observer Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Gordon Brown is supporting an "opt out" system for the provision of transplant organs - well, he's right IMO for once. But what does he do; he sets up a committee to look into it, who recoil from this logical conclusion, and wish to persist with the current failed voluntary system. Well hopefully, on this one, he'll stick to his guns, and perhaps add a rider, that those who do "opt out" of automatic donation, are also opted out of being recipients - if your not prepared to give, you shouldn't expect to receive - sorted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
safeway56 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Too much importance is paced on dead bodies...Once your brain dies you cease to exist..they can have anything of what's left of me once I'm dead, I've no further use for it. There was a ridiculous situation a few years ago when a hospital held back tissue from dead infants bodies..We then had the ludicrous ceremony of parents holding seperate funeral services for bits of dead tissue. Tragic though it is to lose an infant holding these types of religious services is plain daft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 I agree that once you die thats it, and they are welcome to any bits of me that I haven't worn out. I'm sorry, however, that it has had to come down to Government enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Too much importance is paced on dead bodies...Once your brain dies you cease to exist..they can have anything of what's left of me once I'm dead, I've no further use for it. Agreed but you persoanlly have CHOSEN to take that decision and it has not been forced on you There was a ridiculous situation a few years ago when a hospital held back tissue from dead infants bodies..We then had the ludicrous ceremony of parents holding seperate funeral services for bits of dead tissue. Tragic though it is to lose an infant holding these types of religious services is plain daft. Not ludicrous at all of you are the parent of a child who had not agreed to the hospital 'holding back' part of your child's body. Don't get me wrong I am all for organ donation but I think the idea of having to opt 'out' rather than 'in' is open to a lot of probems and possible additional heatbreak. For example... At what age can you personally you opt out? Presumably parents would have to opt out on behalf of their children? What would happen if a parent chose not to opt out of their child organs being donated but then the unthinkable happened. It's ok saying 'yes it's ok' in theory but it may be a completely different scenario if the situation is actually real. Could you actually stop it happening ? Also, what if..... you forget to return your 'opting out' form? what if..... you opt out and your form gets lost in the post? what if..... due to clerical error you get a tick in the wrong box? what if..... you change your mind? what if..... ????? At least the current way of having to actually opt into organ donation is more definate and without doubt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 I personally think I will be opting out if the option arises..... just my opinion but thats what I want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Thus Diz; folk are dying through a lack of sufficient donors, just because of your "what ifs" and a load of primitive sentimentality over body parts. Remember that film of the plane crash in the Andes? I guess you would have starved?! Yes Baz: that figures! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 We have organ donors over here - its stamped on your drivers license. Also the doctors have to ask if the family agrees - If someone can use part of me , go for it! My body will be dead - what will I care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Do people with transplanted organs still have to take anti rejection drugs for the rest of their lives some of which have not very pleasant side effects, and is it correct that quite often the diseases that destroyed their original organs also attack their new organs. I understand that there is quite some prestige....and income opportunity, in being a transplant surgeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Perhaps an IQ test, prior to folk receiving life saving treatments?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Thus Diz; folk are dying through a lack of sufficient donors, just because of your "what ifs" and a load of primitive sentimentality over body parts. So you now think I'm primitive and sentimental eh? Nice to know I am aware that people are dying due lack of sufficient donors and that is awful. BUT I also think it would be just as awful for a surgeon to remove the body parts of a person against their wishes or that of their family just becasue of some confusion of wether or not they had actually opted out. Whats your eyesight like Obs cos if I pop off before you you are very welcome to my eyes... that way you may see the point I was actually trying to make Remember that film of the plane crash in the Andes? I guess you would have starved?! Probably, as they didn't have a BBQ or hot and spicy sauce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 While your discussing "what if's" folk will be dying; are you suggesting for a minute, that a person who was adamant that they wished to "opt out" would be so dense as not to ensure they filled in the appropriate paperwork? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 As I understand it, there's no question of organs being taken without the permission of the family. A deceased persons body is, under the law, a chattel forming part of their estate - and as such becomes the property of their heirs. Permission to take organs or other body parts for transplantation would still have to be sought from those who now "own" them. Currently, when someone who is registered as an organ donor dies then the transplant teams can have the donation conversation with the family from the starting point of "these were the deceased expressed wishes". This tends to be much easier on the families than if they do not know what the deceased views on the subject were. The concept of presumed consent is simply to assume that everyone is ok with an idea, unless they (or their parents, in the case of a minor) specify otherwise. It's analogous to the assumptions that A&E doctors already make when they have to treat unconscious and unaccompanied patients, for example: it could turn out that a patient has strong objections to blood transfusions, but if the doctors don't know this then presumed consent allows them to proceed with whatever treatment they consider to be in the patients best interests. Personally, I'd support in principle the idea of restricting the receipt of donor organs to those who are willing to donate - but I do see a couple of problems with that. What happens if a child is registered by their parents as a non-donor when they are young, isn't told this, and when they grow up assumes they are covered by presumed consent? How do you handle those who register as non-donors but then have a bit of a Road to Damascus moment on finding out that they're not well? Since organs suitable for transplant often come from accident victims, especially those with head injuries, perhaps one way to increase the available supply would simply be to repeal the car seat belt and motorbike helmet laws???? People can then opt in or out of becoming donors by their own actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 While your discussing "what if's" folk will be dying; are you suggesting for a minute, that a person who was adamant that they wished to "opt out" would be so dense as not to ensure they filled in the appropriate paperwork? Obs.... Shall we just agree to disagree on the possible problems associated with the issue of paperwork, databases, clerical errors and "what if's" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Inky Pete..... a very well worded, informative and thoughtfully put reply You have put some of my worries to rest but like you also point out there are still many other issues that could arise that need some careful thought before presumed consent becomes the 'law'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Thus Diz; folk are dying through a lack of sufficient donors, just because of your "what ifs" and a load of primitive sentimentality over body parts. Remember that film of the plane crash in the Andes? I guess you would have starved?! Yes Baz: that figures! Thank you Obs.... I just wish I could be right all of the time like you are; to be able to offer opinions knowing that everything I say would be accepted as the only way and of course anyone who disagreed with me or held a contrary view would be utterly wrong. However, in the real world it isn't just a case of While your discussing "what if's" folk will be dying Unfortunately I have been in the position of making the decision as to wether to allow organs to be taken out of a persons body (she was 22 and in the prime of her life) Do you realise how devastating it is when someone comes to you and asks the question "did she carry a donor card"? having just lost someone very close, the thought of them then being carved up for spare parts is a little much to take; however necessary it is When you are faced with such a decision it is absolutely horrifying and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I agree that it should be an opt out rather than an opt as it would take away the decision from family members who are already in a terrible state. It is just at this moment in time I am not able to offer my bits.... I always used to carry a donor card up until the time I had to make that decision....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Thanks Baz, it does get rather frustrating at times! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Seems as though the NHS is flogging donor organs, which they get free, to the highest bidders, the following from The Times: "The organs of 50 British National Health Service donors have been given to foreign patients who have paid about ?75,000 each for private transplant operations in the past two years, freedom of information documents show. The liver transplants took place at NHS hospitals, despite severe shortages that mean many British patients die while waiting for an organ that could save their lives." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 oops.... now will some heads roll if that is true? They certainly should Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 If the donor organ is not suitable for anyone who is above the foreign recipient on the transplant list, then fair enough - waste not want not. Just to put those 50 organs into context - there were over 3,200 people in the UK who had there lives saved by transplantation last year, and another 2,400 who had cornea transplants which restored their sight. So we're not talking big percentages here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Isn't this just another example of how we Brits (or certainly our PC institutions) are totally incapabable of putting Britain and British interests FIRST, and making the UK the world's soft touch? IF, such organs are surplus to indigenous demand, then perhaps it's OK to sell to the highest bidder, however, some were given to EU citizens under reciprocal health agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz94 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I believe a lot of the byproducts from blood donations were sent/sold abroad (not sure if this is still the case). I used to give regularly 3 or 4 times a year (for 20+ years) but since I heard about that I stopped. For all that I would prefer the case to be an "opting in" as already in place rather than an "opting out". 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.