AIBU To think that if you are not on a doner register you should give up any rights to a donated organ?

[littlemoominmamma]

Do you think this would be a reasonable idea? If you have an organ donation card you should be entitled to an organ.... if not then that is your choice?

A similar situation to what the OP proposes has been in place. Some years ago, in Israel, there was a crisis in the blood-banking system. The way they dealt with it was to require that anyone about to undergo elective or non-urgent surgery had to supply two donations of blood. They could either bank their own blood (which would then be used in their surgery if needed, if not needed it would go into the general blood bank) or they could ask friends or relatives to make donations. Nobody in need would be denied blood.

A sensible system, IMO. If you are healthy enough, and have enough time to replenish before the surgery, then why not 'give to receive'? My dad has chosen, whenever he can, to bank his own blood before surgery - less burden on supplies for emergencies, and it guarantees that he will not receive some hidden contamination.

But would it be too difficult for the British to ask somebody to donate on their behalf? Culturally not quite our thing, perhaps.

Just wanted to add that I do not think you should only be entitled to receive a donated organ if you are registered to donate, and that the opt-out system would be a good thing. You still have rights over your body, you just have to make a tiny effort to exert them.

Baby barrister basically what you are saying is - prove yourself to be a good citizen before we treat you. That principle does not exist in any other area of the NHS why should it apply here.
You aren't going to sort out the transplant situation by forcing ineligble people to sign up or reduce the number of people entitled to transplantation. You can only do it by persuading more people that domation is the right thing to do
A far more common situation that I see is people going without kidney transplants because their own family members are not willing to donate.

I don't believe that's right BB.And what of those of us who are on the list who do not care if the person(s) who receives our organs is on the list? Why should our wishes be overruled?

I want no terms and conditions attached to the donation of my organs when I die. The idea that there may be disgusts me. I want it to go to the person who is a good match, and is most in need of it,that's all I ask and that's currently what happens and how it should remain.

But the treatment in these cases is the ORGAN. Are you of the opinion that other treatments should be witheld based on personal belief or practices.
Transplantation has to be allocated purely on medical basis or you get into the whole area of worthiness. Would you prioritise a healthy living father of three over a criminal with a history of drug-abuse?

While we have been discussing the pros and cons today roughly 19 people died waiting - so obviously the current situation is not working.

That is why people buy organs from abroad.

But littlemoominmamma - there are a number of stategies available to increase donation and successful transplantation. Altrustic donation ; paired matching ; non-heart beating donors for some organs. Living donation is expanding and needs to develop more for some organs only .
You would have to come up will some very compelling arguments for the medical establishment to accept anything other than a medical basis for prioritisation of organs.

statistically you are more likely to NEED a donor organ, than to become a donor yourself. thats how the situation is.

You're right, it's not working at present, but it seems to me to be somewhat barbaric to suggest people shouldn't be recipients if not donors. However, perhaps something more should be done - the opt out system possibly - with exemptions for those unable. I speak as someone who won't have many useful organs to offer and haven't signed up to the donor list, but this thread has made me rethink; some parts eg corneas could be of use after all. Because of my condition I will most likely need a lung transplant further down the line, so this hits home especially, I do worry about it.
Misdee so glad your dh is doing so well.

and this is the current ad campaign along the same lines as this thread

YABU - I think this idea would go completely against the principles and philosophies of the NHS. You can't use moral judgements to decide who is treated and who is not. It may also end up with organs being watsed because not enough people satisfied the requirements.

If this process is started where do you draw the line? Do you have to have lived an entirely blameless life to recieve medical treatment of any kind? Do people with smoking related diseases get refused treatment? If you are a single teenager will the NHS refuse to deliver your baby?

People are not entitled to a new organ if one of theirs fails, they are lucky if they get one and even luckier if it takes. The argument that 19 died waiting during this conversation is lame IMO, I feel a better question to ask would be how many are saved by the current system.

The opt out scheme is a ridiculous idea. Admin errors would result in people's organs being taken without permission rather than organs not being taken when permission had been given. Also some people do not have the faculties to make the decision. It is discrimination to automatically harvest their organs because they are not able to understand.

Actually people are entitles to 2nd and third organs if the first fails.

I would agree with you, because I feel very strongly about organ donation, but how many of you (even those who have registered themselves) have registered their kids? And how gutted would you be if your child couldn't have a transplant because they weren't on the organ donor list. Especially if you didn't object but it just hadn't occurred to you...

Don't forget to register your children! Kids need organs too.

Harvesting organs is not a matter of Sweeney Todd -style surgeons rubbing their hands together at the end of ITU beds waiting for vunerable patients to be declared brain-stem dead. A soft opt out system works to increase donation by assuming consent but allowing family to veto the decision if they feel strongly. This is how it works in Belgium and Spain for example. If someone has not opted out and has no family or someone to speak for them I personally see no reason why their organs should not be taken.

I carry a donor card. DH does not and does not want his organs used if he dies. He refuses to discuss the rationale for this (its not religious) but is adament.

However if I were dead and they wanted to use my organs I'd want them to use every scrap of my body that could help another human. Yet DH could veto this which feels massively wrong. I've told him if he did veto that I'd come back and haunt him.

AXIS That is the problem but it is generally felt that SOFT opt out is the only opt out process that would be acceptable to the public.

SOme people have said 'it's our right to decide what happens to our bodies after death'.
But it isn't - it's the right of your next of kin. The only thing you can legally stipulate for after your death is if you don't want to be cremated (Cremation Act, to prevent disposal of evidence in suspicious deaths).

You can carry a donor card and write in your will you'd like to be cremated or anything, but if your next of kin want you buried, organs intact, that's what'll happen.

My grandad wanted to be cremated and wasn't. I ended up getting married solely so my parents aren't my next of kin any more, in case I die and MrNC can gain some consolation from passing my organs on to others. After a big ding-dong in the hospital, probably.

sorry to be emotive about this curoristy but I can't see that a soft opt out system would be "ridiculous". IMHO, if we had that system I probably would't have had to sit and hold my best friend's hand whilst her DH passed away. A soft opt out would significantly improve donation rates and therefore more people survive terrible illnesses.

Axis, out of interest, does your DH firmly believe he would refuse an organ if he needed one? Or have you never had that conversation?

I prefer the Spanish system, where everybody is automatically placed on the register. I'm not sure whether they have the choice to opt out, but apparently they have a fraction of the problems that we have with finding donors.

So yes, OP, YABU but something more drastic needs to be done to solve the problem.

"The argument that 19 died waiting during this conversation is lame IMO, I feel a better question to ask would be how many are saved by the current system."

And if someone close to you was one of those 19 I guarantee you would feel very differently and probably wouldn't say "oh well, look at all those people that could be saved".

Yes Spain you opt out. The Spainish faced a big drop in organ availability when they introduced seat belts.

I've found a few articles attributing the increase in donors in Spain to factors other than the opt out system, such as other methods they've used to increase awareness and to improve the transplantion process e.g donor coordinators in hospitals, publicity campaigns etc.

here

And here