Gordon Brown in favour of presumed consent for organ donation

[WendyWeber]

It's a start

I think I should change my name. It's obviously not clear who I am.

but it is not being forced upon people, you can opt out. That is the point of an opt out. That you take responsibility for choosing not to donate by opting out. Seems fairer all round to me.

I don't know. I don't like opt-out things, even if they are for a good cause.
It's like saying, OK, everybody will give 1% of their salary to a charity unless they opt-out. Hmm, it makes me want to say: sod that, even if I was going to give money to a charity anyway.
I don't know what doyou think? Would you like to be included in an opt-out scheme to help the aged, or the cancer research or the heart foundation or the victims of a tornado?. They are all good causes, but surely people should be allowed to make the first move when is a question of generosity. Unless you are saying it is not a question of generosity but that it is a person's right to receive another dead person's organ.

Even though you're clearly insane because you're in love with a serial killer this is absolutely right, InLoveWithSweenyTodd.

You know, inlovewithsweenytodd, that is the most sensible argument against this that I have heard yet. Doesn't mean that I agree with you but it is the first thing I have read that has made me stop and think for a moment.

I just think that this is a different thing to giving to charity, but perhaps that is because I have held my best friend's hand whilst we watched her utterly lovely husband slip away. He was number 1 priority in the country and there was no organ available. Obviously that may still have been the case had the law been different but he may have had a better chance.

I just don't feel that organ donation is just a simple matter of generosity, although I am not sure it is a matter of one person's right either.

But thanks for coming up with something that made me think about it.

Edam - sorry if I wasn't clear. When organs are removed from a donor, it is called retrievel and not harvesting. People involved in organ donation (retrievel teams, surgeons, coordinators etc) take real exception to the term harvesting being used. I think because of the connotations with grave robbing.

twofalls, I agree with you. It's not simply a matter of generosity or rights. There is a strong moral obligation to be an organ donor.

But that shouldn't mean the Government require it.

I wish the Government would do more to encourage people to be donors. I wish Drs were more persuasive, I wish, generally there were less people who had an issue with it.

But given all those people I don't see presumed consent working very well. And what will happen to those people at just about the worst time ever?

'Harvesting' also has the overtones that people who do object to organ donation find troubling - the notion of humans becoming objective resources.

Using 'retrieval' avoids that connotation more. Words are very important, I think. I would feel very different about a loved one having their organs 'harvested' than I would about organ retrieval.

If this system is introduced I will be opting out even though I would previously have expected my DH to agree to my organs being donated after my untimely death. Simply because if I am incapacitated I want my next of kin, my DH, to be the one making all the decisions including organ donation.

I do not trust medical professionals who may make the rational judgement that the lives that could be saved by taking my organs are worth more than any slim chance I could recover. I know that seems far fetched but I don't care. I find it even more horrible, to think that my dcs or dh could have their organs harvested before I had the chance to say goodbye or even know they had been hurt.

The other thing is, that after a person has died, I do not believe their remains belong to them or to the state. But to their bereaved family. If the next of kin choose to donate my organs that is up to them. The wishes of the deceased are irrelevant because they are no longer there.

The salary thing - well, I could use the 1% of my salary that would be forcibly donated.

But if I'm dead, I'm not going to have much use for my body. I can't see my family wanting to stuff me and keep me in a chair or glass case in the corner. So I'm in favour of opt-out - because I'll be dead, innit.

for all of you who would opt out how would you feel if you or your child needed an organ and you were refused one.Would anyone serioulsy let their child die if there was a viable organ available?You do need to think this side through

Yes, very far fetched and a very irresponsible comment. How dare you imply that?

I liketomoveit, completely agree.

And with you noddyholder.

And with you hunker, I knew there was a counter to that somewhere

I'm even going to pretend to know what I'd do if one of my children was in that position. Right now I'm just very grateful it's not a dilemma I have to face. I've already said I wouldn't have a replacement organ personally.

Noddyholder - but that is like asking how we would feel about lightening after one of our dc's was struck by it. Or how we felt about CJD after losing a child to that!

Of course we would feel strongly if directly affected. It does not necessarily affect the decisions we should make knowing there is a tiny chance we would be. Every time I drive I do so knowing there is a tiny chance I will be killed, I accept that risk. And I accept the notion that there are not enough donated organs available and if I, or a loved one, needs one we may not get it.

Of course I would be heartbroken if that ever came to pass but it's not the point.

it is not that tiny a chance tbh.More likely to need an organ than to donate.You can't do anything about lightening that doesn't make sense.If you fundamentally disagree with the idea of transplantation then you are perfectly within your rights but don't expect an organ should the situation arise.there are 1000s of people being kept alive by drugs and machines and they are all average jos like you and me.I do think the opt out would be good if it meant those who opted out didn'y request transplant either as it would increase those available.It also depends on your spiritual views.i very much believe the body is just a vessel for teh sole and the parts are a bit like a car engine and are fairly useless after sdeath but if you have views where the body is sacred I can understand the dilemma.

FioFio, exactly, or having trained bereavement counsellors to approach the families concerned, as they do in Spain.

I heard on the radio today that, in Sweden, when they introduced an opt out only system, the number of organs available for donation actually fell because so many people did opt out.

But Sue, you say that in the cold light of day. Would you really feel the same way faced with leaving all that you love behind you when there was a way you could be saved? And how do you think your children would feel if you actively choose death over possibly life? Sorry if these are difficult questions.

How many of you who are making these decisions have lost someone that could have been saved if the law was different? Genuine question by the way, not being provocative. Overly emotive maybe, but its how I feel.

But Hunker, there is a gap between "not using something" and "allowing other people to make use of it". In other words, just because I am not going to use this(whatever) any more, it doesn't mean that a government or anyone for that matter has the right to say "ok then , if you don't explicitly opt out, it will go to someone else". This is true for money and property, how could it not be true for your own body, even after death?

twofalls, how I would feel is an unanswerable question. There have been many times in my life so far when I've had to make decisions based on my convictions about a lot of things, and no it's not always easy, and may often feel dreadful.

Yes, I have lost many loved ones and had loved ones in similar situations.

Are the arguments for not making organs available to those who opt out the same as not making them available to alcoholics?

Twofalls - due to a genetic condition it is likely that I and/or my family members will need a new kidney. It doesn't change my views but I suppose that situation is complicated by the possiblity of donations from the living.

I keep trying to point out that the problem is at the point of retrieval.

With either system there is an issue. With the current system the issue is that we tend to get less organs because people haven't thought about it before it happens and when it happens they are stressed and can't think about it properly.

With the proposed system there would be another issue, that Drs would expect consent but familys might not. If people had strong feelings about it this is going to make matters much worse at the time of a bereavement.

I just think there are other, less drastic things we could do, right now, without legislative or rule changes, that would increase donation rates.