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

You do not have control over your own body after death

Very true, but we have the right to express preferences over what'll be done with it while we're still here, and for some this is what's being taken away

Before saying "we can always opt out", consider the position of those disabled in mind or body, non English speakers and many others who may struggle to access information around this, or even know about it ... is it still okay to make assumptions about wishes now?

@rawalpindithelabrador well I know that. But anyone who doesn't want to be a donor can opt out and the family can intervene too

If you feel strongly about it you can opt out. I support organ transplantation and obviously discussed with the kids, who also support it. My mother in law was very against it on no particular grounds just that it felt wrong. Thankfully it never happened but she did say that wouldn't allow organ removal even if that's what the offspring wanted. She had seven boys and one signed up. She said she wouldn't allow it to go ahead should the worst happen.
My son has told me that he is signed up for all organs except his eyes. It just freaks him out.

@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.

Do you not see the difference between a (hypothetical right now) womb transplant which is in no way essential and a heart transplant to save someone’s life?

There's another thread running around paying for care in old age and many people are wishing that there was some sort of euthanasia that worked for humans.

I have to say it's not too far a stretch of the imagination for people to be encouraged to take up euthanasia so that their organs can be used.

People steal organs. People buy organs. So I could completely see this happening.

Should tax avoiders or benefit cheats be refused access to public services perhaps?

It's a completely different situation, but you could make a very good argument that if you don't pay into a system like tax, that you don't benefit from any payments that you might want if you lose your job and which come out of taxation. In fact isn't that where the current government would like to go? Isn't that why some people are in poverty while some can just about manage because of contributions related benefits?

It is most certainly an argument often used against housing, clothing and giving money to refugees and asylum seekers.

But human organs aren't the same as "well i paid NI all my life so I'm entitled to a state pension" - it is much more complicated like that.

You can have altruistic* kidney donations. Should those people go to the top of the queue if their remaining kidney starts to malfunction as though they have paid it forward? Probably not but you could make a good argument in favour of that if you were so inclined.

*in a very philosophical discussion it bears pointing out that there is an ongoing philosophical discussion about if an action can ever be truly altruistic that we don't need to get into here

Agree with you, Brefugee, but interestingly, a recent thread about those who were ineligible for Covid financial support because they'd hidden income was full of "what about their kids??" and "they're people too!!"

As you rightly say it's a different situation to organ donation, but it's fascinating to see the responses changing according to what's involved - or rather, if it impacts someone else

I have opted out because I have an issue with presumed consent and I can't get on board with that.

My family know my wishes , but ultimately I am glad my NOK gets the final say as they would be the ones who have to live with whatever decision they make.

The whole 'if you wouldn't donate you shouldn't receive' is a childish argument, with no thought beyond it all all. It sounds like something a young child would argue, and thank fuck the people who feel like this don't have any actual power.

My family know my wishes , but ultimately I am glad my NOK gets the final say as they would be the ones who have to live with whatever decision they make

This is still the case under the new system.

Works for me. I hate paperwork/admin... you can have my organs when I’m gone just don’t make me complete a form.

I'm totally in favour. Family can still object. And as people have already said, people who feel strongly can and will easily opt out, whereas before a lot of people either didnt care or simply hadnt thought about it/weren't aware, and weren't on the system.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

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.

What did you mean then? I thought your post was quite clear, ie. you expect organs only to go to the people who donate them. Did I misunderstand your post?

If I didn't, I don't agree with you and think that your post was very much in the style of 'give to receive' and that kind of thinking is very much akin to 'benefits' and people who are entitled to receive them.

It's not 'having a go' to challenge posts and it isn't personal either.

@PurpleDaisies

My family know my wishes , but ultimately I am glad my NOK gets the final say as they would be the ones who have to live with whatever decision they make

This is still the case under the new system.

Yes, I know it is.

Which is another reason why I don't see the need for the change. Either way the NOK decides and like others have said, a media campaign around how important it is to have these conversations would have been a better route to go down.

Even though I carried a kidney donor card I was not happy about the new Opt Out system when it was being introduced in England. Maybe simplistically I consider donation a gift and felt quite offended by the idea that my organs could just be taken. However having found out more, I discovered I could register what organs I am willing to donate and any that I do not wish to and this is what I have done. Should the range of possible organs/tissue that can be harvested increase in the future, nothing would be added to my 'list' without my consent. So it is not just a case of opting out versus presumed consent and overall I am happy with the current arrangements.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

I'm totally in favour. Family can still object. And as people have already said, people who feel strongly can and will easily opt out, whereas before a lot of people either didnt care or simply hadnt thought about it/weren't aware, and weren't on the system.

Except you can opt out and your family can overturn that too.

Agree with you, Brefugee, but interestingly, a recent thread about those who were ineligible for Covid financial support because they'd hidden income was full of "what about their kids??" and "they're people too!!"

Absolutely and that is another reason the analogy isn't good. (although, of course, having a living parent really does benefit the children of an organ donor recipient, so in that vein won't anybody think of the children?!)

@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.

The issue is that you can't actually draw a line between body and brain in the way that you think.

Your brain and body are fully integrated. Your brain accesses the world through your particular body. It is a responsive two way system. This is sometimes described as embodied cognition.

To put it a different way - if you had a different body, you would have a different mind.

But even this in't quite the same as the philosophical question about what constitutes you. The basic idea for most westerners is that there is a kind of mind/body dualism. But that is not the way everyone sees it - for some, the body, so long as it lives, is a person, a specific individual. That is true if you cut off the leg, and it is true if the brain is seriously impaired in its functioning.

Aside from cultural differences, there are huge and significant debates in philosophy about mind-body dualism. It simply isn't the only objective possibility, the only plausible contender, despite the fact that many people believe it is.

That is true if you cut off the leg, and it is true if the brain is seriously impaired in its functioning.

It is true of the rest of the body if you cut off the leg, but what about the leg?

The leg dies.

If you cut off the head, the brain dies as does the body. The two are irreversibly interlinked. They develop together, they operate together, they each influence the other throughout their life, they inform each other.

well, yes. But if you don't divide the soul/self from the body, and you cut the leg off there is an argument that the self is also in the leg and that the leg should have the rights and maybe burial, due to a full person.

If you feel strongly about it then you can opt out- it’s easy to do. I can’t imagine who is unhappy about the situation would be unable to find the time to do so.

If family objects then there will be no organ donation.

The state is not declaring your body theirs. You have every opportunity to opt out, can change your mind at any time and it’s easy to do.

However, I do think it is wrong that a family can over-ride a persona expressed wishes before their death. I want to donate my organs if I can and I think it’s wrong that my family could over-ride that wish.

?

@Nameitychangity Like a few others, I am puzzled, as this is not new information.

I heard about this a couple of years back.

And, no I don't mind giving my organs when I'm dead and gone.

I know a few people who have opted out though. Way back, in 2019.....