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

I'm convinced doctors withdraw treatment too early in a lot of cases, particularly for the elderly

Yes, and not just life-saving treatment, but also life-enhancing, such as leaving them in bed for weeks, when prompt physio might have go them mobile again. But that's for another thread. Not that I think they'd take organs from an elderly person.

berlinbabylon I get the impression that some of the body snatchers on here would be in favour of that if they deemed the "donor" unworthy. They're scarily evangelical about imposing their will on others and treating people like meat.

To paraphrase Tina Turner, what's their human rights record got to do with it?

Because you brought up that you believe the UK should pattern its organ donation policy on a country whose policy ties its transplant policy an to individuals' personal decision regarding their own body, which is a moral decision; this, unsurprisingly, follows their general line on the rights of human beings, which is rather shit, although you seem to have no problem with it . I'm glad in the UK this is not so and completely disagree with medical treatment being contingent on personal belief and morality (and decisions thereof) because therein lies, indeed, less and less regard for human rights.

I'm not sure the organs of elderly people are of much use for transplantation, hence the crude comments mentioned earlier about reductions in RTAs impacting on the number of donor organs.

Well, I'm relieved it's just a shit argument about something completely irrelevant.

For a second there I thought it was just a Corbyn-style anti-Israel thing.

This me being a "vulture", and "scarily evangelical" about "treating people like meat":

"Of course. It's your body, your choice."

I think it's the bit about describing the I'll-happily-take-an-organ-but-will-opt-out-of-giving-one brigade as "anti-social" that gets the heckles up. But, honestly, if that isn't anti-social, what the heck is???

But, honestly, if that isn't anti-social, what the heck is???

I could think of 101 things that are more "anti-social" including basing healthcare on supposed merit.

And don't selectively quote from your posts to make yourself look better. Of course. It's your body, your choice."

There was so much more to your post than that. Also this may hurt your fragile ego but I'm not just talking about you. You aren't the only poster on this thread that I disagree with.

Straight question:

If someone will happily receive an organ but opts out of being a donor, is that anti-social? Yes or No?

No.

That right there is where our views depart.

An opt out system, but when people choose to opt out (or confirm 'in') they have to tick one of three boxes:
A) I will not donate any organs, and do not want to receive any donor organs for myself.
B) I will not donate any organs, but I want to receive a donor organ should I ever need one.
C) I confirm I wish to be an organ donor, and that I want to receive a donor organ should I ever need one.

If that was the case I would like to see option D where you could specify which organs you are willing to donate rather than a blanket 'I will donate anything'.

I think our views departed a few hundred posts ago.

Ha ha. I think it's interesting to pin-point why we disagree, though.

Must admit I'd have guessed you were more likely to say "yes, it is anti-social, but it's a person's right to be anti-social if they want", rather than differ on whether it is anti-social at all.

As a thought experiment. I wonder would someone who refuses to donate organs accept a transplanted heart to save their own life but then insist when they die, that said heart is incinerated rather than pass it on and save someone else's life? well, given that a heart which has already been transplanted once would not be able to be donated a second time the argument is entirely irrelevant.

And to the posters saying that if there were two recipients then the organ should go to the one who is on the list, whenever a donated organ comes up there are two potential recipients who are carefully matched and examined to ensure that the organ goes to the one who is the best match. So actually, if you start prioritising people on the list over people not on the list you would be increasing the chances of the transplant being unsuccessful.

I find it more tedious than interesting personally.

Also if you're so inclined you could describe almost everything we do as anti-social considering the impact of our daily lives and choices on the planet, wildlife and other people.

Yes, it's completely irrelevant to point out that someone thinks the UK should pattern a policy on bodily autonomy on a place that doesn't have much regard for human rights . But hey, it won't happen anyhow because we already have a policy and an individual can opt out if it if you please and it has no bearing on medical treatment he/she may receive at a later date, if ever.

But that's another thread.

Yes, definitely.

Are you a member of Momentum, eminencegrise?

@MrsBethel Don't waste your breath/typing on that one. The damage that was done during the hell of the past year will not be undone quickly. For some people nothing could possibly be as evil as the world's only Jewish state.

Are you a member of Momentum, eminencegrise?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or what that is.

Fair enough.

For some people nothing could possibly be as evil as the world's only Jewish state.

Eh? Dear god, some people will jump to any conclusion to support their strawman-come-Wickerman. I have no religion, I guess you could say I am an apathetic agnostic at the most, which is no more relevant to anything than your above assertion.

Thinking on this a bit more, the reason I think taking-but-not-giving is anti-social is because society only works if people give. If everyone does their bit, society is just a little bit better for everyone.

But what if organ donation isn't about society at all? No give and take. It's just a completely isolated, magical gift, with nothing expected in return. I can see some people would wish to look at it that way, and would want to actively get a donor card, with nothing expected in return, to make this magical gift possible.

I can see that an 'opt out' system would take the shine off this somewhat for them. But if they then opt out, are they not putting their own feelings about whether something feels 'special enough' for them potentially above someone else's life? Is that right?