Joe Brolly and opt-out law for organ donation

DebDynamite

I was watching the Joe Brolly programme last night about him donating his kidney to a friend which unfortunately didn’t work out.

He’s now started a campaign to try to change the organ donation law of consent to a 'soft opt-out' system where presumed consent is taken unless otherwise stated by the individual.

I think this is a great idea. Do the people of After Hours agree? What reason would you have for not wanting to donate your organs? (no innuendo please )

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

nope. nobody owns your body but you so they've no right to just take anything from it without your consent.

people should be allowed sell their organs as well as donate them. consent, consent, consent. all that matters.

karma_

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

nope. nobody owns your body but you so they've no right to just take anything from it without your consent.

people should be allowed sell their organs as well as donate them. consent, consent, consent. all that matters.

How can you give consent when your dead?

Opt out is a fantastic idea and only those selfish bastards can take theirs to the grave with them.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

No, I don't believe in the "opt out" system.
However once a person decides to carry an organ donor card family consent should not be required.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

karma_ wrote: »

How can you give consent when your dead?

Opt out is a fantastic idea and only those selfish bastards can take theirs to the grave with them.

you cant, obviously, which is why it has to be obtained while alive..

karma_

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you cant, obviously, which is why it has to be obtained while alive..

And yet so few do and those who need organs have to watch perfectly good organs which could save lives get buried in a box, fúcking daft.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

karma_ wrote: »

And yet so few do and those who need organs have to watch perfectly good organs which could save lives get buried in a box, fúcking daft.

well how about providing some sort of incentive to do it while alive, instead of just raping their corpses after they've died

Tasden

I think its a great idea, those who feel strongly enough about not donating can opt out, those who are on the fence can have the decision made for them once they are dead. Alot of people are against anything involving the eyes though (never understood this myself but it seems to be common enough) so I wonder would that be opt out separately.

humbert

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

nope. nobody owns your body but you so they've no right to just take anything from it without your consent.

people should be allowed sell their organs as well as donate them. consent, consent, consent. all that matters.

If you care you can opt out, if you don't care enough to opt out then why not save someone's life instead of feeding maggots?

Normally I'm against opt out systems but in this case I'd be all for it.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I think it should be opt-out. If, for some bizarre reason, you're adverse to allowing your body help others when its no longer any use to you, then opt out.

EDIT: I've also often heard people say that they don't want to donate their eyes. I'm not sure why this is.

karma_

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well how about providing some sort of incentive to do it while alive, instead of just raping their corpses after they've died

Like your idea of being able to sell them whilst still alive? So that the rich can harvest off the poorest nations. Makes my fúcking skin crawl and you have the temerity to call taking from the dead raping corpses. Couldn't make it up.

karma_

karma_ wrote: »

How can you give consent when your dead?

Opt out is a fantastic idea and only those selfish bastards can take theirs to the grave with them.

Nice way to begin a good, civilised discussion.

I won't get involved in this debate, I did once and I won't make the mistake again.

I'll say this though, as I always do in these threads: Carrying an organ donor card means nothing if you don't speak to your next of kin about your wishes. A donor card means nothing on its own. It doesn't give any sort of permission to any body. Your next of kin are the only people who can make a decision about organ donation. You have absolutely no say in the matter.

Talk to your next of kin. Make sure they know that you want your organs donated.

Pushtrak

How about a system whereby, one isn't forced to donate their organs, but if they want to be on a waiting list they'd have to be willing to donate their organs themselves. Doesn't seem particularly equitable for me to give my organs on to someone who'd not be willing to do the same.

iwantmydinner

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well how about providing some sort of incentive to do it while alive, instead of just raping their corpses after they've died

Oh come off it, FFS.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

karma_ wrote: »

Like your idea of being able to sell them whilst still alive? So that the rich can harvest off the poorest nations. Makes my fúcking skin crawl and you have the temerity to call taking from the dead raping corpses. Couldn't make it up.

Seeing as he's a regular defender of sweat shops, he'll no doubt praise this as a wonderful economic opportunity for poorer nations to make some cash.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I'll take cash payment now for my organs if that's okay. I'll go to an auction and prospective buyers can have a look at me like the way cows are sold. I can even throw in some extra bonus goodies like my computer and an arm and some nice shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ORKLO0SElk

Mardy Bum

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No, I don't believe in the "opt out" system.
However once a person decides to carry an organ donor card family consent should not be required.

Studies have been done all over the world regarding organ donation to find why some countries have much higher rates than other similar countries. The reason found was that the countries with opt in clause have a low rates purely because of this and vice versa.

Maximus Alexander

Tasden wrote: »

I think its a great idea, those who feel strongly enough about not donating can opt out, those who are on the fence can have the decision made for them once they are dead. Alot of people are against anything involving the eyes though (never understood this myself but it seems to be common enough) so I wonder would that be opt out separately.

Yeah I can't really rationalize it, but I don't like the idea of someone walking around with my eyes looking out of their head.

Might have something to do with the eyes being "the windows to the soul". Where do you look when you're talking to someone? They just seem like a fundamental piece of your identity. Also, as **** as it must be to be blind, you don't need eyes to live.

I know it's not much of a rationalization, and I'm not trying to defend it. Just offering a perspective on what it is that I think makes me uncomfortable with the idea. I mean I am consciously aware of the fact that my eyes are fairly useless to me when I'm dead.

FouxDaFaFa

I get why people are squeamish about it. It's morbid. People don't like the idea of it. But post-mortems and the preparation process for burial aren't all roses either and people go along with them.

It saves lives, it saved my mother's life. It's one thing we can do that costs us nothing. It's a good note to go out on.

iwantmydinner

Pushtrak wrote: »

How about a system whereby, one isn't forced to donate their organs, but if they want to be on a waiting list they'd have to be willing to donate their organs themselves. Doesn't seem particularly equitable for me to give my organs on to someone who'd not be willing to do the same.

Opt out system =/= forced organ donation

I take your point about having to declare a willingness to donate if one wanted to avail of a donated organ, but I don't see how that could be applied/enforced in a real life situation.

kneemos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nice way to begin a good, civilised discussion.

I won't get involved in this debate, I did once and I won't make the mistake again.

I'll say this though, as I always do in these threads: Carrying an organ donor card means nothing if you don't speak to your next of kin about your wishes. A donor card means nothing on its own. It doesn't give any sort of permission to any body. Your next of kin are the only people who can make a decision about organ donation. You have absolutely no say in the matter.

Talk to your next of kin. Make sure they know that you want
your organs donatoed.

Even in countries with opt out it's still down to the next of kin.Afaik there's shag all difference in the donor rates between opt in or out.

humbert

karma_ wrote: »

Like your idea of being able to sell them whilst still alive? So that the rich can harvest off the poorest nations. Makes my fúcking skin crawl and you have the temerity to call taking from the dead raping corpses. Couldn't make it up.

But who has the right to deny a person the right to sell their own body, in this case rather more literally. I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to tell some poverty stricken Ecuadorian that they can't promise their organs to a rich Chinese man and live a better life. I'd fear abuse, abuse I'm sure happens already, but on general principle I'd say it's an individual choice.

jasonb

I personally think an Opt-Out system would be good.

Just a quick question though. If only the next of kin can give permission, then what's the point of the Donor Cards at all? Even Driving Licenses have a Donor option on them, but it's all pointless if the next of kin don't agree?

J.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

there's one country in the world that has no kidney donation waiting list

there's one country in the world that allows a legal market for people to sell their kidneys to people who need them


do you wonder if they might be the same country?

nah, couldn't be.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/27/iran-legal-trade-kidney

Mod

This is understandably a very emotive topic. Keep the sensationalism out of it please. Keep the discussion civil. Don't get personal.

Go forth and discuss!

Manach

I would be against this State imposing harvesting of organs and their presumption that unless otherwise stated, anything not explicitly stated is theirs by default ownership. People have a fundamental right of ownership over items that continues beyond death until certain legal forms are followed into the winding up of the estate. For the State to overturn this, and have their employees intrude into one of the most stressful time in a family's existence shows an insensitivity that only exists in a modern state that has tipped over into bureaucratic

madness.
For the record, I carry an organ donor card.

Pushtrak

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Opt out system =/= forced organ donation

Oh, I know, but it's still a point worth considering in the context of the thread.

I take your point about having to declare a willingness to donate if one wanted to avail of a donated organ, but I don't see how that could be applied/enforced in a real life situation.

Very easily. There are waiting lists for organs. There would be a list of people opting to donate organs. When someone needs to be put on the waiting list, they're being put so will be dependent on being on the other list.

Reekwind

kneemos wrote: »

Afaik there's shag all difference in the donor rates between opt in or out.

That's not true. Wikipedia tells me that Germany (opt-in) has an organ donation rate of 12%; Austria (opt-out) has a donation rate of over 99%

But yes, opt-out isn't a silver bullet. It is a step in the right direction though and, coupled with other measures, will save lives

Iang87

I think its a great idea, I dont carry a donor card and the reason I dont is I personally dont like to think about my own death and what may happen after it.

If this does get put in place then I wont opt out.


As for those saying some form of incentive please seriously get a grip not everything in this world is money based

Starokan

I like the idea of an opt out system, I'd imagine a lot of people go through life without ever considering organ donation at all. Something like opt out would make it much more of a discussed topic and perhaps result in more donations being available.

iwantmydinner

jasonb wrote: »

Just a quick question though. If only the next of kin can give permission, then what's the point of the Donor Cards at all? Even Driving Licenses have a Donor option on them, but it's all pointless if the next of kin don't agree?

J.

That's the million dollar question, and having done quite a bit of research into organ donation systems in college, my feeling is that it leads to a lot of organs not being donated when the deceased person actually would have wanted them donated.

The most important thing is to ensure that your next of kin are aware of your wishes and are prepared to see them carried out. I remind my NOK about my deeply-held wish to donate anything useful about twice a year.

SpaceTime

While I'm sure it's unfounded and a bit irrational, I think the concern that a lot of people who would say no might have is that life support might be switched off sooner if someone thought your organs were useful for someone else.

I'm sure that's not the case, but I think it's the niggling worry that some people have about the idea of automatic organ donation.

biko

I have a tattoo

"Organ donor, take what you need"*






*actually I don't have this but it'd be kinda cool to have.

Uaru

If they take my lungs on earth how will I smoke in heaven?

Mardy Bum

Starokan wrote: »

I like the idea of an opt out system, I'd imagine a lot of people go through life without ever considering organ donation at all. Something like opt out would make it much more of a discussed topic and perhaps result in more donations being available.

All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

Maximus Alexander

Uaru wrote: »

If they take my lungs on earth how will I smoke in heaven?

If you smoke enough to be worried about that, they might not want your lungs.

iwantmydinner

Pushtrak wrote: »

Very easily. There are waiting lists for organs. There would be a list of people opting to donate organs. When someone needs to be put on the waiting list, they're being put so will be dependent on being on the other list.

Not a hope. There is no (scrupulous) medical professional in the world that would get on board with a system like that. Not a chance in hell.

Tabnabs

Your organs are now public property? If you feel strongly enough about it, you should carry a donor card and inform your next of kin. Where does it end once your body is no longer yours? Can they take organs from those in long term comas with no chance of recovery? If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

mikom

Iang87 wrote: »

As for those saying some form of incentive please seriously get a grip not everything in this world is money based

The healthcare system is...........

iwantmydinner

Mardy Bum wrote: »

All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

My understanding is that an opt-out system would be based on a State-run, centralised database.

NTMK

Manach wrote: »

I would be against this State imposing harvesting of organs and their presumption that unless otherwise stated, anything not explicitly stated is theirs by default ownership. People have a fundamental right of ownership over items that continues beyond death until certain legal forms are followed into the winding up of the estate. For the State to overturn this, and have their employees intrude into one of the most stressful time in a family's existence shows an insensitivity that only exists in a modern state that has tipped over into bureaucratic madness.
For the record, I carry an organ donor card.

I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

imo that would eliminate the lazy factor and will not give the state perceived ownership of organs

Pushtrak

Tabnabs wrote: »

If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

Euthanasia should be allowed without the prerequisite of looking at this issue.

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

Your organs are now public property? If you feel strongly enough about it, you should carry a donor card and inform your next of kin. Where does it end once your body is no longer yours? Can they take organs from those in long term comas with no chance of recovery? If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

You're letting your imagination run away with you.

Opt-out systems work extremely well in several countries and (although I am open to correction on this) these issues have not arisen.

My name is URL

A good incentive might be to give organ donors free healthcare. I wonder how many would be in favour of it then!

Mr Porridge

Tasden wrote: »

I think its a great idea, those who feel strongly enough about not donating can opt out, those who are on the fence can have the decision made for them once they are dead. Alot of people are against anything involving the eyes though (never understood this myself but it seems to be common enough) so I wonder would that be opt out separately.

Well if i'm going to be a ghost then I dont want to be a blind ghost.

iwantmydinner

NTMK wrote: »

I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

imo that would eliminate the lazy factor will not giving the state perceived ownership of organs

I agree to an extent - I think a mandatory choice system would be a better option than opt-in; but I still think a well-run, 'soft' opt-out system is the best.

Pushtrak

My name is URL wrote: »

A good incentive might be to give organ donors free healthcare. I wonder how many would be in favour of it then!

This country would never be that awesome.

OldNotWIse

Mardy Bum wrote: »

All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

What about people who dont drive?

Tabnabs

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You're letting your imagination run away with you.

Opt-out systems work extremely well in several countries and (although I am open to correction on this) these issues have not arisen.

But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

You can't own anything, after your death.

Tabnabs

So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?