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/?

I oppose almost all methods of assisted fertility. I've carried an organ donation card since forever and always made clear that no reproductive tissue or organs can be used. I have that as a note with the card and my husband knows my views.

If the Scottish version does not permit an opt out of those organs I will opt out of everything but leave it to my husband or son to permit use of any other organs. At my age I expect that reproductive tissue and organs would be of little use other than for research but I don't even want that to happen.

This thread is mad. You'd rather risk someone dying without a heart transplant to avoid the extremely unlikely event of somebody born male being given reproductive organs. I question self ID, but not to the point of hurting people

I can't speak for others but I don't want anyone regardless of what sex, gender or whatever they are, using any part of my reproductive organs. That has always been my position.

I could not care less if the registration form asks about "gender"- that certainly won't put me off being a donor.

The basic tenet of consent: absence of a no does not constitute a yes.

I was opted in for years when I was able to know as a certainty that no unwilling citizen would be harvested for their organs, and this during the years when the majority of the population wasn't opted in.

I opted out when this legislation was proposed, and made my reasons known to the transplant service. My hope was that they would have second thoughts about the effectiveness of abandoning explicit donor consent.

I am a potential donor who will not be part of a national register of people who have not expressly consented to be harvested. If the transplant service value express consent, they can ask my next of kin what my wishes actually were. However they seem to have now adopted a system where the binary options are 1. We will take your unvconsented organs if you have not explicitly told us otherwise or 2. We will exclude you entirely if you expect us to ask.

It appears to boil down to "we'd rather lose you as a donor than be expected to ask your explicit consent"

As Goosefoot said, I regret bitterly that we have set a precedent of 'no consent needed' in law, for such a matter of importance.

Presumed consent is an oxymoron.
If it's presumed, it isn't consent at all.

I signed up to donate age 18 but hate presumed consent and don't want my uterus harvested for a male. I'm starting to get too old for most bits to be desirable anyway

I find the whole framing of this sinister, and had a massive falling out with a friend who was very much in favor of it being framed this way a few years ago. They're trying to social engineer everyone into donating whether they're comfortable with it or not, the gender wankery is only a side note of just in case you thought we respected your boundaries here's a reminder that we don't.

Reproductive tissue is or at least will be up for grabs for sure.
There has been a suggestion that sperm should be on the list of tissue that can be taken donated.

I have already talked to my daughters about this. Imagine, if their father died and his sperm was taken - they could have half siblings they know nothing about. It's a reprehensible suggestion.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/sperm-donor-dead-men-supply-medical-ethics-a9293736.html?amp

I don't know about the state of research or current practice regarding ovarian tissue but it will also be highly sought after.
In this podcast, towards the end, there is discussion of persuading women seeking an abortion to have a late abortion so that ovarian tissue can be collected from the fetus. Fetal farming he called it. Around 24 minutes in though I recommend listening to it all.

It's a very interesting podcast with insight into the Brave New World around the corner.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000456653311

My ovaries are long shrivelled up but I've opted out on principle. My family know my main organs are available but the state does not own my body.

I've been on organ donor register forever.

My eggs are totally off limit. Thanks for flagging.

I think it should be a rule, if someone opts out of organ donation, They then shouldn't ever be entitled to an organ if they ever needed one !

Crikey. I hadn't considered that.

I'm on the register, they can have everything except my heart (for sentimental value), but I'm going to have to think about this, I never realised it could mean use of my eggs

Could I ask what concerning changes you see happening as a result of this precedent being set?

It has to do with issues around who ultimately "owns" the body. The foundation of our autonomy is rooted in the self, which includes our body. We get to decide about our own flesh, because it is us.

There are clear questions around how strong consent is when it's an opt out system. There is at the least a presumption that most people would want to do it. And there begin to be an assumption that the state's view of the dead body as an empty shell is the right one, which is also certainly a philosophical position and not one held by everyone.

There are also questions around when is a person really dead - this isn't necessarily as straightforward as most people think. If the body belongs to the state when it is dead, there could be consequences of that.

They can't presume consent to implant organs, I don't think.

And then there's what's happening in China with reported organ harvesting of prisoners and Uighurs in detainment camps. The counterargument will of course be that our governments would never do that, to which my response is "maybe, but I'd rather not create a situation that would make that easier to get away with".

I wonder what happens if a overseas visitor dies in England. Or someone from another part of the UK, that hasn't signed up for this legislation yet. Do you think their organs will be presumed consented? How will they know? Sometimes people are in accidents and don't have ID. If the presumption is to harvest - they could do it do anybody. literally any body. yes?

The counterargument will of course be that our governments would never do that

This sort of thing ends up with such shit legislation, I'm not sure how anyone can say it with a straight face.

I have no doubt that people in our various governments would find that idea horrific. I am a lot less sure that will be the case 50 years from now. People's attitudes can change, a lot.

here in Canada we now have assisted death, and there is increasing pressure to widen it's availability, removing many of the safeguards that were purposefully included to prevent abuses. This is within less than a decade.

If people don't think these kinds of laws can be pushed into totally new uses they are fooling themselves.

Yes. It's opening a door that we would all be better off keeping firmly shut.

‘This thread is mad. You'd rather risk someone dying without a heart transplant to avoid the extremely unlikely event of somebody born male being given reproductive organs. I question self ID, but not to the point of hurting people.’

What on earth are you talking about? Women unsurprisingly do not want their genetic material harvested. This is a massive human rights issue. Not everything is about transgenderism.

Thanks for posting about this OP. Horrifying that this has been done during a pandemic.

Document here seems to be saying reproductive organs are not included in the opt out.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/867918/Government_response_to_opt-out_organ_donation_-_organs_and_tissues_excluded_from_the_new_system.pdf

I saw that visitors to England and people who have lived there for less than a year are not included in the opt in system.

I am assuming they would need to know who a person was before they removed organs.

From NameChange's link

i) the regulations have been revised to clarify further that tissue from sexual and
reproductive organs, including skin, will not be transplanted without express
consent regardless of the type of transplant, routine or novel. This is to give
assurance and put beyond doubt that no part of reproductive organs and
tissues will be covered by deemed consent;
ii) linked to the above change, in line with comments, the list of the component
parts of the female reproductive system has been expanded and now includes
vagina, labia, clitoris, vulva, cervix, perineum and fallopian tube(s). Prostate
for the male reproductive system has also been added;

Would those tissues still be taken for research without consent?

There is a feedback option, I have used that to tell them I have a sex but not a gender.

Wow thanks for linking that Nameofchanges. I completed that consultation, after reading about it on here.

I found it quite creepy that female genitalia were not on the initial exclusion list, particularly given that male genitalia were - that was the main reason I completed it. I am quite chuffed and pleased with myself to see it actually made a difference.

I was meditating this all day yesterday, but on top of the basic presumption, they are now talking about gender and skirting the issue of reproductive organs. So many aspects of this to be unhappy about. So, after 30+ years of deliberate informed consent to donate my organs, I have reversed my registration.

Thanks for the prompt.

Are they skirting the issue of reproductive organs though?

Pre-consultation, the legislation they proposed was more ambiguous and I was considering opting out, but it seems pretty clear now - reproductive organs will only be used with consent. Am I missing something?

Gingerkitty - "Use of organs, tissues and cells for non-transplantation
purposes, such as research, is outside the scope of deemed consent" - buried in the document.

@Stuckforthefourthtime completely agree with you!

This thread is bonkers.

Organ donation shouldn't be optional imo. Once you're dead, your body/organs should be available for research/transplants etc.

Also agree that people opting out of organ donation shouldn't be eligible to receive.

Organ donation shouldn't be optional imo. Once you're dead, your body/organs should be available for research/transplants etc.

Wow. Authoritarian much.

So the bodies we live in are just on loan from the state for the duration of our lives?

You do know some religions have very particular rituals after death for preparing the body for burial etc ? I have no idea if their strict adherents ever agree to organ donation - possibly not.