observer Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Seems Gordon has given his seal of approval to the idea of "presumed consent" for organ donations for transplants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 I wonder who gets paid for my kidney when I die then...because mark my words this is a move for revenue rather than health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 I wasn't aware anyone got paid for donating or receiving an organ :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 observer, What's HIV ETC???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Can't make my mind up about this one. Â What happens if you forget to opt out... knowing what I am like that may happen... Â But what about children's organs (not a nice thought but sadly they are needed too). Â Presumably the parent would have to opt out on behalf of the child... and in the awful situation of something happening to your child (god forbid) would it be too late then to say any different ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Brown has certainly changed his tune on this one. Three years ago the cabinet imposed a three line whip to vote down an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem MP which would have seen this compulsion become law then. Apparently his moral compass has lost its magnetism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 As is becoming the 'usual' way eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Having been there when my dad died years ago, we enquired about organ donation, but due to the nature of death, he couldn't donate. He never carried a card, but we as a family felt it was appropriate, to donate. Dad was never going to need them, and to think he saved a life after death, would have helped us to feel a little better. Â Major supporter of this bill, and I can't believe that people are being cynical about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 They can have whatever they like from my body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Seeing as my body is a temple and a shrine.... they will be queuing round the block for my bits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Originally posted by Woody: Major supporter of this bill, and I can't believe that people are being cynical about this Who's being cynical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Ahh BUT: would you have the lungs off a smoker, or the liver off a binge drinker?????!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 It is worth noting that organs have to be removed from a body at the point of death...not sometime later....and I shall say no more on that particular technical aspect. However, that being the case a doctor looking after a person who could be a donor and one who needs a donation, might well have a conflict of interest and a difficult judgement decision between the two. As Observer points out, organs need to come from what would deemed to be a healthy body. I note recently that a number of major transplant hospitals have had higher than normal transplant mortality rates, due to the use of substandard hearts from less than healthy donors. Â As with many things in the NHS will a target be set. Â PS Almost forgot to respond to the topic's title, I am against presumed consent...totally against it. Both for moral reasons and also it gives the State yet more controls. Â [ 15.01.2008, 08:19: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Surprised Paul; thought you were a pragmatist?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: It is worth noting that organs have to be removed from a body at the point of death...not sometime later.... Depends on your interpretation of point of death. If doctors pronounce the patient brain-dead. The patient can remain hooked up to "life-sustaining" machines, such as a respirator or ventilator, which allow his vital functions to continue despite the absence of neurological activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Originally posted by wolfie: Depends on your interpretation of point of death. If doctors pronounce the patient brain-dead. The patient can remain hooked up to "life-sustaining" machines, such as a respirator or ventilator, which allow his vital functions to continue despite the absence of neurological activity. Which then leads to the possibility of sustaining such a patients "life" over a longer period of time simply to keep the organs alive for possible transplant at a later date  [ 15.01.2008, 14:39: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 And do you think this doesn't already happen? Of course it does. As far as I'm concerned when I die they can have whatever I haven't worn out BUT I don't want the government to take that decision out of my hands, that is taking the Nanny State far too far! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Didn't know it already happened  It's not the issue of organ donation I have a problem with... they can have bits of me if they like as long as they don't take my eyes  It's the fact that THEY are making the decision and we the body parts owners have to remember to opt out.  And did anyone answer the bit about children and how the forced consent would work ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Of course it happens. There are many cases where the patient is "brain dead" but the organs are kept going artificially just waiting for the doctor to flick the switch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Of course I knew that bit  Which of course is ok if the 'doner' wanted that to happen and had specifically stated that as per the current 'doner' situation;)  Like I've said before what about the person who may have forgotten to opt out or where their death happens far sooner than ever expected?  Should people be forced to make a such a decision ASAP as to what happens after they die?  Should they not focus on what happens while they are alive and be allowed to make the 'other' decision in their own time?  What about a distressed family who's member has not got around to opting out? They may not want their family member being chopped up for their organ removal if the person has not specifically said THEY want to be?  Is it fair in such circumstances to then keep this person 'alive' until a organ recipient is found or ready..?  and how does the family cope with their grief and saying their goodbyes if their loved one, although dead, still has a pulse and a beating heart ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Hey I'm not saying it's right, and I've already said I'm against compulsion. However we can't ignore the fact that this is what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 My only concern is the position of those who "opt out"; they should be held on a data base and refused a transplant should the need arise - reason: if your not prepared to give, you shouldn't expect to receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Is this such a bad idea? If the number is low (at present)for whatever reason, would it not help the supply of organs for those in dire need if there were more available? With a lot of issues these days, it is up to the individual to opt out or cancel certain things, so this would be another. IF people felt that strongly about it, it would certainly get their attention. Â It's just annoying that we don't have the same choice with regards to joining Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 I am with Obs on this one. If you won't give you shouldn't expect to receive. A simple form will suffice when you are about 21 when hopefully such things are in the far distant future. Â 1. Will you agree that your organs can be used after death to prolong the life of persons unknown? Â 2.Would you agree to receive the organs of persons unknown to prolong your life? Â Important Note; answering 'no' to question 1 disqualifies you from taking advantage of question 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Originally posted by observer: Surprised Paul; thought you were a pragmatist?! I am, but I'm not sure that this matter is about being pragmatic. Personally I am not convinced by the merits of radical human to human transplant surgery. As I said in an earlier post, being a transplant surgeon has a certain cachet....and influence. Some might say that some doctors promote treatments that enhance their careers.....and earnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.