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 ✨
Options
automatic organ donation
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm
a good idea imo - the more lives that can be saved the better. people have the option of opting out anyway if they don't agree.
(interesting too... as i recently changed my thought about this)
anyone up for a debate...?
a good idea imo - the more lives that can be saved the better. people have the option of opting out anyway if they don't agree.
(interesting too... as i recently changed my thought about this)
anyone up for a debate...?
0
Comments
My cousins partner has just had her life saved by a double lung transplant just before christmas, its just so important.
If it can be of use to someone living, then thats far better than the worms eating it.
Or being burned. That's the way I see it too tbh. They may aswell be put to use once you don't need them anymore.
you can chose which ones you want to donate
A lot of people seem to say they wouldnt donate their corneas, but ive had two eye ulcers in the last year, and my optician told me that i was lucky they werent central, because if theyd been in the centre of my cornea, id be looking at blindness within 12 hours of onset with the only hope being a corneal transplant :eek:
Scary stuff, but it made me think!
Does it infringe if you have the option to opt out though? Probably not?
I think it's the assumption - why should the state assume that they can do what they like with your body without your consent?
It already does. It assumes that people would rather their bodies go to waste than be useful. Which is wrong in my opinion.
I don't agree, I think the current assumption is that the state can't assume, and so it's better not to take action rather than taking action regardless 'because it's probably alright'.
Although I do agree with the important point that it will help so many people. If we had an alternative to organ donation, then I think it should be completely opt-in as you are negating the possibility that you will take someones organs against their wishes, which is worse than the possibility you do not take someone organs against their wishes. Better to be on the side where you are not acting without permission.
However, the aspect of need - it's not a perfect world and I think sometimes the most moral / whatever you want to call it route can't always be taken. The benefit drawn will be immense to those who receive organ transplants and this I feel outweighs the cost to the government's conscience.
But in an ideal world it should be opt-in.
I don't think so. I think the more altruistic approach is that it should be opt-out. That's the ideal from my perspective.
Shame we don't live in Utopia then really.
OR
have an opt-in but stop families being able to challenge it as they can at the moment
in principle shouldn't be an automatic opt-out solely for sake of utilitarianism, since it is their body and they should be able to choose what happens to it once they die, but as long as the options are made clear on a visit to the GP or a consultant in a hospital and people are given fair warning
i have a feeling they'll do it like the SPINE database and assume consent without any notice to all patients, i had to nag my GP surgery to give me the opt out form
personally im already on donor list
Yes. Not everyone wants their bodies tampered with after they die, for various reasons. It's not up to the state to tell people what to do with their bodies before they even get the chance to walk or talk. Though I believe it is responsible for getting more people to donate.
Yea it is a shame.
But my argument isn't that we need to live in a utopia. My argument is that normally the state should not assume you are giving them any part of your body after you die, unless you have given them prior permission. However, there is a real and significant need for organ donations, and so we have to do what gives the most benefit to society, and just write off the infringement of people's rights over their own dead bodies. But then there's the hole argument the dead don't have rights. But you wouldn't use one as a toy would you? There is some 'respect' for them from somewhere.
I see what Mist is saying about we should assume that people want to give their organs on the basis of helping their fellow human, but my argument is that it's simply a matter of intrusion. You are intruding into someone's body without explicit consent. This is worse than not intruding into someone's body, even if they give you consent, even if they wanted you to. This is because in the second case you have not infringed any 'rights' or how you want to word it of the deceased.
The benefits outweigh the costs though. So yea. If the need was sufficient you could equally argue for compulsory organ donation, regardless of your wishes.
I agree that it infringes rights. But I can also see the need...
I know, what is applicable in the real world is seldom what the best case scenario would be.
I was specifically talking about this case though. The assumption isn't *really* the NHS's to make. But the need is sufficient that the amount of people it helps overcomes this issue.
If we didn't really need many organs at all then I don't think we could argue the same. The least desperate societies are the ones with the most civil rights, the less you have the more you are willing to make 'assumptions', or take liberties.
The wholly positive offshoot is that this kind of initiative will increase awareness, and more than that - increase the amount of people who start thinking about it. There are thousands who see it on a form and think they'd rather not think about it, or aren't sure. By prompting them 'if you don't say no we'll do it anyway', it makes people really think about what they want.
And probably, as was shown in Spain, more people wanted to help someone else than keep their organs.
Also, I think the people who are willing to donate certain parts of their body but not others are crazy.
It doesn't assume that people would rather their bodies 'go to waste', what it does is recognise that an individual is sovereign over their own body, and that they should be the only one who decides what happens to their body. By assuming that they want to donate their organs, the state decides that it will no longer recognise the fact that a person is sovereign over their body. Pretty bloody scary in my opinion.
The PM can only see the need. Typical Labour backward thinking. You have a problem you want to solve, you look at the problem and completely disregard tiny things like consent, because consent is what is stopping you from solving the problem quickly and cheaply. It stops them from doing a good thing - increasing organ donation - therefore it has to be destroyed. I mean it's not like the thing being destroyed has any importance in itself. God-forbid they should realise the importance of consent because they'd actually have to spend time and money convincing people to donate organs. No, that would be too much work so let's just bypass it completely. Twats.
I also get the feeling they know they're going to get people who don't want their bodies tampered with, but either aren't aware of the fact that they've been automatically opted in, or for whatever reason just never get around to opting out. But we get more organs and save more lives so who cares.
There should be a big campaign to get people to opt-in - and already everybody has the opportunity to opt-in when they get a driving license. (Admittedly this does exclude everyone with an old style driving license). Perhaps too - everybody should have a chance to opt-in if the govt pushes ahead with identity cards... I think that would be preferable to assumed consent.
Ironically though, and opt out system would only come conditional of them spending a huge amount of money and effort making sure that everyone knows the process for opting out, and makes it accessible to everyone (including people who would have trouble for whatever reason). And with the money and effort that would require, they could probably run a big enough campaign to get enough people to opt in in the first place.
Every effort must be made to ensure organs are transplanted rather than left to the maggots. You can spend 700 billion Pounds a year promoting organ donation and still many millions of people will never get around to signing a form. That's the way we are.
So I'm all for the opt-out system. Let those who feel strongly against donating their organs register their wishes accordingly.
I'd happily introduce compulsory visits to the dialysis unit of hospitals as well, so people get an idea what thousands upon thousands have to endure for many years due to the lack of organs that are donated.
EDIT: Don't worry - i signed up on www.uktransplant.org.uk site.
Do not be concerned because it is an opt-out system. You can put it in writing to me if you decide you object to me receiving your estate.
It's said you can make an assessment on society based on how they treat their dead. If it's the case that the moment I peg it, I'll have Gordon Brown and his minions taking out my organs without my consent, that's not a very good indictment, to say the least. I don't want the state, which is already far too powerful as it is, having its say over what happens to my dead body. Even the name "presumed consent" is fundamentally a lie. This is compulsion, nothing less. It's bad enough that the government is arguing for this, but even worse that they've come up with a pathetic name for it. The least that those who argue in favour of it can argue honestly. At this point, they'll all be screaming "yes, but they can opt out if they want". How? The very same way you have to try to opt out of the upcoming NHS computer database system? That hardly inspires confidence. Saying that people have to opt out for themselves is a nonsense, as supporters of this system cynically know that they won't.
When you consider the upset the Bristol heart removal scandal caused to those parents (when organs were removed without consent for medical research), an opt-out system is just too far out. Especially in the cases of the very young death could occur before parents have the chance to get the opt-out in place.
What we need is more robust ways of people showing that they do want to donate. The current donor card still allows relatives to refuse donation, even if the deceased person wanted it. That's utterly wrong. Change that, make the donor card binding and get it advertised properly, and you'll get the organs that you need.
Cutting the deceased up for scrap without their consent is simply not on, no matter how noble the cause.