Legislation to make organ donations automatic

ohnonotgmail

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Duhhhhhh.... hors d'oeuvres:rolleyes:

My bad.

TheChizler

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Nope other way around. I think organ being sold from the poor to be given to the rich. You know that in Accident and emergency slang, they call motor cyclists "Organ donors"?

This is the source of the strange point being made if you follow the thread, what has the above got to do with surgeons getting more opportunities to practice?

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

and dont forget any aspiring transplant surgeon will be very eager to perform as many transplants as possible, as that is the best way to further their career.

human nature can be a strange thing depending on which side of the (operating) table you are on

skooterblue2

batgoat wrote: »

Bit telling when user brings the hpv vaccine conspiracy in.

Why are you attacking my point on the Gardasil vaccine and ignoring all the other points? why is that? You dont believe in the Retention of Organs? Maybe the Blood Tribunal didnt happen. You think Vicky Kelly is making it all up about the Cervical Cancer?

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Why are you attacking my point on the Gardasil vaccine and ignoring all the other points? why is that? You dont believe in the Retention of Organs? Maybe the Blood Tribunal didnt happen. You think Vicky Kelly is making it all up about the Cervical Cancer?

Vicky Phelan is her name. I think you're merging real crises that have occurred into your conspiracies. Eg the hpv vaccine is perfectly safe. The hse are not selling organs and there's a genuine reason why this policy is needed. It will save lives.

skooterblue2

batgoat wrote: »

Vicky Phelan is her name. I think you're merging real crises that have occurred into your conspiracies. Eg the hpv vaccine is perfectly safe. The hse are not selling organs and there's a genuine reason why this policy is needed. It will save lives.

Actually I know her as Vicky Kelly as I went to school with her back in Kilkenny. The HSE's job is to protect the HSE, not necessarily in Irish citizens best interest. The REGRET list is growing and the uptake is getting less and less every year. I know it will save lives, just not ordinary citizens lives, just the wealthy. I am sure you can jump a few queues if you can afford it.

Are you suggesting the HSE has never sold organs like in organ retention scheme or experimented on unwitting child subjects in state care? I cannot see the difference

lan

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I know it will save lives, just not ordinary citizens lives, just the wealthy. I am sure you can jump a few queues if you can afford it.

That's more scaremongering, you're talking rubbish. I've already linked to the policies on how organs are allocated, there's no way someone could jump the queue. There are so many healthcare professionals involved in transplantation that any corruption would be easily found out and exposed.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Are you suggesting the HSE has never sold organs like in organ retention scheme or experimented on unwitting child subjects in state care? I cannot see the difference

I am in no way defending the HSE over the organ retention scandal, but it's also completely different.

We're talking about donating functioning organs within a very small timeframe to a suitably matched recipient to save a life. The scandal was about organs in jars of formaldehyde that were retained post autopsy extraction. Totally different.

Gadgetman496

This proposal is a piece of legislation; unlike a proposed constitutional change it does not require a referendum. A referendum allows people to voice their opinion one way or the other via a vote whereas legislation is a Dáil Éireann decision foisted on the people whether they like it or not.

This proposal is slightly different in so far as you do actually get to have a say!

If you disagree with the way the Government are proposing to introduce this law you can register your discontent by opting out, job done.

Of course, the real losers will inevitably be the potential recipients that might have received an organ that was wasted due to a dislike of a political decision.

skooterblue2

lan wrote: »

That's more scaremongering, you're talking rubbish. I've already linked to the policies on how organs are allocated, there's no way someone could jump the queue. There are so many healthcare professionals involved in transplantation that any corruption would be easily found out and exposed.



I am in no way defending the HSE over the organ retention scandal, but it's also completely different.

We're talking about donating functioning organs within a very small timeframe to a suitably matched recipient to save a life. The scandal was about organs in jars of formaldehyde that were retained post autopsy extraction. Totally different.

So it doesnt happen? Tell me how logic works. Tell me how a seasoned, dyed in
wool alcoholic, like George Best gets a Liver transplant. Didnt he put down loads of drink on that liver while taking Immuno - suppressants? I certainly wouldnt give a perfectly good liver to someone who would publicly give me two fingers with that carry on. Loada MONEY!!! It makes me sick thinking of him and Larry Hagman.

Was the retention of Organs really that different? They took organs WITHOUT consent, to benefit other people.

"Shure it was only children and they were already dead..... what harm was it?" Is that the way we are to value vulnerable families in distress.

Gadgetman496

Now that you are mentioning children? Who will be eligible to Opt-out?

Will there be an age factor whereby you have to be over a certain age? or will parents or guardians be in a position to Opt minors out until they reach the age of consent?

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

So it doesnt happen? Tell me how logic works. Tell me how a seasoned, dyed in
wool alcoholic, like George Best gets a Liver transplant. Didnt he put down loads of drink on that liver while taking Immuno - suppressants? I certainly wouldnt give a perfectly good liver to someone who would publicly give me two fingers with that carry on. Loada MONEY!!! It makes me sick thinking of him and Larry Hagman.

Was the retention of Organs really that different? They took organs WITHOUT consent, to benefit other people.

"Shure it was only children and they were already dead..... what harm was it?" Is that the way we are to value vulnerable families in distress.

And you haven't demonstrated anyone buying liver transplants or any such thing in this country. You're ignoring that there are people outside of George Best who get transplants. Eg all those people we have with cystic fybrosis.

Three hundred organ transplants took place 2017 alone but you haven't evidenced that any such transplant involved shady goings on. Instead you're referring to cases outside of the country. You haven't even managed to prove that they purchased their organs.

Ipso

What are the statistics on people waiting on organs, numbers opting in etc

jochenstacker

It is typical thought, isn't it.
People moan and complain about laws they do not agree with. Now there's something different. If you don't like it, you can say so and it will actually be respected!
And some people piss and moan even louder.
What are you complaining about? I wish every law worked like that. Imagine opt-out income tax.
Just proves there will always be the cranks.

lan

skooterblue2 wrote: »

So it doesnt happen? Tell me how logic works. Tell me how a seasoned, dyed in wool alcoholic, like George Best gets a Liver transplant. Didnt he put down loads of drink on that liver while taking Immuno - suppressants? I certainly wouldnt give a perfectly good liver to someone who would publicly give me two fingers with that carry on. Loada MONEY!!! It makes me sick thinking of him and Larry Hagman.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, that didn't happen in our country. All sorts of ****e happens in other countries, including the illegal sale of organs and probably well beyond, but it doesn't happen here, and certainly not by a government agency.

You don't have a shred of evidence of corruption within the allocation system in Ireland, so stop spouting your misleading paranoid delusions.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Was the retention of Organs really that different? They took organs WITHOUT consent, to benefit other people.

Yes, it was really that different.

On one side, we're talking about functioning organs that require theatre time, 2 surgical teams (one for retrieval, one for transplant), logistics etc, not to mention of course the consent of the family (and they couldn't do it without the family knowing for obvious reasons).

On the other side, you have dead organs which were removed during an autopsy and secretly kept.

There is no way you could hide organ donation from a family. Regardless though, I'm struggling to even see how this is relevant. If the HSE was so corrupt as to do illegal organ donations, they wouldn't need this new legislation!

Ariadne

Regarding alcoholics, they have to prove that they haven't been drinking for a certain period of time to qualify for a transplant, there is very strict criteria that needs to be met. I think George Best did relapse after his transplant but I assume he had to show that he hadn't been drinking for a period of time before it, nobody wants to waste organs.

lan

kittensmittens wrote: »

There may very well be a reason for this.

I have been an organ donor over 20yrs. A couple of years ago I watched an programme (I cant remember if it was RTE or BBC but it was either an English station or an Irish one) about organ donation here in Ireland. I was floored to find out that a huge amount of the organs donated here leave the country to be given to other people from different countries)
While I'm totally aware that we have a "medical exchange" system with the EU, the figures just didnt add up it was something like 75% that leave.
I have to admit that made me uncomfortable tbh. And I get there may not be a match etc here, yada yada, why waste the organ yada yada, but something about it just felt like a "market" to me.
I have to say, I dont support this scheme.

I think we only send out a very small percentage of our organs and only when a suitable recipient can't be found here. I tried to google to confirm, but I couldn't find any definite figures. I did find this though on the EU's site:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-08-774_en.htm

The exchange of organs between Member States is not common practice with the exception of those areas covered by international agreements (Eurotransplant and Scandiatransplant), where the interchange of organs accounts for up to 20% of total organ transplants.

We are not a member of either agreement.

Also, from this report:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/blood_tissues_organs/docs/ev_20121009_facts_figures.pdf

We had 20.7 donors per million population in Ireland in 2011, with 36.7 (non living) kidney transplants per million, which means a max of 11% of kidneys were exported, even assuming all donors had usable kidneys (which itself is very unlikely).

Can you find any source? 75% can't be right.

Wheres Me Jumper?

i'm opting out!

i just hope other folk are properly informed and don't end up on the slab being sliced up like a piece of meat through ignorance

Stark

Good for you. I hope you also stick to your moral principles and opt-out of going on the waiting list for a transplant if the need should ever arise for you.

seamus

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i just hope other folk are properly informed and don't end up on the slab being sliced up like a piece of meat through ignorance

Yeah, I'd be devastated if that happened to me!

Oh, no, wait...I'd be dead.

Wheres Me Jumper?

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'd be devastated if that happened to me!

Oh, no, wait...I'd be dead.

well perhaps a family member may not want to see their mother, dad, brother, son, daughter having their organs harvested knowing full well that was not their wishes, but that person forgot or failed somehow to opt-out?

it's a conversation people should have, but many may not i feel.

also, what are the safeguards? are there any? will they be adhered to?
sadly as a country, our track record is not great in this regard.

Timberrrrrrrr

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

well perhaps a family member may not want to see their mother, dad, brother, son, daughter having their organs harvested knowing full well that was not their wishes, but that person forgot or failed somehow to opt-out?

it's a conversation people should have, but many may not i feel.

also, what are the safeguards? are there any? will they be adhered to?
sadly as a country, our track record is not great in this regard.

Its not a team sport where they invire spectators you know :rolleyes:

If it's not thier wishes then spend 5 minutes opting out it's not rocket science.

lan

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

well perhaps a family member may not want to see their mother, dad, brother, son, daughter having their organs harvested knowing full well that was not their wishes, but that person forgot or failed somehow to opt-out?

it's a conversation people should have, but many may not i feel.

also, what are the safeguards? are there any? will they be adhered to?
sadly as a country, our track record is not great in this regard.

Have you even read the thread? It’s already been pointed out numerous times that the family will still be asked and get to make the final call. If you know your relatives wishes, you can stop them donating regardless of whether they opted out or not.

Wheres Me Jumper?

lan wrote: »

Have you even read the thread? It’s already been pointed out numerous times that the family will still be asked and get to make the final call. If you know your relatives wishes, you can stop them donating regardless of whether they opted out or not.

so long as these safeguards are properly implemented.
like i said our health system does not have a great track record when it comes to these matters.

what about homeless people?
people with no family to speak for them?
aborted babies?
people with intellectual deficiencies?

seamus

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

what about homeless people?
people with no family to speak for them?

What about them? If they don't care about their organs and their families don't care about them, then what's the problem with using their organs?

aborted babies?

The vast majority of abortions occur several months before organs even exist.
The rest are aborted due to the existence of life-limiting deformities/diseases and thus the probability of organ donation is very, very small.

In any case, the protocol will be the same as it would be for a child or infant; the parents would be asked what they want to do next.

people with intellectual deficiencies?

They have families too. If they're severely impaired then they're incapable of opting in *or* out and it will be a matter for the family.

Wheres Me Jumper?

seamus wrote: »

What about them? If they don't care about their organs and their families don't care about them, then what's the problem with using their organs?
The vast majority of abortions occur several months before organs even exist.
The rest are aborted due to the existence of life-limiting deformities/diseases and thus the probability of organ donation is very, very small.

In any case, the protocol will be the same as it would be for a child or infant; the parents would be asked what they want to do next.

They have families too. If they're severely impaired then they're incapable of opting in *or* out and it will be a matter for the family.

see it's this flippant disregard for other people's bodies and their organs that has many people rightly concerned that this is a slippery slope. i suspect there are many like you in the health service.

Timberrrrrrrr

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

see it's this flippant disregard for other people's bodies and their organs that has many people rightly concerned that this is a slippery slope. i suspect there are many like you in the health service.

You have an awful hatred for the health service.

seamus

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

see it's this flippant disregard for other people's bodies and their organs that has many people rightly concerned that this is a slippery slope. i suspect there are many like you in the health service.

Just because you asked simple questions with easy answers doesn't mean that I'm being flippant.

I gave the same effort responding to your questions that you did in coming up with them.

If you want more detailed answers, give the issue more thought and stop being flippant about "muh organs!".

TheChizler

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

so long as these safeguards are properly implemented.
like i said our health system does not have a great track record when it comes to these matters.

Why are you not afraid of families not being consulted in the case of someone not carrying a donor card today? They're not proposing anything that will affect that possibility you mention.

Going by some of the fears presented in this thread you'd swear that organ donation was an entirely new concept.

Wheres Me Jumper?

TheChizler wrote: »

Why are you not afraid of families not being consulted in the case of someone not carrying a donor card today?

????

you seem to have no understanding of how the present system works. i am quite happy with the present "opt- IN" system. i never said i wasn't.

please inform yourself/read the thread before commenting.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You have an awful hatred for the health service.

how do you come to that conclusion?
so people who refer to obvious deficiencies, mistakes and problems in the HSE now hold "awful hatred for the health service"?

it's this type of defensive, circling of the wagons that has created so many of the problems in the first place. it's much easier to shout "they all hate the health system" than deal with the problem isn't it.

and you wonder why people are concerned ....:(

TheChizler

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

????

you seem to have no understanding of how the present system works. i am quite happy with the present "opt- IN" system. i never said i wasn't.

please inform yourself/read the thread before commenting.

What's my misunderstanding?

Why would the alleged unscrupulousness of healthcare professionals change? If they won't observe wishes after the change why would they be observing them now?