Gordon Brown in favour of presumed consent for organ donation

[WendyWeber]

It's a start

lol hunker so do i. skulking round the corners, and going 'aha, 5ft 3inches tall, blood type A, perfect match for mrs wilkens in room 6G'

Gordon Brown was in the paper today talking about how a friend from school was close to death but for the need of an organ donation, luckily that friend recieved one, which he says changed his perspective on the whole situation, I think in that case we would all change our perspective tbh.

It seems to me that people are all too worried about control, a very selfish 'It's mine, you're not having it' attitude is coming across because they don't like the idea of being told to give their organs to a dying person in need.

I mean, seriously what the heck are you going to do with it??? YOU'RE DEAD.

Oh, God, if I ever saw Angela Lansbury at a party, I'd be out of there SO quickly! She's worse than Typhoid Mary!

Oh, and WRT George best, the best possible match gets given the organ, because it has the most chance of success, therefore not being an organ that is likely to reject and be what could be seen as a 'waste' of an organ, plus actually put the patient at mroe risk. George best must ahve been the most suitable to recieve it.

I saw 5 minutes of Samson and Delilah the other week, and I think Angela Lansbury gets a javelin stuck through her in that. It was never going to go well after that...

remember 6 false alarms before we got a good heart for peter.

LVC/Misdee hope all is well, thanks very much for the Snazeroo tips. DD loves it!

I don't think the 'control' aspect is about 'it's mine and you're not having it'. Besides, I've only seen one person on this thread actually say they wouldn't donate (and they wouldn't receive either).

For me, it's about Government taking control by changing the way consent is given. I'm just concerned that it will set a precedent - ie. your child will be vaccinated unless you opt out - "oh dear, our famously excellent IT skills showed that you hadn't opted out and your childminder, who has bought little Johnny in about his veruccas, allowed the nurse to do the injections. Nevermind eh?" Etc. Etc.

You could argue that no other scenario would be as important as a life-saving organ,and you'd be right, but that doesn't mean that the other scenarios would be unimportant.

Good

It is about control for me - I don't see what is so awful about leaving the decision with the next of kin. I have no personal objection to my organs or those of my family been taken but want that decision to be made by the surviving spouse/parent.

It is not at all obvious that changing the law would increase organ availability over simpler measures such as trained counsellors approaching the bereaved families.

And I am really dismayed to find out that Gordon Brown has a personal interest in this and it may have changed his mind. Three years ago he voted against this proposal.

Upwind. This is spot on I reckon.

I love it when politician's get a personal cause. It creates nothing but trouble.

The proposal put forward before was for opt-out, but the next of kin having no involvement in the decision.

Not everybody ahs a next of kin as such, or at least one that they would trust to make a decision.

For around 6 years I had no-one I could call my next of kin and as such had the decision arose my organs would not have been donated, or they would've had to find my mother who would have had absolutely no clue as to whetehr or not I wish to donate, in some cases all of the family are injured together so again no next of kin.

In these cases an 'opt-out' system would mean these organs would be used for donation if no-one was there to say 'No' whereas as it stands now they would not be used even if the donor had wished for them to be but hadn't 'got round' to going on the register.

Lol Hunkermunker. I could never figure out why that woman was never a suspect. She was always around when all these people were killed. I think she did away with all of them myself

I have just had a disagreement with DH about this, I agree with Opt-out, he doesn't. He said it takes away your human rights. I find this shocking from someone who watched my sister struggle with everything with Peter (sorry misdee ) I asked if he would accept an organ if needed, he said he didn't know. I am on the register myself, but DH isn't (thats his choice tho)

Apologies for saying 'harvesting' not very pc and should be called 'retrieval'. Been reading a book by Tess Geritssen and had a blip called The Harvest .

I am at upwind for her comments about medical incompetence and her suggestion that any ventilator would be turned of without consent or that best efforts would not be made to save life. At the end of the day it is what we do the job for, to save life or improve its quality.
The decision is taken by numerous staff and the families of the patient and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would this happen.

Tori - I never suggested medical incompetence but it does happen. And I think you are missing the point: under current systems you are correct, the decision is taken by numerous staff and the families of the patient and would not ordinarilly be taken against their will (but were at Alder Hey).

This thread is not about current systems but about the proposed introduction of "presumed consent" where the families would not necessarily be consulted.

"it is expected the measures could result in a 10% increase in the consent rate for donation which currently stands at 60%." There are other ways of achieving that 10% increase without fundamentally changing the law to make our flesh the property of the state.

VictorianSqualor - that is a persuasive argument.

dh and I hzad the conversation about this when opt-out was mooted in Germany last year. He said he would not want to donate. I asked him if he would receive an organ and he said no. I know him well enough to know he's absolutely serious and it rasther worries me tbh. He's not religious, btw.

I want to register as a donor here but the Germans won't have my organs, or those of anyone who's spent more than a certain amount of time in the UK, because of vCJD.

I'd be for opt-out. Funnily enough I am religious but don't have any objections to donation there. Surely the sanctity of life goes above the sanctity of my own, dead, body.

I would suggest that maybe in the case of no-one being a next-of-kin that it would be automatically accepted as donor agreed, but then it would become a case of were they looking hard enough for someone to ask for consent etc so I certainly think it would have to be all or nothing.

Coming to this late (as per).

I have a very biased, selfish view on the subject and would prefer opt out. I fully accept that there would have to be a long period of changeover, that there needs to be measures in place to help the more vulnerable members of society and that there would have to be a move towards asking the 'opt out' question on a regular basis.

Hunkers post yesterday 16.16 is spot on.

And remember - you and you loved ones are much more likely to need an organ than to ever be in a position to donate.

I think it's essential to do something about the shortage of available organs, but I'm not sure that 'opt-out' is the best way forward. It smacks of 'Big Brother' taking control of your body even when you're dead.

However, having said that - apparently close family will have the right to opt you out when you die even if you haven't yourself. So if that's the case then maybe it's saving tmedical staff from having to approach a family about to lose a loved one and saying 'Can we take organs?' Instead the approach will be 'Is it all right for us to go ahead with what is usual?' iykwim. I don't think I've phrased it very well, but what I mean is that it's taking the pressure off the medics in that they have a 'softer' question to ask.

When my dad was dying I raised the subject of organ donation and was met with the bemused response 'Oh... errrr. I don't know... we have harvested organs a few times in the past but I'll have to find out and get back to you.'

Lucky I'm the pragmatic type!

VictorianSqualor, I suppose, legally, next-of-kin would have to be informed of the death and permission could be asked then? And if the police could not track them down, consent could be presumed...

Of course we (and especially me and mine) are more likely to need a donation than be in a position to make one. But, the debate here is not about donation per se, but about how and whether consent is to be obtained.

We don't really know enough about this proposal - can parents opt out on behalf of their dcs if they are

I agree that we need to know more detail buit at the moment GB is just opening it up for debate isn't he. I would expect that in the case of children parents would have to give consent. I do think the age where a 'child' could decide though would be a good bit less than 18.

For adults I'm not sure that allowing the next of kin to override is a good idea. Personally I wouldn't want my decision to be over-ridden - I'll be back to haunt anyone that does.

Seriously though - I think it makes for an even more difficult situation - patient hasn't opted out, next of kin want to opt them out. Stand off.

And I absolutely disagree that the wishes of the deceased are irrelevant.