Opting out of organ donation

[ringme]

So the law has changed and this spring the NHS will consider you to be an organ donor automatically if you don’t opt out. I haven’t had a chance to really consider this all yet, WIBU to opt out at this stage until I have time to think about it or is that a selfish move given that 408 people died last year waiting for a donor?

What will you be doing?

www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/faq/what-is-the-opt-out-system

This is a true story.
A person was in a RTA. Very badly injured. Put on life support. Various tests done to detect brain stem activity etc.
Person was an organ donor. Family were asked and agreed.
Person was due to go to 'surgery' to have organs removed.
Person twitched. Was minimal activity. More tests minimal brain stem activity.
The person was not dead. They are alive now with only minimal lasting injuries. Blind in one eye & poor short term memory
I am just saying....
Not always clear cut, this concerns me & I am no longer sure what to do.

How did you hear that “true story”?

eminencegrise I know what you mean.

It's been so long for me that my children feel like fiction now, nobody else talks about them anymore

I'd change the system further. If you opt out of donating your own organs, then you become 'second priority' if you ever need one. (ie the organ won't be binned/wasted if only you need it, but if someone else needs it and they've never opted out, then tough luck).

Of course I respect a person's right to opt out of the system. We're not property of the state!

But those people who do not want to donate their organs, but who would happily receive one for themselves? Hopefully they respect my right to think they are both a 'hypocrite' and an 'arsehole'.

But those people who do not want to donate their organs, but who would happily receive one for themselves? Hopefully they respect my right to think they are both a 'hypocrite' and an 'arsehole'.

It's interesting that this is so important to many.

Hopefully they respect my right to think they are both a 'hypocrite' and an 'arsehole'.

I don't think they'd care any more than arseholes and hypocrites like Boris Johnson and IDS do.

Yes, Difficult, it all feels so surreal, and yet not.

But those people who do not want to donate their organs, but who would happily receive one for themselves? Hopefully they respect my right to think they are both a 'hypocrite' and an 'arsehole'

What about someone like me who only wants to donate certain organs? Could I only receive what I was prepared to donate, e.g. I could have a heart transplant but not a tissue transplant?

I don't donate blood either (at the suggestion of the blood service as my needle phobia is so bad) so does that mean I can't have a blood transfusion?

But those people who do not want to donate their organs, but who would happily receive one for themselves? Hopefully they respect my right to think they are both a 'hypocrite' and an 'arsehole'.

*It's interesting that this is so important to many.

• it is absolutely especially as donation is purely a hypothetical. Any one of us can say that we would do x or y in a particular situation when that reality isn’t upon us. Anyone can judge someone’s potential intention to do something or not to, but in truth it’s merely a thought. The vast, vast majority of those people who say they wouldn’t donate organs are irrelevant because they will never be likely to die in the circumstances meaning that donation is a possibility for them anyway.

What about someone like me who only wants to donate certain organs? Could I only receive what I was prepared to donate, e.g. I could have a heart transplant but not a tissue transplant?

Or if you haven't donated blood you won't get any.

I wonder if people who have lost a limb to cancer or suffered a horrendous facial disfigurement would feel the same. tbh I don’t think there’s a one size fits all answer on that one. Often people do say “you wouldn’t feel like that if insert possibility>” whereas people do in fact have differing views on the same point.

E.g. re fertility treatment, I know that some people have certain views on what should/shouldn’t be done and others views are different. Even where both parties have been through the same experiences.

But IIRC there was a man who had a hand transplant and was so deeply traumatised by it that he had the hand removed.

I am fairly certain that if I lost a hand or was facially disfigured I wouldn’t want someone else’s hand. There are other medical options which I would prefer.

Or if you haven't donated blood you won't get any.

How much blood do you need to donate to receive them? Usually once you’ve had a transfusion you can’t donate any more. Do you have to build up a reserve?

What about people who can’t donate because they’re had risky sex, or a tattoo? Should they be allowed a transfusion? It was their choice to do those things.

I am deeply uncomfortable with receiving medical treatment being linked to what should be altruistic donations.

It's interesting that this is so important to many.

It's what makes a society. Without donors they are no organs to receive.

I'm a donor either way because regardless of what happens to me, I care about the wellbeing of others. But not everyone is like that. Some people literally only care about themselves.

The current system relies on people being nice and decent - not 'arseholes'. And most aren't.
But if you tweak the system so it has an element of 'reaping what you sow' built into it, so that even vile selfish people will cooperate, it will simply work a bit better.

Whenever an 'opt out' system was discussed, you always got some idiots who say "I'll opt out on principle, because it should be my decision, not the state's" etc, etc. Essentially they are saying they'll opt out purely for spite. Well, if that meant they became '2nd priority' to receive an organ, maybe they wouldn't be so stupid, thoughtless or childish?

I don't like the idea of a 'presumed consent' system and I've opted out. Having read about the procedure for donation, I don't want it to happen to me.

It's interesting how the stance on donation veers from 'it's a wonderful gift to give someone' to 'you're a selfish arsehole if you wouldn't donate.' I worry that the new system is a slide towards the latter. It can't be both a gift and a moral obligation at once.

I donate blood regularly. Should people who don't donate blood be ineligible to receive blood if they need it? (Not the people who aren't eligible to donate, just those who can't be bothered, or are scared of needles, or choose not to for whatever other reason.)

I don't donate blood either (at the suggestion of the blood service as my needle phobia is so bad) so does that mean I can't have a blood transfusion?
a) Unlike organs we normally have enough blood for everyone who needs it.
b) There would likely be exemptions for people unable to participate (for reasons beyond their control) as there for other things in life.

But I am curious, what would you do if you needed a transfusion, would you refuse one because of your phobia or would you just put up with it?

Or if you haven't donated blood you won't get any.

Well that's me and all the other women who aren't heavy enough to donate fucked.

It's interesting how the stance on donation veers from 'it's a wonderful gift to give someone' to 'you're a selfish arsehole if you wouldn't donate.' I worry that the new system is a slide towards the latter. It can't be both a gift and a moral obligation at once.

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet! Plenty of these threads have even moved on from that to likening those who don't donate to murderers. So much for gifting.

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet! Plenty of these threads have even moved on from that to likening those who don't donate to murderers. So much for gifting.

Not surprising given people compare others to genocidal dictators all over the internet at the drop of a hat.

I do find it interesting that so many have such black and white world views despite clearly not having considered the ethics of it all though.

My own objections to reproductive organs ever being in the picture are related to the idea of pressure being put on poor women to donate organs while they're alive, in the same way they are already pressured into surrogacy (which I also have ethical objections to). I'm also bothered by the ethics of kidney donation from living donors for similar reasons.

These are complex areas and just shouting 'selfish arsehole' at people isn't very useful.

Hmm, weighing the following on the scales:

"how it makes me feel if some other people either see what I do as either a 'wonderful gift' or as a moral obligation'"

vs

"the possibility of saving a life"

Is this really a difficult one to weigh up?

MrsBethel Likewise I'm sure you and the rest of the vulture brigade are happy for me to think of you all as insufferable arseholes who shouldn't be put in charge of any task more taxing than that of naming a bloody goldfish. You clearly don't give a shit about the families of possible donors and seem to think healthcare should be dispensed based on how worthy someone supposedly is according to some ridiculous hypothetical question that no one can truly answer until they find themselves in that situation. Healthcare should never become a meritocracy and people who think it should scare me far more than any number of people who choose to opt out.

ChangeInTime

It's all about saving the most lives, and doing the most good.

That's why 'opt out' is better than 'opt in'. You save more lives.

And that's why I favour an Israeli style 'opt out' system. Hardly anyone would opt out, because they will pause to think of the potential impact on them. And this is required precisely because many people don't pause for thought about the potential impact of their decision on others. It will save more lives.

I get your "logic". I don't agree with it. Humans should never be seen as just a collection of spare parts living or dead, and the families and wishes of the deceased matter too. Not to mention the consequences of making healthcare into a meritocracy. I find that very slippery slope far more chilling than organs going to "waste".

That's why 'opt out' is better than 'opt in'. You save more lives.

As Barrakerr and others have pointed out there really isn't much evidence that this is the case, with some evidence suggesting the opposite is likely.

Also, what WeeSleekit said.

Personally, I don't like the idea of families being put on the spot at all.

If it's an adult who has died, whatever the system, they've either opted in, or opted out, or not. Just do what they wanted. If it was an adult relative of mine who died, I wouldn't want to be asked. And if it were me who could be a possible donor, I definitely wouldn't want anyone overriding my wishes.

None of these systems apply to children. Children are too young to opt out or opt in, or anything. It's just the family's decision. Can't imagine how I'd feel.

That's why 'opt out' is better than 'opt in'. You save more lives. there is evidence to suggest that this is not the case, and that more donors are lost because people actively opt out

But I’m interested in the stance of those who feel that those who potentially wouldn’t donate are selfish arseholes. Especially given they likely will never be in a position to donate.

You have two kidneys don’t you? And two liver lobes? So actually, you could save two lives now and the difference between you and the hypothetical donor is that you can now donate, whereas they are likely never going to be able to.

So, given you’re already alive and there are lives that need saving, surely not putting yourself forward as a kidney/liver donor is being a selfish arsehole? After all, you’re in a position to give someone the potential of a life, and you’re not taking it. And you don’t need those organs after all. You can function perfectly well with one kidney, and the liver regenerates so what are you waiting for?

Oh, perhaps it’s because you actually could donate whereas you’re never likely going to die in a way which would make you eligible.