Legislation to make organ donations automatic

Ariadne

Corbin Eager Duckling wrote: »

For people saying you shouldn't be eligible for a donation if you opt out.

I would plan to opt out because I'm ineligible to donate blood or organs because of medical issues and I wouldn't want someone getting my diseased organs accidently in case a mistake was made. Should I not be eligible for a blood or organ donation if I needed one? I'd love to donate blood, I used to, but I'm not allowed now. I also was registered as an organ donor in the UK when I lived there, but I don't carry a card here. Reason because in the UK you could pick which organs you were happy to donate on the online database. If my organs were good enough I'd give everything but my eyes.

I have Cystic Fibrosis so my lungs and pancreas will definitely be unsuitable but I still have an organ donor card. The organs will be tested to see if they are suitable, who knows, maybe my kidneys will still be working or my eyes, I'll let the doctors make that decision. I also can't donate blood but would if I could, I think if you would like to but are unable to for medical reasons then you should be able to receive blood or organs. I know of plenty of other people with CF who carry donor cards for the same reasons as me and we take plenty of medication. Organs are subjected to rigorous testing before they are deemed suitable for transplant.

TheChizler

Graces7 wrote: »

Belt and braces.. My faith family wishes and mine. OK? OK! Thank you and bless your caring

I'm not sure I understand.

Graces7

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand.

That is OK; we do

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

No disrespect but this is Ireland and the HSE we are talking about, not exactly known for adhering to the highest ethical, legal and moral standards in politics and medicine.

So, what are you saying, we should scrap all transplantation programs because you don’t trust the HSE? Should we scrap all hospitals and public healthcare too? :rolleyes:

As I’ve already linked to, they have policies on who gets allocated an organ first. You can’t buy your way up the list, and even if you could, you can’t pay to become a compatible match. There are hundreds of staff, patients and families involved in transplantation, if there was something rotten you’d have heard about it by now. This isn’t the 50’s.

Transplants are the best and only long term cure for certain diseases. Donation makes that possible. The alternative is people dying. The government, for all their flaws, are actually right on this one, they’re trying to save lives and improve healthcare.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The lie being bandied about is that you are dead when the organs are removed - you are not, you are still alive and receive paralyzing drugs to prevent your body resisting the surgery.

You are braindead with zero chance of recovery, kept “alive” by artificial machines that breathe for you. You are clinically dead.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

My body, my choice.

Yes it is, and that’s not changing, you can still choose not to be an organ donor. The only difference is for the people who don’t choose one way or another, the default becomes donation.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

Succubus_ wrote: »

I know of plenty of other people with CF who carry donor cards for the same reasons as me and we take plenty of medication. Organs are subjected to rigorous testing before they are deemed suitable for transplant.

Suppose I could then and they could determine if anything was suitable, though I've been told people with Crohn's can't donate anything. No idea if its because of medication or another reason.

Ariadne

Corbin Eager Duckling wrote: »

Suppose I could then and they could determine if anything was suitable, though I've been told people with Crohn's can't donate anything. No idea if its because of medication or another reason.

If I were you I'd just carry one to be on the safe side and if they can't take anything because you have Crohn's then they'll know that. A lot of organs aren't picked because they aren't suitable for one reason or another, it's part of the reason why the waiting list for organs is so long but with more people choosing to donate it will increase the number of suitable organs.

Graces7

VinLieger wrote: »

Graces is a paranoid conspiracy theorist implying that even if they opt out of organ donation the evil HSE will still harvest their organs to help make a profit for big pharma or some other garbage, not much more to it sadly

Hilarious! for the gift of laughter, blessings and thanks .. and no you are totally wrong. 100% wrong. We have good reason for taking this precaution. so, belt and braces. Nothing sinister or paranoid about that or about a person ageing ( nearly 80) on their own, having created an Enduring Power of Attorney. It is common sense and makes everything easier for all concerned and is already in my medical notes.

did you look up the link to the Cherry Orchard trouble? Old man being denied access to his sick wife. if he had POA for her?

Graces7

Succubus_ wrote: »

I have Cystic Fibrosis so my lungs and pancreas will definitely be unsuitable but I still have an organ donor card. The organs will be tested to see if they are suitable, who knows, maybe my kidneys will still be working or my eyes, I'll let the doctors make that decision. I also can't donate blood but would if I could, I think if you would like to but are unable to for medical reasons then you should be able to receive blood or organs. I know of plenty of other people with CF who carry donor cards for the same reasons as me and we take plenty of medication. Organs are subjected to rigorous testing before they are deemed suitable for transplant.

I gave blood for many years. This is different.

van_beano

lan wrote: »

The only difference is for the people who don’t choose one way or another, the default becomes donation.

I think that this part is the overall problem with an opt-out system. The people who don’t choose one way or another are railroaded into the donation route. In order for them to opt-out they have to go through whatever steps are involved which totally goes against their policy of "don’t choose one way or another".

Anybody that feels strongly about organ donation will make sure they're registered as such and have no problem with completing the steps required to become organ donors. Whereas someone who doesn't want to become an organ donor will resent having to go through the opt-out process.

There should be better emphasis put on the opt-in option - better advertisement, awareness programmes etc.

Graces7

van_beano wrote: »

I think that this part is the overall problem with an opt-out system. The people who don’t choose one way or another are railroaded into the donation route. In order for them to opt-out they have to go through whatever steps are involved which totally goes against their policy of "don’t choose one way or another".

Anybody that feels strongly about organ donation will make sure they're registered as such and have no problem with completing the steps required to become organ donors. Whereas someone who doesn't want to become an organ donor will resent having to go through the opt-out process.

There should be better emphasis put on the opt-in option - better advertisement, awareness programmes etc.

amen to this and there was nothing wrong with the donor card system. It gave a clear unequivocal message often when ti was needed most critically eg after an RTA. No lists etc needed . Too easy to mischeck also

TheChizler

van_beano wrote: »

In order for them to opt-out they have to go through whatever steps are involved which totally goes against their policy of "don’t choose one way or another".

Or, you know, tell your family (or Grace's POA) seeing as they have to be consulted regardless.

Gadgetman496

TheChizler wrote: »

Or, you know, tell your family (or Grace's POA) seeing as they have to be consulted regardless.

If a person is on the opt-out register, their next-of-kin will not be asked to discuss organ donation.

TheChizler

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If a person is on the opt-out register, their next-of-kin will not be asked to discuss organ donation.

When you're a possible candidate regardless of whether it's the current situation or post changes, post changes then you won't be seen as a candidate, they won't be asked and no donation will normally happen.

Probably better off telling them anyway, as there's nothing stopping them volunteering to donate your organs off their own bat! Happens today even if people don't have donor cards.

The card or opt-out register is only a suggestion really, ultimately your family can do what they want.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If a person is on the opt-out register, their next-of-kin will not be asked to discuss organ donation.

That's what you'd expect but that's not true. Read my post a page or two back when I submitted a dummy "opt out" registration through the NHS Wales portal and read what I got back.

You will be still be clinically assessed by doctors as a potential donor and your family told you are on the opt out register and then asked if they have any further information about your earlier decision. In other words, they'll be hassled in their capacity as next-of-kin to override your earlier decision.

Crafty cnuts.

TheChizler

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's what you'd expect but that's not true. Read my post a page or two back when I submitted a dummy "opt out" registration through the NHS Wales portal and read what I got back.

Care to find something from the country we actually live in and are talking about?

Edit: And actually I think that I would prefer that system, it's hardly hassling your family, most would be delighted to be able to help other people. It gives lots of families great comfort to know parts of their loved one are still out there helping people.

lan

van_beano wrote: »

I think that this part is the overall problem with an opt-out system. The people who don’t choose one way or another are railroaded into the donation route. In order for them to opt-out they have to go through whatever steps are involved which totally goes against their policy of "don’t choose one way or another".

It becomes the default, does that really mean you’re railroaded though considering you have a simple opt out?

Most people who don’t choose don’t have a “policy” of not choosing, they probably just haven’t thought about the issue at any great length (and why would they, it’s fairly bleak and everyone likes to think they’re going to live forever anyway).

You could argue the opposite is happening now anyway, where we’re “railroading” those who didn’t choose into not donating as we don’t have default consent. Sound ridiculous doesn’t it?

van_beano wrote: »

Anybody that feels strongly about organ donation will make sure they're registered as such and have no problem with completing the steps required to become organ donors. Whereas someone who doesn't want to become an organ donor will resent having to go through the opt-out process.

There should be better emphasis put on the opt-in option - better advertisement, awareness programmes etc.

We don’t know what the opt out process will be, but I’d imagine it’ll be fairly easy. Regardless, you could just tell your family your wishes instead, as they’ll still be asked anyway. I also think that the majority of people, donor card or not, do want to donate, so putting the burden on those who don’t is a reasonable trade off for saving more lives.

The problem with the current system is that we don’t have enough donors and, as I mentioned above, people don’t like to think about the issue. This change would make donation the de facto option, as I believe it should be. The minority of people who have an issue can still opt out, sick people get more organs, everybody wins.

lan

Graces7 wrote: »

amen to this and there was nothing wrong with the donor card system. It gave a clear unequivocal message often when ti was needed most critically eg after an RTA. No lists etc needed . Too easy to mischeck also

Well, there was one thing wrong with it, we don’t have enough donors to meet the needs of all the sick people waiting on a transplant...

van_beano

lan wrote: »

Well, there was one thing wrong with it, we don’t have enough donors to meet the needs of all the sick people waiting on a transplant...

So to fix the issue the State brings in a carte-blanche policy of opting everyone in automatically. I'm just thinking It's the lazy way of fixing the problem. It is kind of like trying to shame people to become organ donors - "What sort of monster are you asking to opt-out?"

It's kind of underhanded by the State insofar as there might be, in this instance, a few more organs donated. Fair enough there's the opt-out option but why should someone who feels strongly about not donating (for whatever reason) be forced to complete the opt-out procedure.

I'd be of the view that having an automatic opt-in for anything (not just organ donations) is wrong as it takes away the persons option of not having to have a choice or engaging in society (there are people out there like that).

TheChizler

van_beano wrote: »

I'd be of the view that having an automatic opt-in for anything (not just organ donations) is wrong as it takes away the persons option of not having to have a choice or engaging in society (there are people out there like that).

There are people out there who want that but none who it applies to. Nobody in Ireland is exempt from engaging with society or laws.

ohnonotgmail

van_beano wrote: »

So to fix the issue the State brings in a carte-blanche policy of opting everyone in automatically. I'm just thinking It's the lazy way of fixing the problem. It is kind of like trying to shame people to become organ donors - "What sort of monster are you asking to opt-out?"

It's kind of underhanded by the State insofar as there might be, in this instance, a few more organs donated. Fair enough there's the opt-out option but why should someone who feels strongly about not donating (for whatever reason) be forced to complete the opt-out procedure.

I'd be of the view that having an automatic opt-in for anything (not just organ donations) is wrong as it takes away the persons option of not having to have a choice or engaging in society (there are people out there like that).

You say lazy i say very efficient. and anybody who feels strongly about not donating but cant be arsed going through the opt out procedure perhaps does not feel as strongly as you think. There is no suggestion by anybody, apart from you, that people who opt out are monsters.

lan

van_beano wrote: »

why should someone who feels strongly about not donating (for whatever reason) be forced to complete the opt-out procedure.

Literally, to save lives. That’s why.

van_beano wrote: »

I'd be of the view that having an automatic opt-in for anything (not just organ donations) is wrong as it takes away the persons option of not having to have a choice or engaging in society (there are people out there like that).

It’s a binary decision though, you donate or you don’t. Not choosing isn’t going to change one of those options. We don’t currently have default consent, so not choosing is equivalent to not consenting. There is no third option.

van_beano

TheChizler wrote: »

There are people out there who want that but none who it applies to. Nobody in Ireland is exempt from engaging with society or laws.

Engaging with laws and the rules of society goes without saying, I'm not talking about the Freemen crowd here. I am describing individuals that pay their bills, taxes and are fully compliant with all aspects of applicable laws and that's it, they do not wish to engage in extra-curricular options such as maybe voting in elections or getting involved in Residents Associations, that sort of thing. My point being is that they just wish to keep themselves to themselves however they are now automatically being opted-in to something that will now may have to think about and may wish to go to the hassle of having to opt-out (it may not be much hassle but it's still a task they've to undertake if they wish to opt-out).

I think dressing an automatic opt-in system for organ donation up in legislation just looks like overkill by the State and forces people to make choices regardless if they ever thought of it before.

Mrs Shuttleworth

TheChizler wrote: »

Care to find something from the country we actually live in and are talking about?

Edit: And actually I think that I would prefer that system, it's hardly hassling your family, most would be delighted to be able to help other people. It gives lots of families great comfort to know parts of their loved one are still out there helping people.

It is highly reasonable to assume the Irish bill will mirror the UK model.

And if you opt-out during your lifetime and do not change your registration your decision should definitely stand.

You want to be an organ donor? Good for you, go right ahead. Just don't expect everyone else to feel the same and don't try to subliminally guilt trip them into changing their minds.

TheChizler

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Just don't expect everyone else to feel the same and don't try to subliminally guilt trip them into changing their minds.

You seem to have all sorts of ideas of what goes on when you die or shortly before. If asking a direct question is subliminal guilt tripping then I'm not sure how you'd function in the world.

lan

van_beano wrote: »

Engaging with laws and the rules of society goes without saying, I'm not talking about the Freemen crowd here. I am describing individuals that pay their bills, taxes and are fully compliant with all aspects of applicable laws and that's it, they do not wish to engage in extra-curricular options such as maybe voting in elections or getting involved in Residents Associations, that sort of thing. My point being is that they just wish to keep themselves to themselves however they are now automatically being opted-in to something that will now may have to think about and may wish to go to the hassle of having to opt-out (it may not be much hassle but it's still a task they've to undertake if they wish to opt-out).

I think dressing an automatic opt-in system for organ donation up in legislation just looks like overkill by the State and forces people to make choices regardless if they ever thought of it before.

This is one of the strangest arguments I've seen yet.

individuals that [...] are fully compliant with all aspects of applicable laws

And this will be an applicable law, so...

Not everybody likes every law, that's just how it is. Laws are in place for the benefit of society as a whole.

they are now automatically being opted-in to something that will now may have to think about and may wish to go to the hassle of having to opt-out

They don't have to think about it if they don't want to. The irony here is that the one person who isn't affected by this is them! They'll be dead and will never know whether their organs get transplanted or otherwise!

Are you really trying to argue that we shouldn't introduce a life saving measure with basically no drawback because some tiny percentage of social hermits might actually have to think about the decision to opt out??

Mrs Shuttleworth

van_beano wrote: »

So to fix the issue the State brings in a carte-blanche policy of opting everyone in automatically. I'm just thinking It's the lazy way of fixing the problem. It is kind of like trying to shame people to become organ donors - "What sort of monster are you asking to opt-out?"

It's kind of underhanded by the State insofar as there might be, in this instance, a few more organs donated. Fair enough there's the opt-out option but why should someone who feels strongly about not donating (for whatever reason) be forced to complete the opt-out procedure.

I'd be of the view that having an automatic opt-in for anything (not just organ donations) is wrong as it takes away the persons option of not having to have a choice or engaging in society (there are people out there like that).

That's exactly right - the core issue goes beyond organ donation really. I'm being forced into having to give an opinion publicly to the HSE and be registered on a list which because of PR spin (as opposed to the facts) is deemed socially and morally repugnant and I object to that.

van_beano

lan wrote: »

And this will be an applicable law, so...

Hence why I suggested that the State wrapping this up in legislation is underhanded as it forces people to comply one way or another with it.

Are you really trying to argue that we shouldn't introduce a life saving measure with basically no drawback because some tiny percentage of social hermits might actually have to think about the decision to opt out

I'm more stating that having an automatic opt-in system for anything, no matter how big the benefits are, is totally the wrong road to go down by Society. It just ends up as Nanny state. Mrs Shuttleworth makes a good point in their previous post saying "You want to be an organ donor? Good for you, go right ahead. Just don't expect everyone else to feel the same..."

Just saw Mrs Shuttleworths last post.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's exactly right - the core issue goes beyond organ donation really. I'm being forced into having to give an opinion publicly to the HSE and be registeted on a list which because of PR spin (as opposed to the facts) is deemed socially and morally repugnant and I object to that.

We live in a society now where the bolded part is correct.

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's exactly right - the core issue goes beyond organ donation really. I'm being forced into having to give an opinion publicly to the HSE and be registeted on a list which because of PR spin (as opposed to the facts) is deemed socially and morally repugnant and I object to that.

You're not though. Just tell your family and be done with it. They'll always be asked.

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

Are you really trying to argue that we shouldn't introduce a life saving measure with basically no drawback because some tiny percentage of social hermits might actually have to think about the decision to opt out??

You see? Here comes the abuse.

Which is why there is no authentic choice on offer in this proposal.

Agree to give up your organs or risk being socially shunned - sounds like an old fashioned threat to me.

lan

van_beano wrote: »

Hence why I suggested that the State wrapping this up in legislation is underhanded as it forces people to comply one way or another with it.

Underhanded? A law is the only mechanism the state have to enforce this

van_beano wrote: »

I'm more stating that having an automatic opt-in system for anything, no matter how big the benefits are, is totally the wrong road to go down by Society. It just ends up as Nanny state. Mrs Shuttleworth makes a good point in their previous post saying "You want to be an organ donor? Good for you, go right ahead. Just don't expect everyone else to feel the same..."

So would you prefer a mandatory donation system with no opportunity to opt out? That's how it works for most of our other laws after all...