Gordon Brown in favour of presumed consent for organ donation

[WendyWeber]

It's a start

Yup, but if you are a passionate believe surely you'd have that conversation with your next of kin?

But if it is a gift you do NOT wish to give, you just opt out. You are still giving a gift because you have chosen not to opt out. And as for it just being one of those pernickety things, then personally I feel that saving more people's lives has to outweigh such a matter of principle. Its not as if the government is saying everyone has to donate, that I would have a problem with from a civil liberties point of view. If it were, then I could see your point. As it is, I don't I am afraid.

And Edam, even if one person's life were saved due to a change in the law, wouldn't it be worth it? There still will be a shortage of organs, but not nearly as great.

erm, yes twofalls, and as it happens, I agree with you on balance. But that doesn't mean it's not a significant question and objection, whether you agree with it or not.

I automatically distrust the argument that 'if one person's life is saved, isn't it worth it' because it's often used to justify things that won't work/don't make sense/encroach on liberties. For instance all the sort of stuff that is proscribed on nebulous health and safety grounds (often not supported by the actual HSE). And it's that sort of argument that led to the shortage of organs in the first place - by forcing people to wear seatbelts. (I'm all in favour of wearing seatbelts, btw, but it has directly caused the shortfall in organs from healthy, young-ish donors who die on life support.)

There is no question in my mind that it's the right way to go. However, I can absolutely see the point being made by SB and others that the essence of such legislation is worrying because it's saying that unless you take action otherwise your organs will belong to the state upon your death.

Mention of the seatbelt law and drink driving laws are interesting because at the time there was much opposition, yet now our generation take them for granted.

I think for all our procrastinating, if this goes ahead, our children's generation won't even give it a second thought.

As I am already a donor the this doesn't bother me personally but I can see where Edam and SB are coming from. In the end though it will save lives. Thats whats more important. The dead don't need their organs.

I just feel that living should always have priority over dead.. Always.

There are a number of worthwhile activites that could already be used to increase the number of donors before bringing in such legislation. Having well-trained health professionals who are able to explain the options and procedures with relatives in their own language would be a huge start. If we can't do this under the present scheme, where such intervention can save lives, then I honestly can't see any effort being made to ensure those families who don't agree with organ donation manage to register their views, and are able to articulate them in a timely fashion to the hospital authorities. The current National organ donor register isn't consulted regularly when potential donors are idientified, so how is an opt-out register going to be mananged? The Health Service is not allowed to write to individuals asking them to fill out donor cards due to Data Protection issues - again how exactly will they manage to ensure that the wishes of those who want to opt out are respected?

Of course educated literate middle classes will be able to express their desire to opt out. What about those who don't speak or read English but who are left beside a loved one, who is still breathing and who would like time to say goodbye? Given the lack of training health professionals seem to have recevied in the whole area of organ donation to date I'm not convinced that these situations are suddenly going to be well handled in future.

FWIW I am a registered organ donor, so it is not that I personally disagree with donation. But I respect the views of those who do. To say that it is worth saving lives at the expense of freedom is a strong ideological position. Presumably those of you with this view still draw a line in the sand somewhere, especially with live donation becoming more viable for some organs?

I think people are confusing the donation issue with the Alder Hey issue - at Alder Hey organs were taken without consent to be used for medical research. Obviously this was wrong.

What we're talking about is being able to take organs (presumably with relatives being informed, even if there was no consent required) to donate to those in need and save people's lives.

I am of to opinion that if you don't have a donor card, then you shouldn't be eligible for a transplant. I don't know how people can be so selfish, to let their organs rot away in the ground, when they could be helping someone to live.

Even though I have had transplants and see this as a way forward I also think choice is vital.I think the whole subjecy needs to be more out there and people need to see the reality of donation etc at close quarters and to be really educated on what it means and the likelihood of needing an organ etc.

Sorry to be picky, but can we please not call it harvesting. It is retrievel.

It is something that could be asked by any medical professional either at GP surgery or when in hospital and kept on your medical records. However, many people haven't seen a doc in years so how long would this take to complete?
I agree with an opt-out system and also, that no member of your family should be able to go against your wishes to donate.
My main reason is this - most people when asked do want to donate, in full or in part, but only 24% of people have so far opted in.
I don't like the idea of people's lives being lost by 'getting round to it'. End of.

Why do you feel 'harvesting' is not right and retrieval is, ILike?

The shortage of donors is something that could be changed by HCP's consulting with their patients, having more trianed staff that are aware of policies etc, but that is surely going to cost money?

It may seem like an extra 2 minutes in the doctors surgery isn't going to affect anyone, but it will, and what about those people who don't go to the GP or the hospital etc very often and so don't get consulted?
The opt-out system is the best way forward to make sure everyone who is not against organ donation will be in the position to donate their organs if a death occurs.

DontcallmeBaby WRT the question of children on the register, I have both mine on, incase we were all in an accident and either I died or was unable to give my consent at their time of death.

It comes down to this list of factors:

• do you trust all the medical professionals, the administrators and ministers to do the right thing?

• if they did the wrong thing might the wrong thing be catastrophic?

• is there another, simpler, cheaper way to achieve the same end before trying requirement?

Call me a dotty old paranoid but I think this is typical Brownian control freakery.

I am a donor, but I don't like the way this is being forced on people.
BTW I wouldn't be happy if my liver ended up in someone like George Best, but I suppose I cannot choose the life being saved. Shame.

I've carried a donor card since I was 14 (mum also had to sign my card because I was under 16) We discussed it in my very early teens and it is something we both feel strongly about (they can take whatever they want)
I have discussed it with my DH who for some reason will not sign up on the register or carry a card (just doesn't feel right!!!!) and has said in the past he would have real trouble respecting my wishes if I was to die (I think i'm right in believing if the next of kin strongly refuses to give consent even though the person carries a donor card, they go with the next of kin decision)
So I think the opt out system would be fairer (my wishes would be granted for a start) and he can opt out if he wants to.

jezzemx: we all have to have this forced on us because you're DH won;t respect your wishes?

Sheesh.

OOhhh Duchess handbags at 3 paces.
This is my opinion on the subject and i'm just given you an example of the dilemma my family would have to face if anything happened to me. aimo I think the person who wants to donate should be heard in death as well as when they are alive.
If you want to opt out then opt out.

And surely the donation of an organ is to give someone else a second chance?

Even if it's someone like george best at least it's a second chance. He didn't take it... but that's not to say others might grab it.

jezzemx: I am not the duchess. I am a free man!
Well, her husband anyway.

I agree with you that you should be heard. Do you think with an opt out system and your DH's views, that at the time of your death this wouldn't put the Dr and your husband at logger heads? If he strongly objects might a Dr agree to not taking the organs anyway?

In short, I don't see how this solves anything for you really. You need to sort this out while you are alive.

Don't you?

you are right it is a second chance.My mum donated to me and I was 19 the first time and proceeded to drink take the odd recreational drugs go clubbing travelling anf generally living a mad life all with her kidney and although she is a very clean living person she never criticised and was happy just to see me live again.You cannot suggest who gets what that would be treading on dodgy ground

Duchess, he didn't take that second chance, whilst someone else who would have taken it died in the meantime waiting for an organ.
I am a donor anyway.

I am not suggesting that we should introduce caveats or conditions on the recipients of organ donation. I am just saying how unfair this world is, in so many ways. I have the right to moan about it!!!

sorry Duke! That's what happens for not bothering to read the whole nickname