New Opt Out Organ Donation System comes into effect today

[Al1Langdownthecleghole]

I've just gone on to register my wishes, (link below if anyone else wants to do likewise).

I was concerned that under the new regulations requiring you to opt-out of becoming a transplant donor, it would not be possible to specifically opt-out of donating my reproductive organs.

In fact, if you opt to only donate some of your organs and select the ones you are happy to be used, reproductive organs are not listed as a choice, although "tissue" is, and I do wonder how widely tissue could be interpreted.

For now, I am choosing to opt-out of donating tissue, but would be willing to donate the other organs specifically listed.

Sadly, there is the inevitable question about gender. Even when talking about cadaver transplants, it would seem gender trumps biology.

www.organdonation.nhs.uk/register-your-decision/register-your-details/?

Bananabixfloof, sorry if it wasn't clear, I understand that it falls under personal feelings but I specifically meant personal feelings about the fate of their body after death. It's not even as if the person who may receive an organ is the one asking the question in the 'wrong' way.

Whilst I have now opted out of this new assumed consent, and I stand by that, it might not be out of the question, totally, if under very specific circumstances surrounding my death ( with prior awareness of it, and with time to prepare) I might gift a specific organ to a specific recipient; but certainly only of my choosing. Say a family member, or close friend, for example. I would certainly wish to retain the right of choice when it came to my bodily integrity.

Whats the issue with reproductive organs, some sort of Frankenstein transgender thing

I objected in the consultation to women's genitalia being included in the "up for grabs" category, i.e. not being on the exclusion list. Given the extent of capture of medical bodies, it was easy to envision a future where improvements in transplant technology could mean that dead women's body parts are freely available to men who want them for fetishistic reasons.

That struck me as a nightmarish dystopia to be avoided, and thankfully female genitalia are on the exclusion list now, and that cannot be changed without another law being passed. So yeah, the trans issue was the primary basis of my objection.

There is no opt out for reproductive tissues on the website BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OPT-OUT SYSTEM. You will still have to give express consent to donate them.

Which is quite tricky when you're dead.

I see that skin is on the list of 'up for grabs' and sadly, my cynical mind says that will mean breasts being given to AGP men who 'need' them to feel like a woman.

My concern would be that those grieving, would not have the strength to understand what the soon to be dead person, wants. If they’re told the person dying are a diner, what’s the likelihood that they’ll say ‘oh yes, except for her womb, eggs, etc” For that reason I’m opting out and will opt out my daughter as she does not have capacity to decide. I won’t have her reproductive organs or skin used for ANY other purposes.

*donor, not diner. That’s a whole other issue.

I understand that it falls under personal feelings but I specifically meant personal feelings about the fate of their body after death

Do you feel that people aren't allowed to have those? Certainly there's no way for you to prevent them from doing so.

I find your badgering rude in the extreme

Irony highpoint of the thread!

A few posters might have been confused about this, but I think mainly people are concerned about the legal implications of the opt out system as a whole, especially down the line.It's not difficult to imagine even that reproductive tissues could later be included if that kind of procedure is seen as basic medicine everyone has a right to.

Yes, I think many of us who're concerned are thinking rather more long term than "what if this was relevant to me next month, or next year". Some of us will also be thinking of what happens when our loved ones die, and if this would impact our ability to make sure their wishes are respected.

TBH Gurning, actual breast tissue is nowhere near as perky as silicone implants, so probably less desirable.

Ah, parents will have to opt their children out of the scheme, too. Thanks for the reminder, Lillian.

Yes I'm being forward looking. Not just at the current governance, what happens when a different political party gets in.

My concern would be that those grieving, would not have the strength to understand what the soon to be dead person, wants

This is something that concerns me not about the current system change, but about how the system seems to be working in general in many countries. People from the US in particular have reported grieving relatives being put under a lot of pressure to donate the organs of their loved ones who're dying (or who may die but that isn't certain yet, which is its own issue), and I've heard similar stories from other countries. In practical terms I understand why medical staff approach them then, but I also think that's an awful situation to be put in when you're already scared and sad and beginning to grieve, and if I was on the receiving end of those kinds of questions at that time I strongly suspect I'd get very angry, especially if they were persistent and didn't accept my first answer. From the perspective of those already sure that they want to donate and that their loved ones would too I'm not sure they're quite understanding how intrusive and upsetting that might be to those who feel differently. Or maybe they do know but think that it serves the greater good for that to happen and therefore the feelings of those people don't really matter.

@Al1Langdownthecleghole it's the sanitary bin raiding ones who will probably be after the real thing, if they are happy to wear soiled sanitary towels from public toilets, then I'm sure a saggy but real breast is a fetishists dream. Especially if they came with no real consent.

Do you feel that people aren't allowed to have those? Certainly there's no way for you to prevent them from doing so.

No, I would like to understand. Is your range of 'permitted' opinions limited to those that you can understand, despite your frustrations at your inability to prevent those you don't? That seems rather unpleasant.

I also think that's an awful situation to be put in when you're already scared and sad and beginning to grieve, and if I was on the receiving end of those kinds of questions at that time I strongly suspect I'd get very angry

This is another benefit of opt out: those questions won't be asked of relatives of those who have had their decision to opt out recorded.

I hadn't considered that Gurning...

No, I would like to understand. Is your range of 'permitted' opinions limited to those that you can understand, despite your frustrations at your inability to prevent those you don't? That seems rather unpleasant.

Of course not, but it rather seems that you struggle with the concept that others might have opinions that differ from yours and that those might matter in terms of what's done to their bodies. This whole thread has been rather eye opening in that regard.

*This is another benefit of opt out: those questions won't be asked of relatives of those who have had their decision to opt out recorded.^

I hope you realize how grossly manipulative this is.

it rather seems that you struggle with the concept that others might have opinions that differ from yours and that those might matter in terms of what's done to their bodies

Interesting, do you usually equate a lack of agreement with a lack of understanding and/or care? Personally, I think that some (but by no means all) of the opponents of opt out are writing off the opinions and concerns of proponents as 'utilitarian' or simply out of hand. However, I'm not terribly interested in specifically taking them to task over this and would rather understand and discuss various perspectives.

I hope you realize how grossly manipulative this is.

In the sense that a system you don't like offers advantages? The temerity. Naturally, this isn't limited to opt out, it could also be implemented under an opt in system (where the register also has an option to opt out) but that has the potential disadvantage of greater uncertainty when no response is recorded, given adequate public information.

I can understand why people refuse donation on the basis of religion or personal feelings about the fate of their body after death but I've never been able to understand this notion.

It's not a gift if someone has the right to something. It's giving them their due. More like you are giving them something that is owed or even paying a debt.

It very much changes the sense of a "donation". It's like the government calling the money they are supposed to return to you for taxes a donation.

I specifically meant personal feelingsabout the fate of their body after death

My objection has nothing to do with the fate of my body after death. I do not want to support assisted conception in any way.

I'm happy for organs to be used but I want a cast iron guarantee that nothing will be used for that purpose or research into that purpose. I don't want to assist anyone, gay, straight, male , female , trans or whatever.

In the sense that you're offering people a choice between being pressured to agree to something that they may not be comfortable with at a vulnerable and upsetting time or having their wishes not to be assumed to have consented to others doing whatever they like with their body or the bodies of their loved ones disregarded. And taking a rather obvious pleasure in the fact that people are being put in that position very much against their will.

Thank you, Goosefoot, I suppose the reason I don't see it that way is because I still see it as voluntary because it's possible to opt out, unlike taxes.

DidoLamenting, apologies for the lack of specificity (or broadness). I did already understand your concerns as you laid them out earlier. It seems like that would be covered by the current range of questions asked by registering to be a donor form. There's also an option to speak to a specialist nurse about faith/beliefs which might help with getting the cast iron guarantee or, at least, finding out whether it's possible. (I previously thought you had to give details but the whole form is viewable on the next page so I had a look).

In the sense that you're offering people a choice between being pressured to agree to something that they may not be comfortable with at a vulnerable and upsetting time or having their wishes not to be assumed to have consented to others doing whatever they like with their body or the bodies of their loved ones disregarded.

I may be misunderstanding but, under opt out, family members don't get asked anything if the decision to opt out has been recorded. If anything, it's harder on families under opt in, since there is no difference to the register for someone who wanted to donate but gave no prior answer and someone who did not consent.

And taking a rather obvious pleasure in the fact that people are being put in that position very much against their will.

I'm afraid that's not the case.

I suppose the reason I don't see it that way is because I still see it as voluntary because it's possible to opt out, unlike taxes

In future its assumed with good reason that very few will opt out. Because it wont often be brought up . Except the obligatory good news stories about how donation has increased and sooo many people have been saved by this "altruistic" thing.
Lots of people wont look much further than the first page if at all.
And that sits wrong with me.

My understanding is that regardless of individuals recording their wishes via the opt-out scheme, family members will still be approached.

People are advised to discuss their wishes with close family for this very reason.

So even being forced into a situation where consent is presumed but one can in theory opt out doesn't mean that your wishes will be respected. Which makes the grossly manipulative situation that I pointed out earlier even more unpalatable, in that people will not necessarily even receive the one small concession (maybe we won't try to pressure you into this while you're grieving) that it was asserted that they would receive.

I don't think the idea of avoiding talking to people who are grieving is really a good idea anyway. When it's done properly most people appreciate being asked even if they also find it upsetting, and often they say yes, and that would be even more so if it was a very standard expectation in those circumstances.

Talking to the family properly is what really makes a difference to donation numbers anyway.