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/?

Major organs can only be used if they are in a healthy state, for example if someone has died due to trauma but their body was previously healthy. These people will all have brain death.

From memory, other organs, for example corneas, can still be used if someone dies from heart disease, and or had other diseases prior to death.

The legal definition of death had to be changed in the 1960’s before heart transplants could take place. Previously death meant the heart had stopped, so a beating heart could not be removed and used in a recipient.

Isn't this also an issue with socialised medicine? If the public is paying for healthcare, rather than the individual, aren't choices that prioritise healthcare workers and equipment towards those more likely to recover likely to be made? At an individual level, it seems like a healthcare professional who supposedly might let a potential donor die to save others might equally be tempted not to 'waste so much time' on a 'selfish' individual who opted out.

In the past, health systems and medical ethics have worked very hard to make sure that regulations and practice did not take his sort of utilitarian approach to individuals. So even someone who is very likely to die is meant to be treated as a whole person with autonomy and decision making powers. That is how doctors practice, not on the basis of trading off the good of one patient on the other, and generally this is also how the administrative element is handled. It's why most doctors and nurses find the idea of triage where it means leaving some aside stressful and difficult, even when it's necessary in circumstances like wars or disasters.

This is emphasised in training and in management of medical systems because people are all too aware what can happen when people are looked at as units rather than persons. But it seems to becoming less of a focus at the administrative level. People are all very "well that could never happen."

‘ Can only mean one thing. Boris and the Big Boys (who will speak with American accents) have found a way to skim more money away from the UK taxpayer and into the deserving coffers of MegaCorp Inc‘

Had to laugh as this one, as the PM who campaigned most for this measure was Gordon Brown, and the actual law was passed during May’s term of office.

As the sale of organs is explicitly banned in UK, and the mysterious consultancy is completely evidence-free, it was beginning to read like a tin-foil thread!

This is emphasised in training and in management of medical systems because people are all too aware what can happen when people are looked at as units rather than persons. But it seems to becoming less of a focus at the administrative level. People are all very "well that could never happen."

The more you have of anything, the less it's worth. Not quite sure why anybody would think human life is somehow exempt.

Drifting way off topic, but one view of the past 100 years has been a race to ramp up the population of planet earth so as to reduce the value and cost of labour. You want to scare seven shades of shit out of a capitalist ? Tell him the workforce is shrinking.

As the sale of organs is explicitly banned in UK, and the mysterious consultancy is completely evidence-free, it was beginning to read like a tin-foil thread!

It never ceases to amaze me how people seem to thing "now" is somehow immutably set in stone any can never change. "Now" is merely tomorrows yesterday.

If it became necessary to legalise the sale of organs, it would happen. And no amount of protests would still the hand of progress.

Yes, indeed, Goosefoot. Some Buddhists wish the body to be undisturbed for a period of three days to allow the full process of dying/death to unfold

Absolutely! It really does depend on one's view of life; of one's own life on earth, and its deeper or spiritual meaning.

My body very much belongs to me,......and after that it has meaning and value for those that I leave behind.

There's no way I want surgeons stripping me of my organs within minutes, or hours, of my death. With the possibility that they end up 'somewhere' or used for some purpose that I might possibly object to in life; or on the dissection board of a medical student.

FWIW, that consultation I linked to upthread thanked various bodies for their input, mostly US based organisations.

The US' performance with regards to organ donation was praised as one of the 'best'.

I am uncomfortable with many aspects of the US healthcare service being used as a model, for probably quite obvious reasons.

FWIW, that consultation I linked to upthread thanked various bodies for their input, mostly US based organisations.

Notice how I knew there would be US involvement without expending any effort. Means more time for my cross stitch.

There's a depressing efficiency to cynicism.

Short of time but just pasting the link to the thread where posters were pointing out problems at consultation stage. I would be interested to see if these have all been resolved in the finished system.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3573720-Consultation-on-new-organ-donation-rules?msgid=86786207#86786207

There's a depressing efficiency to cynicism.

It never ceases to amaze me how people seem to thing "now" is somehow immutably set in stone any can never change. "Now" is merely tomorrows yesterday.

If it became necessary to legalise the sale of organs, it would happen. And no amount of protests would still the hand of progress.

Doesn't that mean any concerns about opt out being a step in that direction are moot? Given that 'they' will just move in whatever direction suits the evil corporate giants. If laws will simply be cast aside then it seems like opt in puts us in exactly the same position.

Well, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as the saying goes.

Given that every survey has shown that the vast majority of adults are happy to donate their organs, why is it more important to safeguard the wishes of those who do not wish to donate than those who do? In other words, why is it less significant of an issue if someone wishes to be a donor but is not able to donate due to limited information?

Take this statement and think about what the assumptions being made there would mean in a sexual context, if you haven't already. It's not good. Very bad things happen when a society goes down the "well most people would be OK with this, so (shrugs)" path in any context, and it's a perfect example of why so many people are worried about assumed consent in law.

Also, Buddhists and others who don't share the utilitarian view of the dead should have rights too. A decent society doesn't just say "well you've been overruled so your wishes don't matter".

Sex is an important component in organ transplant success or failure so it is disconcerting that they would use gender instead of sex when discussing organ donation.

Also, Buddhists and others who don't share the utilitarian view of the dead should have rights too. A decent society doesn't just say "well you've been overruled so your wishes don't matter"

I suspect the reason people think this way is that they see the utilitarian view as just true/factual/scientific, and the others as philosophy, or worse, "spiritual". They don't realise that utilitarianism or materialism or logical positivism etc aren't any more self-evident.

Will people be punished in life for mistreating their bodies to the extent that they aren't useful after death? Smokers have to pay an 'organ tax' to make up for the set of healthy lungs they have denied the state?

A decent society doesn't just say "well you've been overruled so your wishes don't matter"

I take it you've been out of the "U"K for a while, holidaying on Mars, perhaps ?

Is there a particular reason why you decided that it would be a brilliant idea to start the day off by having a go at someone who's been agreeing with you?

Take this statement and think about what the assumptions being made there would mean in a sexual context, if you haven't already. It's not good. Very bad things happen when a society goes down the "well most people would be OK with this, so (shrugs)" path in any context

I'm not proposing mandatory donation, the opportunity to opt out is readily available. I also disagree that not donating is a null choice. This isn't utilitarianism, it's recognising that different beliefs can result in either choice being extremely objectionable.

I see it as more akin to cremation vs burial. Depending on cultural background, a person might find one or the other absolutely abhorrent and every effort should be made to establish which (if either) would best meet the wishes of the deceased. However, if no information is forthcoming, I would find it invidious for a minority group who only permits cremation to suggest that it should be regarded as the default for all, with burial being an option only in the event of explicit wishes being recorded.

Whats the issue with reproductive organs, some sort of Frankenstein transgender thing ? Just curious altho I can see some people demanding this surgery as their right to completing their journey to womanhood or am I just tied after four night shifts

I think we have 2 separate groups who have issues with that, one group who specifically don't want their reproductive organs or tissues being donated to a male and another who don't want those organs or tissues used by someone else at all.

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

I'm in the latter group mentioned by PP. No one gets my ovaries. I refuse to have a child of mine created after my death. Poor thing would have so many questions they'd never be able to answer satisfactorily. I'm theoretically less fussed about fallopian tubes etc.

And of course if you didn't realize that the system was moving to opt out and therefore didn't make your wishes clear then those wishes might not be respected after your death, which, again, is one of the many reasons why opt out is a terrible idea.

I think we have 2 separate groups who have issues with that, one group who specifically don't want their reproductive organs or tissues being donated to a male and another who don't want those organs or tissues used by someone else at all.

Hopefully it will remain a long established principle that once organs are in the donation system, the donors wishes can Fuck Right Off, and everything is decided on a clinical basis alone.

We really don't want to begin the journey of people insisting their livers go to Good White Folk or only a devout Muslim or somesuch bollocks.

If somebody is kind enough to donate their dong, it should go to whoever is in need of a dong, regardless of their previous dong toting status, as well as religion, race, etc etc.

And of course if you didn't realize that the system was moving to opt out and therefore didn't make your wishes clear then those wishes might not be respected after your death

I absolutely agree that properly informing the public is important. I imagine the reason this didn't rank higher in the news was a result of the high levels of support for organ donation. That said, I believe that this sort of policy shift would definitely justify a letter to every household as well as a delay in the change until after Covid-19 stops being at the forefront of everyone's concerns (e.g. when effective contact tracing is operative at the earliest but, ideally, when a vaccine becomes widely available).