Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

I didnt want to start this one but 'Mother denied daughters organs'

85 replies

misdee · 12/04/2008 19:24

mother in need of a kidney transplant sadly her daughter died recently after an asthma attack, and donated her kidneys and liver. but the mother didnt get one.

whilst i can understand the hurt and frustration her mother is now going through, i can also see the other side, which is you cant place conditions on organs after you die.

her daughter has saved three peoples lives, she should be very very pround of her daughter.

i hope she gets a kidney soon as well, so she can carry on living and enjoying life.

OP posts:
DoodleToYou · 12/04/2008 19:29

Message withdrawn

NotABanana · 12/04/2008 19:30

I have mixed feelings about this. The mum has come across as quite bitter about not getting the kidney, rather than her daughter's wishes not being met. She has said she isn't proud her daughter has helped save others as she just wants her daughter back. I feel so sorry for her loss but she will get a kidney soon as her sister is donating one.

NotABanana · 12/04/2008 19:30

Sorry, Doodle, I wasn't getting what you meant.

tissy · 12/04/2008 19:31

I tried to register on the BBC site to comment on this one!

Very sad story....but...

Firstly, the hospital staff only had the mother's word that daughter wanted to donate her kidneys to mum...I'm afraid that's just not good enough....it has to be written down for a living will to take effect.

Even if it was written down, well, if daughter had registered as a donor, then she agreed to her organs going to the most needy people, not to her favoured recipients...so daughter signed up to the system, whether or not she read the small print.

Presumably as daughter hadn't (yet) signed up as a living donor, compatability tests hadn't been done, so they might not have been compatible anyway (I know a father/ son combo who aren't compatible).

If people are able to deide who their organs go to, they could also decide who they don't go to....WRONG WRONG WRONG.

LittleWonder · 12/04/2008 19:32

NotaBanana - that was exactly my feeling - but i guess that is the media twist because grief over losing her child would not make a story.

ib · 12/04/2008 19:32

You see, this is the kind of thing that stops me going on the donor register.

I want my organs to be used after I die and have told my loved ones, but ultimately I want them to be in a position of power with regards to the institutions. If the daughter had not been on the organ donor register the next of kin would have been able to agree to donate only on condition that the mother was one of the recipients. I'm sure it's what the daughter would have wanted.

And there is no question that even if she gets a kidney now it will not be as good a match.

windygalestoday · 12/04/2008 19:34

i dont know where i stand on this interesting but sad debate i can see both sides and it is tragic

DoodleToYou · 12/04/2008 19:34

Message withdrawn

tissy · 12/04/2008 19:34

no, ib, if you donate, you CANNOT under any circumstances dictate conditions (except which organs are used)- transplant coordinators would refuse the organs in that case

NotABanana · 12/04/2008 19:35

I think it was changed as there is an enquiry of some sort going on.

I can only go on what I read.

Original poster
misdee · 12/04/2008 19:35

ib, no, next of kin cannot not put conditions on organs being donated.

and just beause they were mother/daughter doesnt mean they would be a good match. the organs went to people on the list who were the best match medically.

OP posts:
DoodleToYou · 12/04/2008 19:36

Message withdrawn

morningpaper · 12/04/2008 19:37

As soon as you allow organ donors to put stipulations on WHO their organs go to, you would end up with people saying they don't want their organs to go to black people/gay people/Daily Mail readers

I think the current situation is absolutely RIGHT

morningpaper · 12/04/2008 19:38

You can't say "I want to save people but only people I like/know/approve of"

Original poster
misdee · 12/04/2008 19:40

if it was a good match, better than anyone else on the list, and mother was top of that list, then she would;ve got one.

i dont think family should override others in event of death.

its a hard one, as that feeling of waiting for a call to say a heart was available and to be ready is still so fresh in my mind. i know if i needed an organ, and a blood relative sadly died, and i knew i was a good match through blood/height etc, then i would be on the edge of my seat waiting to hear if it would be me.

but i would try and take solance in the fact they helped saved numerous other lives.

OP posts:
morningpaper · 12/04/2008 19:41

I agree with you Misdee

It's not like handing over a nice painting

It's got to be based on medical need and best match

Original poster
misdee · 12/04/2008 19:43

the night peter got his heart, an online friend was called in for lungs at the same time. peters op went ahead, Oli got sent home. meedical match and suitability is a must in these situation. there is NO point transplanting an unsuitable organ that is not up to scratch or not a good match, as it just wont work. even though Peter was on the urgent list, they still turned down two hearts as not suitable quality.

OP posts:
FairyMum · 12/04/2008 19:44

If I died and one of my organs could help save one of my children.....yes, I think close famil-relatioships sould overide, but agree it is a very difficult ethical dilemma. Especially regarding DM readers!

ib · 12/04/2008 19:44

Sorry, but I think that's just wrong. I agree that it would not be acceptable to say 'I want the organs not to go to black/gay/whatever people' is not acceptable, but there is a world of difference between that and saying 'I want ONE of the recipients to be someone who is my next of kin'. I don't think they are comparable and I just don't buy the slippery slope argument.

With such a shortage of donors they really should be bending backward to avoid situations that make people uneasy about donating.

EffiePerine · 12/04/2008 19:45

surely the answer is to get more people to donate their organs rather than putting stipulations on who should get what?

Unfitmother · 12/04/2008 19:52

DH, who is a transplant recipiant, is incensed by this story and is writing to the head of the HTA.

"You see, this is the kind of thing that stops me going on the donor register." (see above)

How many times is this going to be said as a result of this negative publicity? This case looks as if it has been very poorly handled. There is a big difference between positive and negative restrictions.

The libertarian view againt an opt-in system of organ donation is a desire for the state not to have control of the human body after death. The view-point has just scored a massive goal with this story.

As someone with 2 family members on the transplant list, I can see why in the case of heart, lung and liver transplantation medical needs surpasses all else; this was not the case here.

SparklyGothKat · 12/04/2008 20:04

but surely she is higher up the list now thanks to her daughter?

Unfitmother · 12/04/2008 20:11

Unfortunately, as every person comes off the list, more go on. In the case of kidney transplants, you can be on for years.

Original poster
misdee · 12/04/2008 20:12

you can be on the transplant list for years for most organs sadly.

how do they assess kidney donations then? if its not based on match/medical need?

OP posts:
edam · 12/04/2008 20:15

Ah, I see there was no record of her daughter's wish to be a living donor. So all the transplant people had to go on was the mother's word. Which isn't enough, I'm afraid. Plus if she hadn't started the living donor process, she wouldn't have know whether the organs were a suitable match anyway.

Very sad story - I see the poor daughter had a two year old dd to make it even more poignant.

Swipe left for the next trending thread