organ donation - presumed consent

Fysh

Manach wrote:

Throwing this idea out for discussion – why not allow the sale of the deceased’s body parts, to benifit the immediate family. As some previous posters have inferred, these organs are nothing but rapidly cooling pieces of meat, so allow the market to have a stake.

I dislike the idea because it not only allows the notion of organ touts, but also because it suggests that medical need should come second to financial power. If you need an organ desperately and someone else sort of needs one but has more money than you, they would get the next one on the market. The idea of organ donation is to help those most in need, not those with the biggest wallet.

Not to mention that it would be pretty ghoulish of a family to try and reap financial benefit from a recently deceased relative's corpse, although that's just a personal reaction and not actually a valid argument against it.

Moriarty

Fysh, there's a large ethical difference between an opt-in and opt-out system. The "burden of proof" (bad choice of words, but I hope you get the gist) shifts from the state to the individual. For a lot of things that's no big deal, but for something that could interfere with some of the most important values a person holds I believe it's the wrong way to go about it.

Explain to people why organ donation is so important, provide freephone numbers where they can ring up and register their willingness to donate, make it as easy as possible for people to be able to make their position known, but don't change those very important rules just because we're too lazy to fully support an opt-in system.

Fysh

Well the thing is, I think that for a significant fraction (I won't say majority because I don't have any numbers to back that kind of statement up with) of people, the sanctity of their body after they die is not a huge concern. Just look at how many people choose to be cremated - would they really insist on having their (insert organ of choice here) within the body that's being cremated, rather than being given to someone in need?

I understand that for a lot of people, particularly for given religious beliefs, the fate of their body after death is important. But when we're talking about respecting the last wishes of a dead person versus potentially saving someone's life with a transplant, I don't think it's unfair to ask people to at least give due consideration to their choice. Something like this would never be implemented without a referendum, I wouldn't think. While I do agree that part of the current problem is our lazy approach to the opt-in organ donor system, I don't think that because of that alternative implementations which would provide a marked increase in donations should be dismissed. I do think there should definitely be discussion all round though, because if a lot of people object to it then it obviously wouldn't be fair to implement it anyway.

rsynnott

Opt-out is a good idea. If people want to, they can opt out. If not, well, you never know when you're going to die, do you? I know I don't have a card, should probably get one...

uberwolf

pickarooney wrote:

A colleague of mine was in a near-fatal tram accident some years back. She was actually pronounced clinically dead by the police at the scene. When she was brought to the hospital she was re-checked and it was decided that although there was minimal brain activity it was only a matter of hours before she inevitably died and so her organs could be harvested for transplant purposes. She had no donor card, purely because she never got round to getting one, so her parents were asked, and refused on the grounds that they believed their daughter was salvageable. She survived somehow and made a complete recovery over time. Had she been on the donor list, she would have had her heart, lungs and kidneys removed. She won't ever get a donor card.

Obviously this is a one in a million case, but she has an undeniably good reason for not carrying the card.

:eek:
that is crazy

seamus

Are they allowed actually remove the organs before the person is pronounced dead, if you're carrying an organ donor card? It would seem to me, even in that mental case, they would have had to ask for permission to begin harvesting organs from a person who has not yet been pronounced dead, organ donor card or otherwise.

[Edit:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/health/body_and_organ_donation.html

The medical team treating you if you are ill is separate from the transplant team and organs are only removed when two doctors, working independently, have certified that the person is dead following a series of strict tests.

Twould seem to me that anyone who doesn't carry a card "just in case", or because of the about mentioned freak case, is being a tad paranoid. Of course, you could understand why the girl or her parents/family wouldn't carry one.

iguana

mike65 wrote:

I can only belive that opting out is the right way. Purhapes I'm too ideological
about things like this but I dispair of I see/read of organs being denied due to some (religious-based) belif.

In fact I'd go further and make it law that all organs of value have to be submitted to use regardles of the next of kins views. But only a heartless atheist would think like that proberly!

Mike.

I think like that and I'm a charity working pagan

I don't think anyones ideological views should be allowed to let someone die. If a devout Christian doctor went on a walk on a Sunday and found someone dying in the street and he refused to save them because it was a day of rest, and they died, he could be prosecuted for manslaughter. I think the same ethics should be applied to organ donating.

I know that when I die, I want every last piece of me that can help someone to be used. Even if that involves me being eaten, as it will invariably if I am buried. It's nice to know I'll be of use to worms.

Capt'n Midnight

pickarooney wrote:

A guy in the local paper wrote in saying he had requested that his organs only be donated to persons who were also on the list of donors (excludig chidren). His request was refused as the health service refused to discriminate between possible recipients on this criteria. In protest, he withdrew himself from the list of donors. I could see his point (-ish) but found it quite a petty, spiteful reaction.

It could also have been rejected on the grounds that so few people carry cards that the chances of finding a matching recipient would much more unlikely.

When she was brought to the hospital she was re-checked and it was decided that although there was minimal brain activity it was only a matter of hours before she inevitably died and so her organs could be harvested for transplant purposes. ..... Had she been on the donor list, she would have had her heart, lungs and kidneys removed.

With a opt out system her organs would not have been as badly needed as now so there would be even less incentive/urgency of organ removal. Also there wern't any trams here till recently.


iguana - do we have "Good Samaritan" leglislation here ? Had always thought that if you stopped to help someone and you didn't have at least a first aid cert you could be sued.

uberwolf

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

iguana - do we have "Good Samaritan" leglislation here ?

my understanding is that we do, you can't start performing open heart, but if you do what you feel is absolutely necc to stabilise someone before a professional arrives then you're ok, AFAIK

athena 2000

uberwolf wrote:

my understanding is that we do, you can't start performing open heart, but if you do what you feel is absolutely necc to stabilise someone before a professional arrives then you're ok, AFAIK

I had a look around and found this link that talks about Good Samaritan actions in the state. It's interesting.

It appears that no one is legally compelled to render aid, especially off-duty medical personnel. If you do assist someone, you must do your best in the circumstances (and certainly would do so I'm sure!). Up to January 2004 no one has been sued for rendering aid, though a victim still has the right to sue. I didn't find anything clearly stated about ordinary citizens rendering aid at all.