Opt-Out Organ Donation

JupiterKid

I would support the soft opt-out policy. I think it's very sad and frankly a bit of a disgrace at how anyone could refuse to allow an organ donation to take place. I think educating people on this issue is the way forward. There is a lot of ignorance out there.

I would be willing to donate any organ if anything were to happen to me, but I don't think my liver would be up to the job given the punishment I've given it over the years.

judeboy101

If I receive blood transfusion is it true that ibts charge hospital for blood who in turn charge my health insurance?

maudgonner

judeboy101 wrote: »

If I receive blood transfusion is it true that ibts charge hospital for blood who in turn charge my health insurance?

They do charge hospitals for blood, yes. I think that's how the service is financed, rather than being directly financed by the HSE.

judeboy101

maudgonner wrote: »

They do charge hospitals for blood, yes. I think that's how the service is financed, rather than being directly financed by the HSE.

Id be interested to know if the ibts makes a profit on this or does it for cost. Also because I'm paying for my blood through private health ablnd they are receiving the blood for free from donors in my case they are profiting as they are getting something for nothing and charging me for it.

ohnonotgmail

judeboy101 wrote: »

Id be interested to know if the ibts makes a profit on this or does it for cost. Also because I'm paying for my blood through private health ablnd they are receiving the blood for free from donors in my case they are profiting as they are getting something for nothing and charging me for it.

they may not be paying donors but there is still a cost to get the blood. they dont get it for free. their staff dont work for free.

maudgonner

judeboy101 wrote: »

Id be interested to know if the ibts makes a profit on this or does it for cost. Also because I'm paying for my blood through private health ablnd they are receiving the blood for free from donors in my case they are profiting as they are getting something for nothing and charging me for it.

Pretty substantial costs in processing the blood though. It doesn't just go straight from you to the recipient. It has to be screened, typed and treated, stored properly, transported etc etc.

Then there's the costs of gathering it in the first place - quite a few staff employed, their travel costs. The costs of running the donor database, publicising clinics, renting hotel function rooms for the clinics etc etc.

I don't think the IBTS is particularly efficiently run (every time I go to donate the waste I see annoys me), but you can't ignore that there's huge costs involved.

Podge_irl

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you have a strong opinion you can opt-in.
Is there proof that a lot of people haven't opted-in due to laziness?
And if that's the problem whey isn't they're a campaign to sign people up?
I'd go door-to-door to sign people up if this was an issue.
And just to clarify other issues raised I'd support a hard opt-in.

Laziness is perhaps the wrong word. Apathy would be better. Dying suddenly while quite young is just not something a lot of people want to think about.

There are two main issues at play. I would be ok with an opt-in system with a donor register if it was well advertised and easy to sign up to as long as that became legally binding. As things stand it would have no legal standing and it would remain the decision of the deceased's next of kin, who have obviously just suffered a traumatic loss and aren't necessarily in the best position or frame of mind to be deciding such a thing.

judeboy101

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they may not be paying donors but there is still a cost to get the blood. they dont get it for free. their staff dont work for free.

If you read what I said I asked for profit or run at cost. I cant find annual accounts for ibts I'm curious why they would charge if they run at a loss. Surely get it from hse funding?

maudgonner

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you read what I said I asked for profit or run at cost. I cant find annual accounts for ibts I'm curious why they would charge if they run at a loss. Surely get it from hse funding?

I can't find official figures either, but there are comments on this article (for what it's worth ) saying that the IBTS is set up as a non-profit organisation and any surplus they make is returned to the HSE.

judeboy101

maudgonner wrote: »

I can't find official figures either, but there are comments on this article (for what it's worth ) saying that the IBTS is set up as a non-profit organisation and any surplus they make is returned to the HSE.

Thanks. So ibts do sometimes turn a profit in free blood.

maudgonner

judeboy101 wrote: »

Thanks. So ibts do sometimes turn a profit in free blood.

Can a non-profit organisation make a profit? I don't think so.

Here's another way to think about it, probably more accurately. The blood they supply is free, but they charge for collecting, screening, processing, storing and transporting it.

seamus

maudgonner wrote: »

Can a non-profit organisation make a profit? I don't think so.

It's called a surplus.

It's all on their website actually, financial statements for 2010 - 2015. IBTS have made a surplus a few years, but equally have fallen short in other years.

Their income and expenditure typically remain pretty close, which is a good indicator that the price they charge for supplying blood is a fair reflection of the cost of collecting it.

judeboy101

seamus wrote: »

It's called a surplus.

It's all on their website actually, financial statements for 2010 - 2015. IBTS have made a surplus a few years, but equally have fallen short in other years.

Their income and expenditure typically remain pretty close, which is a good indicator that the price they charge for supplying blood is a fair reflection of the cost of collecting it.

No, its called a profit. The other side is a loss. If they have an equal number of profits and losses that's ok but if they have more profit years than loss years then they are running a surplus and are not a non-profit organization. Me think they siphon off profits to other government quangos to make it look like they just run for cost. And they have the cheek to take our blood for free.

ohnonotgmail

judeboy101 wrote: »

No, its called a profit. The other side is a loss. If they have an equal number of profits and losses that's ok but if they have more profit years than loss years then they are running a surplus and are not a non-profit organization. Me think they siphon off profits to other government quangos to make it look like they just run for cost. And they have the cheek to take our blood for free.

they take our blood? here was me thinking that people gave their blood. Should i be on the lookout for roving gangs of phlebotomists?

KERSPLAT!

Only here do we go from organ donation to government quangos. Christ almighty.

judeboy101

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they take our blood? here was me thinking that people gave their blood. Should i be on the lookout for roving gangs of phlebotomists?

People give their blood? Should I be on the look out for roving gangs of anamic Irish people handing out jars of O -ive?

maudgonner

judeboy101 wrote: »

No, its called a profit. The other side is a loss. If they have an equal number of profits and losses that's ok but if they have more profit years than loss years then they are running a surplus and are not a non-profit organization. Me think they siphon off profits to other government quangos to make it look like they just run for cost. And they have the cheek to take our blood for free.

How do you think the service should be funded? Directly, through taxation? Then why should private hospitals be able to get blood for free, at the taxpayer's expense?

It's entirely up to you whether you want to donate or not. Nobody is forcing you.

If you feel it's unfair that they get your blood for free, why not go to the US, where they pay for blood donations. Then take a look around you at the type of people who donate when it's an easy way to make money.

Personally if I ever needed a blood transfusion I'd rather it came from someone who donates it freely rather than because they're desperate for money. I'm happy to donate my blood to help people who need it. I've had friends & family members who needed transfusions and am extremely grateful that the blood was available to them.

judeboy101

maudgonner wrote: »

How do you think the service should be funded? Directly, through taxation? Then why should private hospitals be able to get blood for free, at the taxpayer's expense?

It's entirely up to you whether you want to donate or not. Nobody is forcing you.

If you feel it's unfair that they get your blood for free, why not go to the US, where they pay for blood donations. Then take a look around you at the type of people who donate when it's an easy way to make money.

Personally if I ever needed a blood transfusion I'd rather it came from someone who donates it freely rather than because they're desperate for money. I'm happy to donate my blood to help people who need it. I've had friends & family members who needed transfusions and am extremely grateful that the blood was available to them.

I was under the impression that the service was not run for profit and that any in going surplus was put back into the service, not distributed to the rest of a bloated health service. As a private patient who also pays for the public to get free healthcare through my taxes I have a major issue of them using my blood to make money

seamus

judeboy101 wrote: »

I was under the impression that the service was not run for profit and that any in going surplus was put back into the service, not distributed to the rest of a bloated health service. As a private patient who also pays for the public to get free healthcare through my taxes I have a major issue of them using my blood to make money

I'm not sure any surplus does go back into the HSE. The financial details are all there in public. At the moment they're running a 40-odd million cumulative deficit because they've been investing in new facilities and paying pensions for 5-ish years.

I know another poster said it, but I don't see any evidence that anything is going into the HSE.

maudgonner

judeboy101 wrote: »

I was under the impression that the service was not run for profit and that any in going surplus was put back into the service, not distributed to the rest of a bloated health service. As a private patient who also pays for the public to get free healthcare through my taxes I have a major issue of them using my blood to make money

I give up. They need to finance the service somehow. The way they have chosen is to charge for usage. Since usage can't be forecasted with 100% accuracy they need to estimate it, and set a price per unit as best they can. This means that some years they'll run a surplus, some a deficit. As Seamus' figures point out, they seem to be doing a fairly decent job of balancing it.

You would prefer that they blindly plough any surpluses back into the service? Whether it's needed or not? Rather than doing the fiscally responsible thing and returning that money to the pot needed to run the rest of the Health Service? The Health Service that continually runs a budget deficit and needs to be propped up by the Government. You're advocating that they waste the money? Rather than using it properly and somewhat (although to a tiny degree in the scheme of things) reduce the overall tax burden?

You're talking absolute rubbish.

Boom_Bap

Can this please be brought back on topic.

And shame on this thread not having more jokes about bone(r) donations.

Eggonyerface

I'm not sure linking to other forums is allowed so I'll err on the side of caution and not directly link, but there was a thread on reddit's front page today from a giril who recieved a lung transplant.

Im pretty sure I signed up to being a doner at some point, my own mortality is something I avoid thinking so I havent given it as much thought as I should, but after this thread and that I'm going to make a point of making my intentions known

Commotion Ocean

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Opt-out is designed to take advantage of the people being "lazy".

If you believe people are too lazy to opt out, then they'll be even more lazy about opting in.

222233

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Provided you actual are aware that you have the option.
Is it really fair to give people the option to opt-out when they're not aware of the option existing.
Opt-out is designed to take advantage of the people being "lazy".
Proponents of this system openly admit this.
And even encourage the creation of barriers to dissuade people opting out.

It's up to the people and the Govt. to inform people on this position. As another poster mentioned (Can't remember his/her name) but I thought it was a really good point, probably the best argument I have heard for this debate. If most people would willingly accept a donated organ than surely it is fair to assume everyone would donate unless they for whatever reason choose to opt out.

I don't think it is designed to catch people out, if your informed and clearly state you don't want to be an organ donor no one is going to assume the rights to take your organs. Laziness is the people's fault not the systems. I think it's really important.

I read recently there are approx. 700 people waiting on a transplant, that fate could fall at any of our doors. There were 81 deceased donors in 2015 the total no. of transplants was 294 (http://www.organdonation.ie/facts.html)can you imagine how many potential recipients could be knocked off that list if we had an opt-out system? Donation would be based on the donors decision and wouldn't have to rest with the family.

jackofalltrades

222233 wrote: »

I don't think it is designed to catch people out, if your informed and clearly state you don't want to be an organ donor no one is going to assume the rights to take your organs. Laziness is the people's fault not the systems. I think it's really important.

I think I've already covered this but, why is there's the need to make assumptions for people?
Especially when in a number of cases this assumption will be incorrect.
An opt-in system is the most ethical way of doing this.
As opposed to taking advantage of uninformed people or people who can't afford or don't have the time to jump over the hurdles put in the way of opting out.
It's an end justifies the means type of system.
What's the problem with actually asking people?

I read recently there are approx. 700 people waiting on a transplant, that fate could fall at any of our doors. There were 81 deceased donors in 2015 the total no. of transplants was 294 (http://www.organdonation.ie/facts.html)can you imagine how many potential recipients could be knocked off that list if we had an opt-out system? Donation would be based on the donors decision and wouldn't have to rest with the family.

According to the OP the family will still be consulted and will have the final say.

paleoperson

I'm not psychologically able to deal with it.

222233

jackofalltrades wrote: »

An opt-in system is the most ethical way of doing this.
As opposed to taking advantage of uninformed people or people who can't afford or don't have the time to jump over the hurdles put in the way of opting out.

You may be correct with regards to ethics, but I don't imagine it would come down to a "cost" thing. I would be reasonably happy with an "opt-in" system, something very formal that takes the responsibility away from the family after a shock death. I would like it to be the case that those who do not opt in can not receive deceased donor organs though.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What's the problem with actually asking people?

I would imagine many people simply wouldn't be bothered to opt-in, like what has currently happened with licences etc.

jackofalltrades

222233 wrote: »

I would imagine many people simply wouldn't be bothered to opt-in, like what has currently happened with licences etc.

Yes but by asking them a YES/NO question you take people not being "bothered" out of the equation.
They have to pick an answer unlike the current system.
Even ask them face-to-face when applying for a Drivers Licence.

osarusan

jackofalltrades wrote: »

As opposed to taking advantage of uninformed people or people who can't afford or don't have the time to jump over the hurdles put in the way of opting out.

Why the assumption that opting out would be costly or troublesome?

Upon reaching 18, every person could get a donor card along with a letter which explains that they are now on the list of donors, and here is why being a donor is so helpful, but if they want to opt out, the can call this number/visit this website and have the ID code on the back of the card.

biko

Chuffed that only two people have spelled donor "doner" so far

I'm a donor myself but would not be in favour of the French option.
My organs are actually mine even when I am dead.
I personally have signed away the rights to them (or my family can) but I would hate for the government/HSE feel they can just barge in and take what they want from me without my expressed consent.