Gordon Brown in favour of presumed consent for organ donation

[WendyWeber]

It's a start

What's the procedure if you are on the register but your next-of-kin says they don't want your bits donated?

AS it stands, the next-of-kin have the last word, VS - and that's got to be wrong

I am wholeheartedly in favour of this. If you feel that strongly opt out, (but then be sure to make it known that you wouldn't accept a donated organ too).

If the system was different then it is highly likely that my friend who died a couple of months ago would have lived. His wife wouldn't have lost a husband, his sister a brother, myself a friend, etc, etc.

Sorry, if I sound rather emphatic about this issue.

Havent read the whole thread but I am very much in favour! This will kick up a huge public debate and make people aware of the donor shortage which would be a great thing.

IF people dont want to donate they can very easily change this and think of all those people who were going to consent and died before doing so what a loss of organs for people really needing it (lost of friend of CF and cousin has had a kidney transplant, DH well over 28 units of blood).

Also my Dh was always very against blood donation and organ transplants till a walkway gave way and he fell 3 storeys on a concrete slab! He now cannot give blood or blood product as he has been given over 3 times his total volume of blood.

Here is a sobering through about organ donation. My friend, even in her desperate and grief stricken state, only a couple of moments after her DH passed away (and I know, because I was with her) said "is there anything you would like, is there anyway he can help others". Of course the answer was no, but I found it astonishing that she offered.

Not sure what the relevance of that is to this debate, but I think it is that there is nothing greater you can do than give someone else life.

I just think about how many more lives would be saved if this were to go through, and to be honest, unless anyone can come up with a strong and reasoned argument against it, I think it is simple.

I haven't seen such an compelling argument yet.

Anyway, I suspect I have killed the thread so am off to bed now.

SueBaroo, if you're expecting your body back resurrected and perfected, then why doesn't this include any missing organs?

Further, surely bodies decompose ... so that a body ends up distributed through the soil, fertilses grasses and crops, and ends up getting eaten, before its new host dies and gets eaten, burnt or buried. How much of your body isn't already borrowed in this way? Given this, what's the problem in letting someone else borrow a kidney?

It is a conscience issue, but I struggle to work out how avoiding doing good to someone else is Christian.

microwaveonly - keep your hair on. I do have an organ donor card.

My point is not that I disagree with organ donation but that I do not wish to give Government any further powers over my being. And that isn't to protect my dead body, I just don't think this style of government is in the nations best interests.

If they want more people to register for cards then they should be more active about it. A pre-filled form put right under your nose by your GP/optician/midwife etc on every visit would make the 'keep meaning to get round to it' people sign up. There were plenty of MNers who 'didn't get round to it' until the week of Peters op. Which proves that it can be done without the Government imposing control.

Duchess, I don't think I understand your point. You have a donor card and have registered as a donor. I presume your family know your wishes and respect them. What is the difference between that and automatically being classified as a donor in an opt out system? I am not really sure I know what you mean by "this style of government".

PontipineFinderGeneral (great name, btw) my beliefs about resurrection are only part of my reasons, as I mentioned. Probably more significant is the definition of death issue.

It's not as simple as 'doing something good'. If it were, then no-one would have a problem with it, I'm sure. It's more about trying to balance different ethical considerations. There's nothing especially Christian about doing something good if it means you have to assent to something you believe to be bad.

SueBaroo, I am still not sure I understand your misgivings. You have said a couple of things that I don't quite understand:

"one of the slight misgivings I have about the opt-out thing is that it somewhat removes that sense of chosen sacrifice".

"Probably more significant is the definition of death issue."

I really do want to understand people's misgivings about this as it is a subject very close to my heart and I realise that I have an extremely emotional response to this issue at the moment.

I don't understand the problem as it is fairly easy to sign something to opt out as it is to opt in and I think those who don't agree with transplantation should have this option.I also think though that if you don't want to donate you should be prepeared not to recieve and considering statistics show that the chances of needing an organ are much higher than the chances of donating it is something that needs to be discussed.It is a shame that so many organs are buried or cremated when so many lives could be saved and the death could have some sort of positive outcome.I for one after 2 transplants myself am all for it and if you had spent even a week on dialysis or a LVAD like Misdee's Peter you would know why

two falls, I have slight misgivings about changing the law. I do think it would be significant if there was a change in the law which made dead bodies automatically the property of the state.

I also think that it would be sad to lose the element of free 'gift' that there is now with families who choose to donate. However, I think that the benefits probably do outweigh those concerns.

Your second quote is from my explanation of my personal reasons for opting-out, and one of those is the question of defining death. I'm not trying to evangelize for my position - I'm quite happy for people to choose to donate.

I have to say that I really don't understand peoples beliefs that the government will have control over their body. What control exactly do you think they will have?

Organ donation is an issue that is very close to my heart. Whilst in Kings College Hospital, I saw children and babies die waiting for an organ. These children could have been saved and would have most probably gone on to live long and happy lives.

I am all for the opt out system as it would mean fewer people losing their loved ones.

The proposal on the table at the moment still allows the next of kin to have the last say. This may not seem ideal, but it is a start. It is a start for all of us to get over the taboo's surrounding organ donation, and for it to become 'normal'.

SuBaroo - You would not lose the chance to living donate. Surely if a relation needs an organ and you are willing to donate, you would donate when they needed it, not when you are about to die?

I'm a bit confused about what the proposed changes will mean.

Am I right in thinking that at the moment if a 'suitable' person dies then the family are asked if they will consider organ donation whether or not the person is on the register, the point of the register being that it indicates what there wishes were?

If so, how are the proposed differences going to make any difference if families are still allowed to opt-out if their relative dies and has not opted-out him/herself? If they are allowed to opt-out then presumably they will have to be asked if they wish to do so, in which case they are effectively giving consent/witholding consent as is the case currently.

Or am I misunderstanding this?!

ILike - no, I meant that sense of a grieving family 'choosing' to donate their loved ones organs, not living donation.

I'm not sure what the scenario would be if the possible donor had opted out, but the next of kin disagreed.

As I mentioned before (sorry for harping on!) reading between the lines, I think the current proposal is to start to normalise the organ donation process and to bring in the opt-out scheme slowly slowly. We Brits don't like to feel we are being pushed into things. So start off slowly, then gradually make changes so opt out, is opt out and next of kin's wishes no longer become relevant.

tori32 mentioned earlier she'd had her DD registered from 18 months ... does anyone know if there's really any point in this? I don't mean that horribly, but as it stands obviously doctors would need mine/DH's consent if anything were to happen to DD, and all the register does is confirm what are wishes are right now. I know the register can't override family wishes even for adults, but at least it gives the message 'this is what s/he would have wanted', not the case with a small child. I'll register DD like a shot (erm, having consulted with DH) if there's any point at all.

SueBaroo, I am sorry, I still don't really understand your point about the government owning your body when the opt out system is no different to registering as a donor now but as you say that you think the benefits outweigh the risks it is probably just as well to agree to disagree!

I think thwy are saying that you can opt out and be on a list which means you don't want to donate.Otherwise it is presumed consent unless a relative strongly disagrees.

twofalls, it's just civil liberties issue - like ID cards. It just changes the relationship of the individual and the state - 'your body belongs to the state unless you specify otherwise', as opposed to 'your body is yours to gift as you wish'.

It's one of those pernickety things which don't really alter anything in the day-to-day, but could have potential consequences in terms of future use of legislation and that sort of thing.

I thought the law had recently been changed so that relatives could no longer overide the wishes if you are on the register? In fact i'm sure it was, and will go and look for it.

Personally I see no issue with an opt out system, after all if someone feels strongly enough they will opt out surely, and as far as im concerned I will be dead so won't be needing my organs where im going.

I do however also take Edam's point about ventalating patients in order to harvest their organs. I think if it was me personlly then that's one thing, but I would feel very uncomfortable with the idea of keeping my child on life support until such times as his organs could be harvested. How could I not visit, not touch his seemingly alive little body and know that any time the machines were going to be switched off. I think that side of things is very emotive. As an adult I could specify that no-one visit me again once I had been pronounced braindead, but as a parent I'm not sure I could apply that same logic to my child.

Exactly Suebaroo - civil liberties is exactly what I was getting at.

That's largely what worries me, SB. Thing is, the Alder Hey etc. scandal demonstrated that people do care about what happens to their relatives' bodies after death. It matters a great deal. To have that choice taken away is wrong, I think. I know in theory the system would still allow families to have the final say but they would be under an awful lot of pressure if the default position is automatic donation.

I'm all in favour of greater efforts to encourage people to donate, having specialist workers in place etc. etc. etc. But taking away the voluntary aspect of donation just feels wrong. I'm very sorry for anyone who is waiting for an organ, of course. But unless we change the law to allow people not to wear seatbelts, there is still going to be a shortage of organs.

Btw, Tori, I know there are rigorous tests to make sure someone is dead. I think I'm probably just squeamish about keeping their body functioning to harvest its organs. I know it's for the greater good, etc. etc. and I should get over it. Weird - lots of medical procedures that make other people squeamish don't bother me at all.

(I was at the Royal College of Surgeons once and saw their operating theatre - load of trainees practising going in through the neck. Lines of torsos with one arm strung up, looked liked the bodies were posing for Saturday Night Fever. )

what if someone passionatelt believes in donation and then someone tries to over ride that after their death because they can't cope themselves with the thought of organ retrieval and donation?that is also removing the choice of the individual