Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

They're our organs now

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My 2p:

    it's wrong, as I think aladdin said, in an 'ideal' world, because the government should never assume your wishes. I know personally that given the incentive, some doctors will nudge a recommendation of turning life support machines off to the family, when it should be an unbiased and purely medical decision.

    Organs for scientific research, sometimes, turn up in art galleries.

    I don't like the undercurrent by some that you're somehow ignorant or selfish if you don't want to donate. If someone says that, people feel the need to question you and say 'why? what good does it do to you?' and 'you shouldn't be given an organ if you need one'. People should have the right to choose, it's a personal decision and it's really unfair of some holier than thous to start judging people who may have their own reasons for choosing to donate or not.

    However, given the organ crisis situation, I think it should be made easier to donate, i.e. with families wishes. But it shouldn't be an automatic opt in system. What if you really didn't want to give your organs, but didn't tell the government, and your family are at your deathbed whilst loads of men in coats come in and take you away to be chopped up and sent all over Europe.

    There is a very sentimental connection with a dead body for a lot of people and that is what should be respected. So I'm torn. We should not assume, even when the evidence is clear they wished otherwise but because of the red tape we can say 'they didn't fill in this form, so fuck off and give us the organs', that people want to give their organs up because since it is a very personal and sentimental thing for a lot of people (or only 6% (about 3,600,000 people in the uk?) according to MoK which I don't believe from personal experience, sorry).

    On the other hand, if someone does want to give their organs up but never registered their wishes then fair enough. But surely there is a better way. When my dad died they never asked us if he minded his organs being used - which he didn't really give a damn about either way - I assume maybe thats because he was 62 and because he had cancer / chemo. But as much as the grieving relative argument is used, we have to make funeral arrangements, have to go through all their stuff, I think I could have coped if someone sympathetically asked one of us if we knew what his wishes regarding his organs were.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    or only 6% (about 3,600,000 people in the uk?) according to MoK which I don't believe from personal experience, sorry

    It was 16%...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy, you've said the governement shouldn't assume your wishes, BUT surely they've got to go one way or the other, assume you will or assume you won't.

    It seems more people in principle would rather than wouldn't, so would make sense to assume would.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    beanbag wrote: »
    Does this mean that consciousness forms the basis of rights, so that a thing can only have rights if it has consciousness?

    If so, what happens when I'm asleep?

    Well strictly speaking, brain activity is the basis of rights generally speaking. Which is why a foetus has no rights until it reach about the 16 week stage if I remember correctly (whatever the limit for abortion is in Germany).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was 16%...

    My apologies!

    Still, from my friends I think 3 out of 10 are very 'pro organ donor' and that, maybe 4/5 of us (including me) are 'hmmm not sure..' and the other couple are a bit funny and think their body bits are too good for others, lol. But I'm sure they'll grow up!

    If it was a case of saving someones life then yea I would give up their organs but at the same time it would be my preference not to because I have a sentimental connection with them lol. Which is why I'm still on the fence. And atm, having an opt-in system means theres no pressure on me to decide yet - but having an opt-out system means I must choose not to or otherwise they will anyway.

    Scary - yea but surely you can see the difference between opt in and opt out?

    This thread has made me think, I might register as an organ donor this weekend. Perhaps. I cant imagine the anguish people have to go through waiting on an organ donor list. It was 5 years ago I heard they were working on growing organs built from someones own stem cells - theoretically making transplants from donors a thing of the past.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Organ transplants are usually life saving. You can chose what organs you wish to donate when you register.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mostly, I think it's hugely irrelevant what people wish to happen to their body once they're dead, as they'll be dead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But would you say that it was irrelevant as to what happens to their property when they are dead, as they are dead ?

    I would have thought a good case could be made for them owning their body parts more than any inanimate object.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But would you say that it was irrelevant as to what happens to their property when they are dead, as they are dead ?

    I would have thought a good case could be made for them owning their body parts more than any inanimate object.

    Except that the property passes to next of kin but a body clearly cannot...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why can't the body pass to the next of kin ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It does, for disposal, but you cannot "own" a body. Health issues for a start...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But would you say that it was irrelevant as to what happens to their property when they are dead, as they are dead ?

    I would have thought a good case could be made for them owning their body parts more than any inanimate object.

    interesting, food for thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    My 2p:

    it's wrong, as I think aladdin said, in an 'ideal' world, because the government should never assume your wishes. I know personally that given the incentive, some doctors will nudge a recommendation of turning life support machines off to the family, when it should be an unbiased and purely medical decision.

    Organs for scientific research, sometimes, turn up in art galleries.

    So doctors are going to kill patients to save other ones?

    When exactly has an organ turned up in an art gallery?
  • BunnieBunnie Posts: 6,099 Master Poster
    Personally I agree with the Opt - out system. As many have commented, they would be happy to allow their organs to go to a better use but have not yet registered (I have and it took probably only took 5 mins!).

    The gov are still allowing those who are unhappy about it to opt out, and I am seriously stuggling to find out why this is a problem? If this system allows others to have a happier and healthier life after we have gone, then what is there to moan about?

    If you feel so strongly about keeping your organs (which is fair enough, and a personal choice) then you will make bloody sure you have opted out, whereas those who are happy about it would not necessarily have the same urge to opt in as they, in theory, have nothing to lose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    For someone who normally won't take anything at face value, you're being surprisingly complacent here. Who says that there is huge public support for this? And I ask again - if support is as high as some claim, why are so few on the register?

    Because donating organs isn't something people really think about. I never sit there with ym friends and say 'hey have you put yourself on the donating list then?" So you could say that the availability of organs is severely restricted because people don't knwo how to add themselves on the list and they certainly don't think about it either. In fact th eonly time someone would is when they need one themselves! And you'd certianly be bloody supporting the opt-out system then if we were in that position and you were dying because they couldn't locate an organ for you. This isn't about the governemnt or the state, it's about peoples' lives!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting point.

    20 000 people have added themselves to the register since Liam Donaldson made his comment, so it's partly served the purpose of increasing numbers!

    Source: Daily Telegraph, not the greatest I know, but will do for this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lipsy wrote: »
    Because donating organs isn't something people really think about.

    Indeed
    And you'd certianly be bloody supporting the opt-out system then if we were in that position and you were dying because they couldn't locate an organ for you. This isn't about the governemnt or the state, it's about peoples' lives!

    Indeed
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can understand the reasons behind making it an opt-out system, but I don't agree with it (and I say that knowing my sister-in-law's going to need a heart transplant in the next few years).

    I don't think people should be violating the dead without their express permission, no matter how good the cause is. It's just wrong. But any register there is should be binding, and the relatives shouldn't be allowed to go against the wishes of the deceased.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I can understand the reasons behind making it an opt-out system, but I don't agree with it (and I say that knowing my sister-in-law's going to need a heart transplant in the next few years).

    I don't think people should be violating the dead without their express permission, no matter how good the cause is. It's just wrong. But any register there is should be binding, and the relatives shouldn't be allowed to go against the wishes of the deceased.

    The very tangible good which could be achieved by the donation of organs of dead people far outweighs any vague notions - and let's be fair, frequently nonsensical religious notions - of desecration of the the dead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I don't think people should be violating the dead without their express permission.

    How are they doing this? It's not as if they're saying you have to donate your organs if you die.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It does, for disposal, but you cannot "own" a body. Health issues for a start...

    Maybe there would be health issues but that would be an argument on practical issues.

    This thread appears to be about the ethical and legal side of things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    As I've pointed out time and time again, I'm going to be registering on the donor very shortly anyway.

    Then why do you object to it so much?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Donate means to give which certainly suggests to me that whatever is being given belongs to the giver.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The very tangible good which could be achieved by the donation of organs of dead people far outweighs any vague notions - and let's be fair, frequently nonsensical religious notions - of desecration of the the dead.

    Is desecration of the dead a religous notion? I thought it was a pretty common view across atheists as well. After all religion teaches that the body is just a shell for the soul...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe there would be health issues but that would be an argument on practical issues.

    This thread appears to be about the ethical and legal side of things.

    It's a legal issue to related to "proper" disposal of a body.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The very tangible good which could be achieved by the donation of organs of dead people far outweighs any vague notions - and let's be fair, frequently nonsensical religious notions - of desecration of the the dead.

    It's not a religious belief for a lot of people, a lot of people are not happy with the idea of their body being carved up.

    I'm happy for it to be done, so I'm on all the registers, but I don't think that should be imposed on me against my will. Regardless of any "good" that may come of it (often the "good" will simply prolong a life for a few years, no more), matters like this should be left to the consent of the deceased.

    I don't like any scheme where the government tells us what to do unless we specifically say no. It's morally repugnant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    As I've pointed out time and time again, I'm going to be registering on the donor very shortly anyway.

    AFAIK you can do it when you register your provisonal driving license because thats when I signed up. You could have easily done it months ago.

    I think the current opt-in system is better as people will be far too complacent to opt-out and then their families will contest it after there death. It needs to promoted more widly, in the way that blood donating is done (which needs a lot more wide spread understaing and promotion as far as I'm concerned)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In my opinion, I don't think there should be an opt-out system. Like someone has already said this is all about DONATING your organs. Choosing to give them up. Say I was in dire need of a heart and I got a donor (pretending the opt-out system was in place), OK thats good for me. But I couldnt stop thinking well mabye that person didnt WANT to give me their heart, perhaps they just hadnt "got round to opting out". If I ever needed an organ, I wouldnt like to think the person I was getting it from did not want me to have it. Defeats the point of the phrase ORGAN DONATION.

    I think there should be an emphasis placed on getting more people to opt in to the current system. MAKE people think and talk about it. MAKE it so easy for people to sign up with the ease of a signiture.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It's not a religious belief for a lot of people, a lot of people are not happy with the idea of their body being carved up.

    I'm happy for it to be done, so I'm on all the registers, but I don't think that should be imposed on me against my will. Regardless of any "good" that may come of it (often the "good" will simply prolong a life for a few years, no more), matters like this should be left to the consent of the deceased.

    I don't like any scheme where the government tells us what to do unless we specifically say no. It's morally repugnant.

    I think i have similar feelings on the subject to you, it's something im happy to do, but agree it shouldn't be imposed on people, i just differ in viewing everybody being able to opt-out stops it being "imposed" on us, just reading all the posts shows how personal that line is, at what lengths we allow ourselves being made to go to, to avoid it being deemed has being forced upon us.

    Personally, as long as it's not costing me anything, or disadvantaging me in any way to opt-out i still view it as a free choice.

    (Perhaps a poor similarity could be) Similar to when you sign up to a new account on the internet, you either have to tick or untick a box to allow them to share your information, either way i dont view it has being imposed upon me, but if they had set it to initially to share my information, i'm having to untick that box myself, would that mean that initially it had been imposed upon me and was immoral?

    I think there are very very few people who are unaware that they can donate their organs, and in the previous few years i know i've saw a dozen or so advertisements encouraging people to donate, and even more stories in the papers / news telling of people dying waiting for kidneys etc... So i dont think a new push in advertising will see a huge increase in people signing up to be donors.

    My personal suggestion would be to introduce the opt-out scheme, but giving plenty of opportunities for people to opt-out easily.

    From the introduction of the scheme, give 24 months opt out, then after that:
    When they apply for a passport (or anything where you need to include your national insurance number for example), include a section where you can tick a box to Opt-Out of organ donating?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That'd be a better compromise, but I'm still not really in favour of that.

    Volunteering is easy, but if people don't want to, then that's their choice. Donor cards should be binding on the families of the deceased, which is a problem we have now, where the dead person said yes but the spouse/parent/child of the deceased says no. The relative has the final say.

    For me, I'm a blood donor, I'm on the organ donation register (did it with my driving licence) and I'm on the bone marrow register too.
Sign In or Register to comment.