Legislation to make organ donations automatic

Timberrrrrrrr

Hal3000 wrote: »

So their thoughts on Abortion ref were totally public, but Organ donation is all of a sudden a very private matter ??? Hmmmm.... I think people who donate are fantastic, but I have the right to ask is this something that our leaders are supporting and partaking in themselves? If not then I have every right to be suspicious and not be considered an a***.....

If you think organ donors are fantastic then why the hell would you care if government ministers were taking part or not?

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

So their thoughts on Abortion ref were totally public, but Organ donation is all of a sudden a very private matter ??? Hmmmm.... I think people who donate are fantastic, but I have the right to ask is this something that our leaders are supporting and partaking in themselves? If not then I have every right to be suspicious and not be considered an a***.....

They are free to make their medical information or opinions public. But nobody is obliged to make either of those things public. Tell me you at least understand that.

El_Duderino 09

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If you think organ donors are fantastic then why the hell would you care if government ministers were taking part or not?

Because they're thinking for themselves and not simply following whatever Harris does. The fact that they're going to do what Harris does is beside the point for some reason.

I suspect they just said it and now they feel obliged to back it up. If it turns out that Harris has always been an organ donor it would have no impact on their opinion.

kippy

Hal3000 wrote: »

So their thoughts on Abortion ref were totally public, but Organ donation is all of a sudden a very private matter ??? Hmmmm.... I think people who donate are fantastic, but I have the right to ask is this something that our leaders are supporting and partaking in themselves? If not then I have every right to be suspicious and not be considered an a***.....

I don't see the relevance at all to be honest.

Hal3000

kippy wrote: »

I don't see the relevance at all to be honest.

Fair enough. Carry on so.

tjhook

I understand the government is trying to do the right thing here, but I disagree with how they're doing it.

I fundamentally disagree with harvesting somebody without their consent. "Implied consent" is rubbish and is rightfully being removed as a defence from other walks of life.

If a financial institution had people opted into renewing a contract by default, it would be ruled illegal. The same logic should apply here, nomatter how well-intentioned it is.

As I said before, they should be honest and just call it "Organ Appropriation". But I suppose they'll come up with some 1984-esque label like "fair deal".

Stark

tjhook wrote: »

"Implied consent" is rubbish and is rightfully being removed as a defence from other walks of life.

Only in conspiracy theorists' fantasies.

If we didn't have implied consent in medicine, thousands would die in emergency rooms due to not being able to give explicit consent to life saving procedures.

TheChizler

tjhook wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with harvesting somebody without their consent. "Implied consent" is rubbish and is rightfully being removed as a defence from other walks of life.

They already take organs without your consent; the only consent they need is from your next of kin.

Timberrrrrrrr

tjhook wrote: »

I understand the government is trying to do the right thing here, but I disagree with how they're doing it.

I fundamentally disagree with harvesting somebody without their consent. "Implied consent" is rubbish and is rightfully being removed as a defence from other walks of life.

If a financial institution had people opted into renewing a contract by default, it would be ruled illegal. The same logic should apply here, nomatter how well-intentioned it is.

As I said before, they should be honest and just call it "Organ Appropriation". But I suppose they'll come up with some 1984-esque label like "fair deal".

Don't mobile phone providers already do this?

TheChizler

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Don't mobile phone providers already do this?

Also I'm not sure that dead people can enter into contracts

the right to "i didnt bother to opt-out" post-mortem bodily integrity is my new favourite "what nonsense are they outraged by now?" position

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

the right to "i didnt bother to opt-out" post-mortem bodily integrity is my new favourite "what nonsense are they outraged by now?" position

Hmmmm, sure the babys in Tuam and the other mother and baby homes were dead, so what does it matter where they were buried :rolleyes:

gozunda

TheChizler wrote: »

Also I'm not sure that dead people can enter into contracts

You can bill them though

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/verizon-bills-dead-man-bi_n_489865

kowloon

Hal3000 wrote: »

So their thoughts on Abortion ref were totally public, but Organ donation is all of a sudden a very private matter ??? Hmmmm.... I think people who donate are fantastic, but I have the right to ask is this something that our leaders are supporting and partaking in themselves? If not then I have every right to be suspicious and not be considered an a***.....

I'm fine with people not wanting their organs donated for religious reasons or whatever, I just think holding back because soomeone else might be holding back is a pretty poor excuse when it costs you nothing. If politicians want to tell us to do something good while not doing it themselves let them be hypocrites, they won't be the first.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hmmmm, sure the babys in Tuam and the other mother and baby homes were dead, so what does it matter where they were buried :rolleyes:

jesus is this legislation to put us all in a mass grave after our deaths arent fully investigated as kosher?

ffs why didnt you say, oh im strang agin it so

kippy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hmmmm, sure the babys in Tuam and the other mother and baby homes were dead, so what does it matter where they were buried :rolleyes:

What's the relevance to this thread? I don't see it.

El_Duderino 09

kippy wrote: »

What's the relevance to this thread? I don't see it.

Its not relevant to organ donation. It's based on the feeling that some people are uneasy about donating organs. And that's common enough to be understandable.

But I think this resentment comes from the fact that most people are grand with organ donation and the people who are uneasy about it are annoyed that they are going to be the ones who have to state their preference which highlights that they have the unusual belief and not the people who are fine with organ donation. Up to now their feeling was the default - not donating. Now the default will be to donate which makes them have to think about it and actually act on their belief by opting out.

The evil government argument is just childish. So it the "ill sign up when Harris proves he has signed up" argument. It's nonsense

AulWan

Ipso wrote: »

Are you going to opt out as a recipient, you wouldn’t want someone elses violation to save you.

Is that option going to be offered?

I'm an aul wan who has diabetes, and was a heavy smoker for over 30 years, though not in bad health at the moment. I doubt any of my organs would be useful anyway, and I definitely would never consent to my eyes being touched.

I haven't given receiving an organ that much thought, but seeing as you asked I think I'd rather see an organ go to a younger person, or maybe someone who has a young family still to raise, then go to me.

On another note, someone enquired earlier about the availability of organ donor cards - I saw them today at the counter in my local post office.

Akrasia

Candamir wrote: »

I had a patient once who needed his leg amputated. He wanted to have the body part after surgery because he believed his body had to be whole so that he could rise from the dead on the last day (there was an appropriate bible quote). He had his grave bought and was planning to bury the leg there, and join it later when he died.
Each to their own. If people have a good reason not to be a donor (even a religious one that you might not agree with) well then let them off. It’s the nonsensical government conspiracy crap that I have no time for.

I think the religious belief and the nonsensical government conspiracy reasons are both rooted in the same 'irrational fear' category tbh.

But regardless, the law will allow anyone to opt out if they choose to not be organ donors so nobody is proposing taking people's organs against their will. When people are deciding to opt out, it's an opportunity to examine their own reasons and beliefs for why its important to them to not be an organ donor.

TheChizler

Akrasia wrote: »

nobody is proposing taking people's organs against their will

Is not even that they'll be necessarily taking organs with their will either. Its ultimately up to next of kin. All the proposals mean is that next of kin will be asked by default rather than only if the deceased had an organ donor card (or mark on their license).

lan

weldoninhio wrote: »

Deleted User wrote:

the right to "i didnt bother to opt-out" post-mortem bodily integrity is my new favourite "what nonsense are they outraged by now?" position

Hmmmm, sure the babys in Tuam and the other mother and baby homes were dead, so what does it matter where they were buried :rolleyes:

Are you actually comparing deceased organ donation to throwing bodies in a sewer? :rolleyes:

And before you argue that was only in response to snoopsheep’s post, we both know that’s not what they meant given the context of this thread.

AulWan

TheChizler wrote: »

Its ultimately up to next of kin. All the proposals mean is that next of kin will be asked by default rather than only if the deceased had an organ donor card (or mark on their license).

Does this mean if someone has opted out, their NOK will still be asked, and that they could over-ride the deceased's choice?

I would have thought that once someone opt-ed out, their NOK would not be asked about organ donation?

Genuine question.

TheChizler

AulWan wrote: »

Does this mean if someone has opted out, their NOK will still be asked, and that they could over-ride the deceased's choice?

I would have thought that once someone opt-ed out, their NOK would not be asked about organ donation?

Genuine question.

No the idea is that they will only be asked if they haven't opted out. Nothing stopping your family volunteering regardless of your wishes though, now or after the changes.

AulWan

In my view, if someone decides to formally opt out, then their decision should be final, and the NOK should not have the power to over turn that.

I would consider it a disgusting violation to harvest someone's organs when in full knowledge that they did not wish to donate, and I would also consider it unethical of any hospital to take organs from someone who had formally opted out, even if the NOK offered it.

What is the point of having any opt-in or opt-out for that matter, if NOK can over turn it?

TheChizler

AulWan wrote: »

What is the point of having any opt-in or opt-out for that matter, if NOK can over turn it?

So that more NOK are asked. I'm sure in the real world the NOK rarely go against the deceased's wishes. Asking more people means you avoid the situation where a person isn't carrying a card and the NOK knows they'd be OK with donating but are never asked.

AulWan

I could understand approaching the NOK if someone dies and they are not on the opt-out list. However, if someone does go to the trouble of formally opting out, then that should be that, their wishes should be final and binding, even if their NOK would go against their wishes.

Its as easy to opt-in nowadays, a quick google brings up the many ways to opt in. Not only can you carry the card but you can have it entered on your driving license, or even download the donor card as an app on your phone.