Donation of organs 'should be automatic' upon death

[LittleLupin]

Story here

"People should automatically have their organs removed for transplant after they die unless they opted out while alive, Britain's most senior doctor is expected to say tomorrow in his annual report."

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Just a question by the way, I don't wish to offend any one, I seem to have done that a lot on this thread.

lazymoo, usually internal organs cannot be transplanted but corneas still can be is to do with internal organs becoming unviable quicker. Lungs fill up with fluid upon death, almost immediately iykwim and then cannot be transplanted.

My sister incidentally donated her own heart when she received her double transplant as her own heart was healthy. At the time a double transplant was easier and more successful than just a lung transplant, i am not sure thats the case anymore (?)

My daughter has been tested for CF, she was clear, but I am not a carrier.....but the hospital still insisted on testing her! My son hasnt been tested. My cousin hasnt long had a baby though and for some reason they did not understand the genetics of CF (dont ask) and the hospital actually think his son has CF I am obviously hoping he doesnt, but tbh he has lots of symptoms.

I'm all for pro-choice - choice on the part of the donor rather than the donor's relatives and the opt-out system gives that. I would be horrified if I had transplantable organs that weren't utilised for reasons of sentimentality or whatever from my family (fat chance of that though !!). And maybe some of that is on 'religious' grounds - I firmly believe that when I die I will have a new body in heaven and what is left on earth was just the vessel for here.

I think it's a great idea, well overdue. However, it would be important to make people aware of how to opt out and it should be an easy process for them.

DH and I have put both DS and DD on the register because we know for a fact that neither set of grandparents agree with organ donation and in the event that all four of us were to die together, I'd want the decision taken out their hands. The woman on the phone said a parent registering their child meant that the GPs legally could not refuse.

I'm in agreement. I've got the card in my wallet & DH and my folks know exactly how I feel. They can take anything they can salvage cos I want to be cremated when I die so there's no point keeping anything.
Every time I hear this debate I think about Misdee & Peter and what they're going through

to elaboate more. i am all for opt out. i dont see that even with opt out the families wishes nwoudlnt be considered, and they would probably still have the right to override if they felt strongly about it.

i am obviously very emotional about this as my dh has been waiting over two years for a heart transpant see the blog for details, and is currently trying to get well enough to go on the urgent list as he doesnt have long left. his life could be changed by a heart transplant, he wouldnt have a heart condition asnymore, but would be immunosupressed which does bring its own problems, and i know the stats on being alive 5 years after transplant isnt brilliant, but to not see him suffer anymore and actually be able to live a bit normally for a few years would be amazing.

fio you are so right about life after transplant not being perfect - the drugs are horrible for some people, even the idea of taking all those drugs is too much for some. others its great and they have a full life

and the transplanted organ doesnt last a lifetime

some people have several transplants

some people refuse transplants - like dialysis patients - they would rather just stay on dialysis - which can be done at home - its hard to believe but when you see it and htink about it, its simple in some cases

Just in case anyone is thinking of doing it today, the number is: 0845 60 60 400

I dont like it ,I would prefer it stayed as opt in only. I would certainly like to see a lot more encouragement of opt in though.

i think you own your own body. absolutely own it ,no strings attatched. its horrible to think tht the could state own it and could harvest whatever bits of it that can be useful. kidneys today but what next ,render us all down for oil when north sea gas runs out ?

I can really see it being tremendously upsetting for the bereaved as well, to have no say and for your wishes not to count.

Most of us are public spirited and are willing to help if we are asked. But I still think its fairest to ask ie opt in.

The drugs are difficult but neccesary but in large doses as in teh first year are hard to tolerate at times but it does get better.I couldn't tolerate dialysis though so am coming at it from that perspective

The biggest problem with opt in is that people just never get around to it, then it's left to be made at the most difficult of times.

Thousands of people don't care either way so they don't care enough to go the trouble of getting on the register but they wouldn't object to their organs being used either. These are the people who could make a massive difference if it became opt out.

Those people who really do object can easily object and have their name removed.

yes nh. but we have also seen people go through rejection at the hospital, and lost a dear friend last summer to it.

with peter going on the urgent list we know the risks are greater, and recovery will be harder as he isnt in the best of health now. if opt out was in place, then its quite possible that dh wouldnt have been waiting over 2years and wouldnt be in this position now. its a fight for life.

exactly homemama, if you really objected to organ donation, then opt out. it will be easier as more people agree with organ donation than disagree. have a look at the stats on www.uktransplant.org.uk to see. (hoping i have that email address right now lol)

I think it should be opt out - there is such a desperate need for organs, so many people whose lives an on hold while they wait for the phone call and, on the other hand, you have grieving relatives being asked to make a decision at a very vulnerable time. The person who is dead no longer has any need of their organs - that's a fact - and if there are say strong religious reasons for not wanting to donate then I'm sure those people will opt out. Otherwise I think as many lives as can be saved and improved should be. Surely the best thing you can leave behind is a number of happier, healthier people thanks to your organs? How could anyone not want to donate, to offer someone else the chance for a better life? It's selfish beyond belief.

i stil completely idsagree with the thread title
"should be automatic"
NO

its not blakc and white like that slayerette

and its not selfish

did you know...

I dont think its selfish to choose what you do with your own body or that of your loved ones.
Its got nothing to do with religious reasons either ,its just personal choice.
Ok so we have no need of our organs after death but we also have no need of our cars and house and bank balances either.I think we should have a say about what happens to them though.

I've got a donor card, so has Dh. just because I'm for opt in only doesnt mean I'm against transplants!
I think there should be a lot more education and awareness to encourage people to opt in.
Coercing people just feels wrong to me.

Why isn't it black and white like that? And why isn't it selfish? Looking for genuine answers here; not trying to start an argument.

Just because something is for the general good doesn't mean that those who object to it, do not have a right to that objection.

In the States, people's tissues have ended up being used for cosmetic surgery. And it's big business - a corpse is apparently worth more than £100,000 according to a programme I heard a bit of on Radio 4 the other night.

I wouldn't mind my organs being used after my death, although the idea of being kept alive mechanically -ventilated, I guess - until they could harvest my organs is gruesome. But I'm dammed if my organs and tissues will be sold to some commercial enterprise - and an opt-out system, by removing control from the relatives, makes it more likely that companies might be able to exploit human remains without families being aware.

If you really believe in increasing the number of organs for transplants, logically you should not wear a seatbelt. Or get yourself a motorbike.

emilydavidson, would you help promote organ donation? or anyone on this thread? because without public support people registering wont increase. how many people knew it was national transplant week last week?

slayerette, transplant doesnt always work, lives arent always improved by transplant.

there are so many ethical issues too behind donating. ventilated patients, etc

and religion

But if you don't specify what happens to your material possessions after your death, the legal system divides up your estate for you and distributes it - it doesn't just sit there for all eternity! And this is what the doctor is saying should happen to your organs - either you specify that you want to keep them or the medical system distributes them as it sees fit. I genuinely can't see why that is a contentious ruling.

i think it would drive a wedge between relatives and medical staff.