What do you think about the new organ donation law? (Opt out)

[Nameitychangity]

Not sure if this across the whole NHS but the leaflet received today is from NHS Scotland.
The organ donation law is changing on 26th March, we will now have an 'opt out' system which means that if you do not specifically register yourself as NOT wanting to donate your organs and tissue after death, then the law will allow your body to be used for organ and tissue transplantation.
What do you think? I'm already an organ donor so it doesn't change things for me personally but it does leave me slightly uncomfortable and gives me the feeling that you do not have control over your own body after death, in fact the state 'owns' it unless you specifically make an effort to declare otherwise. Is this right?
Leaflet also states "if you do nothing it will also mean you agree to certain medical tests and procedures that may be carried out before your death as part of the donation process".
What do you think of an 'opt out' system? Is it fair enough that if you don't register that your body can be used after death?
YABU - I'm dead, they can do whatever they want with my body and I'm happy for my organs and tissue to be used
YANBU - the system should remain opt in and 'opt out' systems are not right

I will opt out because my husband is so set against it always has been but if he goes first my children can do what they think is right at the time .a lot of people dont like the thought because you are technically still alive even although brain dead you are taken to theatre still on ventilator and still warm and next time your relatives see you you are a cold corpse and some folk cant take that .no one has the right to tell you you should be stripped of your organs eyes and whatever .just because the government say so .it should be opt in it's a personal choice.

I think it's fantastic. If you feel that strongly then people will opt out and have full freedom too. It's more often a case of people not getting round to signing up/it being on their mind, than not wanting to be on the register so I think it's a system that works well. Also statistically you are more likely to need an organ transplant than give one.

"Because they are not just bits of flesh to be used as if they were a nut or a bolt or a spare washer. They were part of a living breathing person, who was loved by someone."

If someone buys into that woo, they're free to opt-out. The rest of us can benefit from the medical miracles that are possible with the, yes, 'spare parts' from a donor.

@Brefugee

Yep! Hence why daft comments like 'Bodily autonomy should end at death' are utterly ridiculous and dangerous.

You don't have complete bodily autonomy when alive if you're a woman anyway, even though abortion is pretty much effectively on demand in the UK, the law actually says otherwise.

Administering a register of people needing transplants who are not themselves prepared to be organ donors is pretty easy, i can see pros and cons of organ donation but i don't think this is a huge hurdle.

Tattooing "i am an organ donor" on your chest won't, in the face of your NOK saying "nope" will not override their wishes. The wishes of the living do take precedence here, for some bizarre reason.

People who were previously donors and have now opted out slow handclap. My hope is that the register of potential organ donors has now increased exponentially anyway, and that more people on the transplant list get at least a few years of extra, meaningful life out of this.

There are still a lot of discussions to be had about organ donation. Not least about when and who decides, for eg, about ending life-support and who can override a potential organ donor's wishes.

IMO the only reason this has been brought in is to make it easier for medical staff to approach next of kin when someone dies, nothing more, nothing less.

It is a basic principle of healthcare that you treat people according to their need, full stop. It doesn't matter if they were skydiving, or joyriding in a care, or are a child abuser, or mentally ill, or anything else.

What you are suggesting would be a deep repudiation of that principle and it would affect the way we think of all healthcare. To prove a point about something that would rarely even come up.

As for the legislation - there is no real evidence that it does increase organ donation. Not unless you make sure people are thinking about it and communicating their desires ahead of time. You don't need the legislation to do that however, it works just as well without it.

So what's the point if it's not really about increasing organ donation?

@SimonJT

Your body is just a bag of flesh, it isn’t any different to a raw chicken in a supermarket.

I think those who refuse to give their organs are very selfish. I’m always amazed by people who believe weird myths around organ donation, my mother genuinely believed if you were a donar and you ended up in ICU you wouldn’t be treated so they could use your organs. That is the level of stupidity we are dealing with with some people.

Who says that's what it is?

There are cultures that don't make the kind of mind/body or brain/body distinction which you are assuming is true and obvious. They see them as a single entity, and you are your body - there is no sense in which a body is not you.

Organ donation does not mean handing over your organs when you are well and truly dead, it involves removing living organs from a living (if artificially sustained) body. If you believe "you" reside in the brain or mind in some way, the idea of brain death means you may see that as reasonable. If you do not believe that, you may not.

Both of those positions are positions of belief. They are not scientific views where anyone can say we have evidence for one or the other.

As for myths around organ donation: as far as I know you are correct, these things don't happen. But part of the reason they don't happen is that we have a strong medical culture that respects the human body as something more than a collection of parts - the need for positive consent is part of that culture. It's very naive to think that could never change - all you need to do is read a bit of history to see that human beings have often had culturally normative beliefs that such things were ok. Even within my lifetime it's possible to see people's attitudes to death and life change significantly in response to new laws around things like euthanasia.

Too much confidence in human beings continuing to collectively choose well is unwise.

@CurlyReds

I opted out because I don’t want my reproductive system donated. I don’t like the idea of it. And weirdly I don’t like the idea of my eyes being donated either. So I opted out to allow my family to donate only the parts I find acceptable.

But you could have opted in and just had your family say no to your choice cuts

"If you believe "you" reside in the brain or mind in some way, the idea of brain death means you may see that as reasonable. If you do not believe that, you may not.

Both of those positions are positions of belief. They are not scientific views where anyone can say we have evidence for one or the other."

No, one is an absolute position of belief in a disproven idea.

The other is scientific fact, you even acknowledge this with brain death.

We know you can cut out any part of a person other than their brain and they are still that person, cut/damage that brain and they either die or become a different person.

You cannot put the silly notion you live in your heart or eyes on the same level as the proven fact the consciousness is a function of the brain.

@Sapho47

"If you believe "you" reside in the brain or mind in some way, the idea of brain death means you may see that as reasonable. If you do not believe that, you may not.

Both of those positions are positions of belief. They are not scientific views where anyone can say we have evidence for one or the other."

No, one is an absolute position of belief in a disproven idea.

The other is scientific fact, you even acknowledge this with brain death.

We know you can cut out any part of a person other than their brain and they are still that person, cut/damage that brain and they either die or become a different person.

You cannot put the silly notion you live in your heart or eyes on the same level as the proven fact the consciousness is a function of the brain.

I didn't mention the word consciousness, as it happens. Is your consciousness "you"? That's not a scientific question. Your belief that it is comes from a set of ideas that are so basic in your understanding of yourself and what you are that you don't even recognise it as a belief. It underlies much modern western secular culture, but it is not at all the only way to think about it.

But you are wrong in any case that consciousness simply resides in the brain. The brain/body divide is not nearly so complete. This is why the idea that you could download consciousness into a computer that you see in sci-fi and from some futurists is so off the mark - your consciousness very much inhabits your body which is fully integrated with your brain, and that is a scientific position rather than supposition or even a philosophical position.

The arrogance of a lot of modern western people in thinking they have no belief structure that underpins their views on these questions, and it's all just evidential, is kind of amazing.

This is where I might get the woke on my side - to respect other cultures and religions.... anyway we are all opted in and thus I opted out. I certainly don't mind never getting a donated organ if they wanted to make that a rule too.

They were part of a living breathing person, who was loved by someone

If someone buys into that woo, they're free to opt-out

Isn't that rather rude? More to the point, isn't it exactly the sort of thing that will put some people off?
As said, despite reservations about this latest measure I'm still on the register, but I'm not sure that suggesting folk are stupid for feeling the way they do is the way to go

But you are wrong in any case that consciousness simply resides in the brain. The brain/body divide is not nearly so complete. This is why the idea that you could download consciousness into a computer that you see in sci-fi and from some futurists is so off the mark - your consciousness very much inhabits your body which is fully integrated with your brain, and that is a scientific position rather than supposition or even a philosophical position.

That sounds very interesting indeed- could you point me in the direction of the research suggesting this, I'd genuinely like to read it. For me it sounds impossible, but maybe I just don't understand what you're arguing? Because to think that consciousness resides within the rest of my body in the way it does in my brain is so odd for me.

Why would you want to withhold your organs being of such a huge benefit to someone else when you’re dead?
When you’re dead it would be an amazing life changing gift to someone else.

@unmarkedbythat

But you are wrong in any case that consciousness simply resides in the brain. The brain/body divide is not nearly so complete. This is why the idea that you could download consciousness into a computer that you see in sci-fi and from some futurists is so off the mark - your consciousness very much inhabits your body which is fully integrated with your brain, and that is a scientific position rather than supposition or even a philosophical position.

That sounds very interesting indeed- could you point me in the direction of the research suggesting this, I'd genuinely like to read it. For me it sounds impossible, but maybe I just don't understand what you're arguing? Because to think that consciousness resides within the rest of my body in the way it does in my brain is so odd for me.

Here's an article on it.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-feelings-the-second-brain-in-our-gastrointestinal-systems-excerpt/

I've read that before. I thought there would be more to the argument than that tbh. Disappointing.

And people who opt out for whatever reason should automatically not be eligible for any transplanted organs.

Any organs @GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER?

This is a hypothetical situation but could happen one day - why should a woman who doesn't want to donate her reproductive organs or someone who doesn't want to donate their hands be denied a heart, lung or kidney? What about someone who doesn't want to donate their corneas? None of those are actually life saving transplants so should they be refused an organ?

I should have thought it obvious, @PinkSparklyPussyCat.

If you don’t want to give, you don’t receive. What bits are involved is irrelevant - it’s the principle.
TBH I can’t understand anyone being reluctant to donate anything that’s only going to be burnt, or decompose in a grave.

Of course which bits are donated is not irrelevant.

A heart is necessary for life, but corneas or a face are not. So donating them or not has a completely different impact. The reproductive system is different again as we’re moving on to not just saving life or restoring one of the senses to allowing new life to be created. Many people don’t want to be part of that for a variety of reasons.

I find the idea that it would be fair for someone not to receive a heart or liver because they don’t agree with their womb or eggs (which nobody truly needs at the end of the day) being used after death to be rather monstrous.

All theoretical, of course, because thankfully donations aren’t given on the basis of how good and deserving we are.

If you don’t want to give, you don’t receive

I honestly do get the rationale here, but how far would you want to take that?

Should tax avoiders or benefit cheats be refused access to public services perhaps? Or those who give little to charity be refused help from one of them if they need it? And if not, why should this "bertering system" be restricted to just our bodies?

More than happy for my organs to be used. I don’t see the fuss about dead bodies tbh - they’re dead.

We should all remember to treat each other well and with respect during our life time and not focus our “respect” on dead bodies.

That should have said bartering system of course ...

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

I should have thought it obvious, *@PinkSparklyPussyCat*.

If you don’t want to give, you don’t receive. What bits are involved is irrelevant - it’s the principle.
TBH I can’t understand anyone being reluctant to donate anything that’s only going to be burnt, or decompose in a grave.

I'm really glad that your voice isn't the norm and your view isn't ever going to be the actual position.

What about people who never pay tax... no benefits for them?

We have the most excellent blood donation system in the world, we give it, free of charge and it's available to anybody in the UK who needs it. Can't be bettered.

Organ donation is not a stipulation and, if you feel so aggrieved and entitled to judge who gets your organs, keep them. Nobody cares. Ugh. I know it wasn't just you who has posted this nonsense but it's horrible to read.

FGS, @LyingWitchInTheWardrobe and @Puzzledandpissedoff, I was talking organ donation, not benefits!

Presumably you did understand that, but chose to infer something else, so you could feel self-righteously entitled to have a go.

you do not have control over your own body after death

I mean, this is literally true.

I was talking organ donation, not benefits

I know you were - and in turn I asked how far the principle of "giving to receive" should extend

Not sure how asking a civil question can be construed as "having a go", but each to their own (except, apparently, when it comes to autonomy around our own bodies)