end it turned out her previously weak heart had caused too much damage to all her other organs for the heart to work adequately and she died.

The other one was the young student living with an artificial heart. The news article was entitled something like “the girl with heart in a rucksack.” Anyway she’d just been reported to have been put on the transplant list after a year in remission. A heart came up fairly quickly for her, and she died after surgery.

When you go into hospital for a transplant you are told to ensure that your affairs are in order as the risk of death is high. It is only hoped that you will survive, never assumed. So while transplant is a life-changer for many, it is a high risk surgery with a high risk of death in the first year especially.

Do you have a link to the website ClaraMatilda please?

Many thanks

SilverySurfer Sure! The opt-out form is here: www.organdonation.nhs.uk/register-to-donate/refuse-to-donate/refuse-donation-form/

I can’t see the need for donated organs to be that great that it is necessary for everyone to assume consent for retrieval. Sorry I just don’t see why this is necessary.

NoCauseRebel, every person who's had a transplant will have had those risks explained to them and made the choice that they would rather take them on. Thinking of the people I've lost over the years, I would exchange a great deal to have an average of 5 extra years with them.