Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Legislation to make organ donations automatic

Options
12357…21

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,439 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    It would be an odd society that treats the dead the same as the living...


  • Options
    #123
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,039 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    biko wrote: »
    It doesn't mention if the organs will be used exclusively for other people or if the organs can be used for other things like medical studies etc.

    If anything is reusable when I am dead, then I am ok with someone else taking it.

    That's a fair point. Your bits and bobs could be used to train people like doctors. Or research cures of whatever. I'd still be fine with that tbh.


  • Options
    #124
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    It's an incredibly lazy and authoritarian solution to the issue of not enough people donating.
    The government should not be creating more opt-out situations for it's citizens.
    The solution to this is easy, just ask people if they want to be organ donors or not.
    manonboard wrote: »
    Thats not true. You are expressing your consent by not opting out.
    This only holds true if everyone is aware that they are being opted in.
    If people are added to a list and they're not aware of it, then consent hasn't been given.


  • Options
    #125
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    TheChizler wrote: »
    It would be an odd society that treats the dead the same as the living...

    What do you see as treating the dead the same as the living in the above posts? Consent while you’re alive to be a donor once you’re dead has been the norm for a while, and I don’t think anyone would argue this means the dead are being treated the same as the living?


  • Options
    #126
    nim1bdeh38l2cw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 689 ✭✭✭nim1bdeh38l2cw


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Why would I take it to the EU? I just said it is not a GDPR issue, and it is purely national legislation.

    My point related to this debate is that IMO a society which requires explicit consent to record an IP address and no consent whatsoever to remove an organ from a body is not functioning well.
    GDPR doesn't require explicit consent for anything other than sensitive data, which an IP address isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Excellent news and long overdue. Perhaps I’m missing something here but I can’t honestly see why anyone would in good conscience object to the use of their body once they’re gone to save another’s life.

    As far as I am concerned once I am gone my body and it’s parts are of no further use to me and if they can be used save another’s life, be that by direct donation or as part of scientific research, then I am only too happy to allow it.


  • Options
    #128
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Seems fair and I'd be tempted to support that system but I would still want people treated according to their need for treatment as opposed to anything else.

    Organ donation is like lots of other things where it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. Unless there was an emergency then I'd just treat people according to need even if I might like to punish people who opt out or reward people who were willing to do the morally praiseworthy thing.

    F*** them. Amongst other things, there will be a lot of time wasting that will having to deal with some of them to clarify things on this.
    They made their sick bed, die in it.


  • Options
    #129
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Amaya Sweet Kiln wrote: »
    GDPR doesn't require explicit consent for anything other than sensitive data, which an IP address isn't.

    Not only “sensitive data” requires consent, there are also circumstances whereby “private data” does (and it is clear that in a number of situations an IP address is considered private data under GDPR).

    But anyway this is a side topic and I guess anyone who is interested can document themselves.


  • Options
    #130
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Maybe calm down a minute and have a re read of what I posted. I wouldn’t pay anything for a transplant. I’m of the belief that my body is my body, when it gives up the ghost it’s my time to go. I wouldn’t want to be like Frankenstein’s monster with various other peoples bits and pieces in me.

    I’d said that if the govt want my organs, there is a price of €50k on them. It costs €500k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so 10% of that for all my organs seems like a decent negotiating point.

    You can opt out. That's as simple as it is. Applying your logic can have children dying of survivable illnesses. Wouldn't want to be Frankenstein.
    biko wrote: »
    It doesn't mention if the organs will be used exclusively for other people or if the organs can be used for other things like medical studies etc.

    If anything is reusable when I am dead, then I am ok with someone else taking it.

    Donating your body for medical research is an entirely separate process. You contact one of five medical institutes in the country to establish such a situation.


  • Options
    #131
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    Abortion, organ donations. Hey Simon... can we have a referendum and legislation on euthanasia first?? FFS.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Kurtosis
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 2,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kurtosis


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Aye, try that argument in a rape or robbery case. Well your honour, i took their silence as the assumption is no consent on lack of consent is consent

    That's a ridiculous argument, any such interpretation would be completely rejected by most of society. This is completely different, where the societally desirable choice (ie opting in to organ donation) is being made the easiest/default option. Similar to the proposed introduction of pension auto-enrolment.


  • Options
    #133
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,439 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Bob24 wrote: »
    What do you see as treating the dead the same as the living in the above posts? Consent while you’re alive to be a donor once you’re dead has been the norm for a while, and I don’t think anyone would argue this means the dead are being treated the same as the living?
    The decision on what to do with your organs is ultimately made by your family once you're dead with or without the proposed changes. Consent when you're alive only streamlines the process really.

    The point about IP addresses being protected is only correct so long as you're alive, data protection doesn't apply to dead people. Your consent regarding donation while you're alive legally has no impact on what happens once you're dead either, it's a flawed argument to compare your wishes regarding data while you're alive to your wishes regarding your body once you're dead.


  • Options
    #134
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    That's a fair point. Your bits and bobs could be used to train people like doctors. Or research cures of whatever. I'd still be fine with that tbh.

    I hope after they take what they need they donate my body to someone who intends to do weekend at Bernie's.


  • Options
    #135
    Doc07
    Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭Doc07


    brendanwalsh wrote: »
    The NOK always have to give consent for organ harvesting so this plan is a waste of time.

    Correct, unless this is modified, then I’m not sure how anything changes based on the few details I’ve read on the proposed legislation.

    Perhaps it’s not widely known but even if you carry a donor card, next of kin consent is still required to proceed,although it can make the difficult conversation a little easier.


  • Options
    #136
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Achilles Panicky Magazine wrote: »
    Abortion, organ donations. Hey Simon... can we have a referendum and legislation on euthanasia first?? FFS.

    Don’t see why that relates. Euthanasia will happen but not for a generation.


  • Options
    #137
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    TheChizler wrote: »
    The decision on what to do with your organs is ultimately made by your family once you're dead with or without the proposed changes. Consent when you're alive only streamlines the process really.

    The point about IP addresses being protected is only correct so long as you're alive, data protection doesn't apply to dead people. Your consent regarding donation while you're alive legally has no impact on what happens once you're dead either, it's a flawed argument to compare your wishes regarding data while you're alive to your wishes regarding your body once you're dead.

    What I get from your argument is that to you asking for someone’s consent while they are alive with regards to what will be done with their dead body would equate to treating the dead and the living alike? If yes we, simply disagree there.


  • Options
    #138
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Kurtosis wrote: »
    That's a ridiculous argument, any such interpretation would be completely rejected by most of society. This is completely different, where the societally desirable choice (ie opting in to organ donation) is being made the easiest/default option. Similar to the proposed introduction of pension auto-enrolment.

    Societally desirable choice? I must have missed that vote.


  • Options
    #139
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,039 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Ipso wrote: »
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Seems fair and I'd be tempted to support that system but I would still want people treated according to their need for treatment as opposed to anything else.

    Organ donation is like lots of other things where it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. Unless there was an emergency then I'd just treat people according to need even if I might like to punish people who opt out or reward people who were willing to do the morally praiseworthy thing.

    F*** them. Amongst other things, there will be a lot of time wasting that will having to deal with some of them to clarify things on this.
    They made their sick bed, die in it.

    Yeah I can see the appeal of taking that approach. But I think it's right to treat patients according to their medical needs.

    Sometimes there isn't a reward for going the morally praiseworthy thing and there isn't a punishment for not doing the morally praiseworthy thing.


  • Options
    #140
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,439 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Bob24 wrote: »
    What I get from your argument is that to you asking for someone’s consent while they are alive with regards to what will be done with their dead body would equate to treating the dead and the living alike? If yes we, simply disagree there.
    As far as I can see you're saying society is messed up if we treat the privacy of the living more importantly than the previous wishes of the dead. I think it would be more messed up to treat them equally.


  • Options
    #141
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    Priorities matter.
    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Don’t see why that relates. Euthanasia will happen but not for a generation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    angel eyes 2012
    Registered Users Posts: 903 ✭✭✭angel eyes 2012


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Maybe calm down a minute and have a re read of what I posted. I wouldn’t pay anything for a transplant. I’m of the belief that my body is my body, when it gives up the ghost it’s my time to go. I wouldn’t want to be like Frankenstein’s monster with various other peoples bits and pieces in me.

    I’d said that if the govt want my organs, there is a price of €50k on them. It costs €500k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so 10% of that for all my organs seems like a decent negotiating point.

    As one of these "Frankenstein's monsters" you have alluded to (actually smiling at this description!), us monsters don't actually get to choose when any of our organs start to decline in their functionality, unless of course you partake in heavy drug or alcohol intake. For some of us it can slowly occur when you are 16 as it did in my case or even younger in some cases. In the case of kidney failure we are fortunate enough to have dialysis which can act as a temporary measure until you have a successful transplant. I studied, worked and travelled while on dialysis.

    I never once gave up the ghost and many of the older people around me fought to stay healthy so they could get a chance to survive. Maybe you wouldn't have that fight in you but I would be appalled if the health system started to offer financial inducements for donated organs. By the way, you could easily get €50k for a kidney today in the black market but thankfully not in this country.


  • Options
    #143
    Kurtosis
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 2,881 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kurtosis


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Societally desirable choice? I must have missed that vote.

    Are you really trying to suggest that we as a society would not want more organ donations to occur?


  • Options
    #144
    Pintman Paddy Losty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Pintman Paddy Losty


    GDPR really is a topic that brings out the autistic geeks.


  • Options
    #145
    Dufflecoat Fanny
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭Dufflecoat Fanny


    Victor Frankenstein approves this thread


  • Options
    #146
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    TheChizler wrote: »
    As far as I can see you're saying society is messed up if we treat the privacy of the living more importantly than the previous wishes of the dead. I think it would be more messed up to treat them equally.

    To be clear I did not say the wish of the dead should always be treated equally to the privacy of the living.

    It is a matter of different situations and what I am saying is more that it is wrong to - as a matter of principle - say that the wish of the deceased are always irrelevant. To me it is fine to consider that a dead body is not just like an abandoned car available for parts and that it is a fairly important matter (probably a lot more more that IP address logging to many people) on which it is ok to expect consent from people while they are still alive about what will happen with their dead body.


  • Options
    #147
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    hgfj wrote: »
    My concern would be if you found yourself in a situation where you are on an operating table after say a car crash and you only have a 20% chance of survival IF the operation is a sucess, while in the next room someone else is waiting on a liver which will give them a 90 to a 100% chance of survival. What decisions will the doctors/surgeons make? Would they "allow" you to die for a better chance of someone elses survival? Would it come down to statistics?

    The person with the liver problems has no right to your liver while youre still alive, keeping you alive in a hospital is absolute top priority to doctors before giving your organs away is considered


  • Options
    #148
    theguzman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    I wouldn't want my organs to be donated to wasters or lowlifes, e.g. a liver to an alcoholic would be a waste but to someone with liver cancer fine. Similarly I wouldnt want to save the live of a scumbag with 100+ previous convictions wheras I'd have no problem to save the life of a middle class respectable young mother or father struck down with some disease etc. Also I wouldn't want my organs donated to some migrant organ tourist etc.

    Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.


  • Options
    #149
    McDermotX
    Registered Users Posts: 14,836 ✭✭✭✭McDermotX


    theguzman wrote: »
    ......

    Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

    I transplant my male organ into a female a few times a week and she never complains.
    Quite the opposite actually.


  • Options
    #150
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    theguzman wrote: »
    I wouldn't want my organs to be donated to wasters or lowlifes, e.g. a liver to an alcoholic would be a waste but to someone with liver cancer fine. Similarly I wouldnt want to save the live of a scumbag with 100+ previous convictions wheras I'd have no problem to save the life of a middle class respectable young mother or father struck down with some disease etc. Also I wouldn't want my organs donated to some migrant organ tourist etc.

    Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

    Where do you draw the line? Does a middle aged person who never exercised their whole life and now has premature heart disease deserve your heart?Or what about an old person who has kidney failure because they neglected to take their blood pressure meds? People like the alchoholic will probably change their ways and be very grateful for a second chance at life, and in fact a doctor will only give them a liver if they do show they are making huge chanages to their lifestyles and trying to become healhier, hospital and doctors do not and will not waste organs on people who dont deserve them and who will clearly go on to follow exact same path that led them to needing a transplant in the first place


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    angel eyes 2012
    Registered Users Posts: 903 ✭✭✭angel eyes 2012


    theguzman wrote: »
    I wouldn't want my organs to be donated to wasters or lowlifes, e.g. a liver to an alcoholic would be a waste but to someone with liver cancer fine. Similarly I wouldnt want to save the live of a scumbag with 100+ previous convictions wheras I'd have no problem to save the life of a middle class respectable young mother or father struck down with some disease etc. Also I wouldn't want my organs donated to some migrant organ tourist etc.

    Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

    Yes, male organs can be transplanted into females and vice versa. In respect of your concerns about alcoholics receiving transplanted livers, there are extremely strict criteria to be adhered to when coming under consideration to be put on waiting list for an organ. Once on the list there is no guarantee that you remain on it, you must maintain a healthy lifestyle and have regular check ups. There is no way that someone with an alcohol dependency would qualify for a donated organ in Ireland.

    Unfortunately there are far more genuinely good people waiting years on the lists than there are organs available and that is the motivation behind this legislation.


Advertisement