Organ donation - opt in or out?

Mo · 28-06-2004, 08:59

At present we have to carry a card or be on the national register to let doctors know that in the event of our death we wish our organs to be used for transplant. Although this in no way guarantees that they will be used if our relatives say otherwise.

There is a move in parliament for it to be assumed that we do consent for organ donation unless we have opted out by registering somewhere or other.

I have mixed feelings on this one. They say that this will massively increase the organs available. Will this be because we genuinely want to donate or will it be a case of people forgetting to opt out as they at the moment forget to opt in?

What do you alll think?

noseyrosie · 28-06-2004, 09:14

Who cares what your organs will be used for? Whether you believe in life after death or not, surely the most caring thing to do is to donate organs to research/transplantation facilities. I can't stand people who think it would be too 'weird'. you'll be bloody dead! Who cares what they take/use it for!

Agent Orange · 28-06-2004, 09:52

Wouldn't it be better to opt in to any such scheme as opposed to opting out. If someone wanted to donate their organs then they would express their wish to do so, but having to rely on someone forgetting to opt out of a donation scheme just to gain a few body parts is a bit devious. I personally wouldn't have a problem with this either way cos when I'm gone I would want my organs to be put to good use by saving a life or two.

Wavey · 28-06-2004, 10:02

Yeah, I think you should have to opt out rather than opt in as it were.
I've never seen the need to hang on to your organs after death. Thats my opinion obviously.. in fact I'm working on preserving mine right now. I feel several of my organs may be of use to curious students rather than poorly folks but hey, if you can use it, do it.

nickyc · 28-06-2004, 11:42

Definatly we need an out out rather than opt in. If anyone feels that strongly about not donating their organs I think their unlikly to forget to opt out.

JoeP · 28-06-2004, 11:44

I'd go for opt-in.

The main reason being that I'm selfish, I guess. I'd prefer to have some say in who my spare parts went to help - for example, if my liver was deemed suitable for transplant to someone I'd prefer it NOT to go to someone who's got to the point of requiring a 'spare' because they've drunk themselves stupid.

Similarly, I'd prefer my heart to go to someone who's at least tried to lead a healthy life and hasn't gotten to final stage cardiac failure through lifestyle choices.

I know this makes me a selfish so and so, a health fascist and such but I'd want to make those conditions and as things stand you can't.

For many years I was a blood donor and because of my blood group was also a plasma and platelet donor. I stopped there when I fell ill in the mid 1990s and couldn't continue. I have no problems about where by blood and platelets went, but for the rest of me, sorry!

Joe

oxbeast · 28-06-2004, 12:31

I belive in Belgium thay have opt out. the result is that many lives are saved every year. This is definately a good thing. certainly any of you are welcome to my body parts, as long as I've finished with them. you might not necessarily want my liver though, it is a bit lived-in...

Sidla · 28-06-2004, 13:11

The concern I have, is how easy will it be to get an opt-out card, and when you snuff it, will doctors go to any great length to look for the card if finding it means they won't have access to your organs?

I think I feel safer with the opt-in scheme, because I don't really want to donate my organs to anyone else after I die.

oxbeast · 28-06-2004, 13:42

Sidla, why don't you want to donate any organs? From other posts I know you are a Christian. Isn't this just an act of charity, helping someone less fortunate than yourself?

Actually, they would not really be less fortunate, if you were dead and they were alive. But you get my point. And as noseyrosie says, even if you believe in life after death, you certainly won't have any need of a spleen in heaven.

Sidla · 28-06-2004, 13:48

I don't really know. I just believe that my organs are my own, I was born with them, and they were intended for me and nobody else. If I die, I want the rest of my body to die with me, because that is the way nature intends it.

Obviously, organ donation wasn't an issue in Jesus' day, so I don't know what his opinion on the matter would be.

Although having said this, I have to think about the possibility that I may one day need a donated organ. Would I accept it? I will go away and think some more....

oxbeast · 28-06-2004, 13:55

Quote:

Obviously, organ donation wasn't an issue in Jesus' day, so I don't know what his opinion on the matter would be.

Without seeming or wanting to have a go at you,
There were a large number of moral questions that were not an issue in Jesus' day, leaving Christians to make their minds up. The things that springs immediately to mind is the Jehovahs Witnesses prohibiting blood transfusion, on the grounds that it was prohibited (more or less) in Leviticus somewhere. Recently, the US JH's changed their mind on this, prompting angry complaints from people who allowed their loved ones to die, thinking that they were doing God's will.

I think that if I couldn't tell someone to their face 'I'm sorry, I could help you but I won't, and now you're going to die', then it would be a bit off to do the some thing in death.

Wavey · 28-06-2004, 13:59

Without wanting to start a religeous argument.. I'm not an expert but wouldn't God/Jesus want us to help our fellow man/woman? Just interested, not looking for a war of words or owt.

Sidla · 28-06-2004, 14:07

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I think if I needed a replacement organ, I probably would accept it. This will probably come across as very selfish, however, I would accept safe in the knowledge that the donor had willingly allowed it. That is why think the opt-in scheme is safer. I wouldn't want to recieve the organ of an apathetic person, who has not really given organ donation much thought.

As for wether I would donate my organs, my opinion may change. As Joe said above, I wouldn't want my organs going to an immoral person, like the poor chap who gave George Best his new liver.

MissEllie · 28-06-2004, 14:26

Quote:

Without wanting to start a religeous argument.. I'm not an expert but wouldn't God/Jesus want us to help our fellow man/woman? Just interested, not looking for a war of words or owt.

Yes, he would. Most Christian denominations support organ donorship, for that reason. It's down to the individual I guess but unless you are a Jehovah's Witness or something like that, there's no religious reason why you can't donate.

oxbeast · 28-06-2004, 14:31

Good point about George Best. I suppose all the doctors could do is get him to promise to lay off the booze. And I suppose he promised to, but it would be unfair to remove someone from an organ transplant list because you didn't believe their promises. Perhaps they made the wrong decision in this case.

The whole point of the scheme is that you have absolutely no say about where your organs go. The clinical decisions are made by the doctors based on who is at the top of the list (and therefore needs it most), and whose tissue will most readily accept it. I seem to remember a few years ago there was a family of racists who only wanted their relatives organs to be used in white people. The doctors quite rightly declined, and told them to shove it. I would hate to be involved in any kind of vetting procedure, assessing whose lifestyle was healthy, and whose was not. Most people would embrace a second chance to have a go at life, and not wreck it all again, as Best has done.

maybe I should declare an interest. I recently had a kidney fail, and I'm waiting for it to be removed. I don't expect this to happen any time soon, but thats OK with me. The docs say I can continue as normal on the one kidney, but can't rule out further problems when I'm in my 50's or 60's. I get first dibs on my little brothers kidney (he did volunteer, honestly). There are generous people who donate non-lethal things like kidneys, bone marrow and eggs, but I'd rather have something hopefully compatible lined up, just in case...

Wavey · 28-06-2004, 14:31

So really it can still just be personal choice.

If they were to send out a card to everyone on which you made it clear whether you wanted to donate or not, it would kill 2 birds with one stone. Anyone not carrying one would have to be assumed to not want to donate.. easy.

Rich · 28-06-2004, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Wavey
So really it can still just be personal choice.

If they were to send out a card to everyone on which you made it clear whether you wanted to donate or not, it would kill 2 birds with one stone. Anyone not carrying one would have to be assumed to not want to donate.. easy.

Sensible idea that... Shame the current powers that be don't "do" sensible

A.B.Yaffle · 28-06-2004, 15:33

I personally think it would be wrong to force people to carry a card if they don't want to donate their organs.

Having said that, I can see why people are keen on that idea, because a lot of people who would theoretically like to donate their organs after they die simply cannot be bothered to go to the trouble of filling in a form/card to say so!

That reminds me, I must pick up a form and fill it in this week!!!

Wavey · 28-06-2004, 15:36

Yeah, like I said, anyone not carrying one would be assumed not to want to.

Its a bit of a scatter gun approach but if a more people's organs suddenly become available it can't be a bad thing can it?

JoeP · 28-06-2004, 15:47

OK......

We live with a cash-strapped health care system but we have a great liking for 'technical' fixes. For example, people give generously to buy some sort of body scanner - MRI, SQUID, whatever - but then the hospital has to find the staff and maintenance costs for the following umpteen years to keep it running and working.

I'm not a medic, but I would think that of the transplants that are carried out with a reasonable amount of success - kidney, liver and heart - kidney is probably the easiest, is non-fatal for the donor and usually the least likely to de dependent upon lifestyle issues. Liver and heart are complex operations that involve the death of another person to make them possible. And the prognosis of recipients is probably better for kidney recipients than for liver or heart recipients in many cases.

So....why not focus more of the health care spend on prevention and lifestyle education, early catching of conditions before they get too far gone to treat, etc. rather than high tech solutions that allow the medical profession to work short term miracles at a high economic cost?

If you catch someone with poor eating habits, who does no excercise and smokes like a chimney early enough and deliberately set out to educate them, then you might remove the need for them to have cardiac bypasses and heart transplants later in life.

The money you could save like this, and the spare organs, could then go to people who are too far gone with disease or damage to save them in any other way.