Opt-Out Organ Donation

end of the road · 10-05-2017 3:37pm

Zillah wrote: »

A - They're your organs until you die. When you're dead you're not a person any more. Only the living can own something.
B - If you have next of kin then they take ownership of your house. If no next of kin can be found then yes indeed the state does take your house and use the proceeds for the collective good.

So unless you want your next of kin to inherit your organs - so they can what, watch them dissolve on the mantlepiece? - I'm not sure you have a point here.

All your squeamishness aside, we're talking about people who are slowly dying, and the thing that can save them, which could become a living, vital part of their body, you want to throw it in the ground to rot.

It's madness. Juvenile, selfish, obtuse madness.

no it isn't. it's his choice and that must be respected. his body, his choice. bodily autonomy is vital.

Zillah wrote: »

I assume you mean "when I do opt out", in which case:

You don't get to decide how people react to your decisions. If you make a selfish, irrational decision about leaving your organs to rot instead of saving someone else's life then you will most certainly get condemnation from me.

actually he does get to decide how they react. if he makes a non-selfish rational decisian about his body then it will be respected whatever that decisian is

Zillah wrote: »

I would agree with you if this was about the living. But it's not. It's about dead people. I don't think dead people should get rights.

the dead have to have rights to insure bodily autonomy is respected and for the greater good of insuring the state cannot abuse the dead. only the living person (and their family if that is what they want) have the right to decide what happens to them when they die and that must remain to be the case at all costs.

maudgonner · 10-05-2017 3:37pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It is intended as an indication of one's wishes then why is a wish to donate being "read-in" where it has not expressly been indicated?

Because it is assumed that people wish to donate unless otherwise stated. Just as now, it is assumed that people do not wish to donate unless they indicate otherwise.

In fact, from what I can see the opt-out register would actually do more to safeguard the wishes of those who expressly do not want to donate than the current system does. The specifics haven't been published yet afaik, but if the opt-out is binding it would mean that if you chose not to donate your organs your next of kin could not override that.

Currently the absence of a donor card, or the failure to tick the box on your driving license is certainly not a binding indication that you do not wish to donate. So the decision rests entirely with your next of kin, one way or another.

Zillah · 10-05-2017 4:09pm

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't. it's his choice and that must be respected. his body, his choice. bodily autonomy is vital.

It's vital for the living. I'm a lot more ambivalent about it for the dead.

actually he does get to decide how they react.

He literally doesn't though?

the dead have to have rights to insure bodily autonomy is respected and for the greater good of insuring the state cannot abuse the dead. only the living person (and their family if that is what they want) have the right to decide what happens to them when they die and that must remain to be the case at all costs.

Well I don't think the dead necessarily have to have rights to ensure bodily autonomy, but even if I concede the point for the sake of argument, that's what opt-out is for.

Let's not forget the flipside of this conversation: while people are sulking about the right to let their bodies rot in the ground there are real live human beings suffering and dying whose torment could be ended by receiving an organ donation.

I know who I feel more sympathy for.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-05-2017 4:16pm

osarusan wrote: »

weldoninhio wrote: »

You know as well as I do that it'll be a convoluted process designed to put people off opting out.

You don't know this at all.

Welsh opt-out system is an online process - Select 'Opt Out', fill in your details so they know who take take off the donor list, click submit.

Might be too "convoluted" for some.

The welsh spent ages and a fortune informing people about the change and making sure they opted out if they wanted to.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-05-2017 4:21pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well we don't know what it will be but I'd say there could be a physical card or something like the driving licence but I'd imagine it will mostly be an electronic tick box. Similar to registering to vote in the U.K. You need a pps no. Address and date of birth. Couldn't be simpler for the person who cares enough to opt in/out.

So already a lot more convoluted that the current system of just carrying a card.

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult, they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 4:26pm

Zillah wrote: »

It's vital for the living. I'm a lot more ambivalent about it for the dead.

He literally doesn't though?

Well I don't think the dead necessarily have to have rights to ensure bodily autonomy, but even if I concede the point for the sake of argument, that's what opt-out is for.

Let's not forget the flipside of this conversation: while people are sulking about the right to let their bodies rot in the ground there are real live human beings suffering and dying whose torment could be ended by receiving an organ donation.

I know who I feel more sympathy for.

Except this is not the flipside of the argument. It would be the flipside if we were arguing the merits of organ donation on a general level but we are not. We are arguing about implied consent which I and others, notwithstanding that we might support organ donation and be in possession of donor cards ourselves, believe is a dangerous precedent to set.

Just because someone is against implied consent does not mean they are against organ donation. To suggest this is taking a rather simplistic view.

I also think it is a little crass to essentially pitch dead people against people in need of organs as if it is some kind of pity contest.

maudgonner · 10-05-2017 4:32pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Except this is not the flipside of the argument. It would be the flipside if we were arguing the merits of organ donation on a general level but we are not. We are arguing about implied consent which I and others, notwithstanding that we might support organ donation and be in possession of donor cards ourselves, believe is a dangerous precedent to set.

Just because someone is against implied consent does not mean they are against organ donation. To suggest this is taking a rather simplistic view.

I also think it is a little crass to essentially pitch dead people against people in need of organs as if it is some kind of pity contest.

That's fair enough. How do you feel about the current system though? Because as things stand I don't really see how you have any more control over what happens to your organs after you die.

Zillah · 10-05-2017 4:35pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I also think it is a little crass to essentially pitch dead people against people in need of organs as if it is some kind of pity contest.

Crass or just getting to the core question?

On one hand I have people saying they don't like the idea of their organs going to someone after they die. Sympathy level 2/10.

On the other I have people suffering and dying for want of donated organs. Sympathy level 10/10.

That's the heart of it.

What do you mean by precedent? Can you give me an example of something that this could genuinely lead to? Have other countries with opt-out systems encountered these slippery slopes?

Podge_irl · 10-05-2017 4:38pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Except this is not the flipside of the argument. It would be the flipside if we were arguing the merits of organ donation on a general level but we are not. We are arguing about implied consent which I and others, notwithstanding that we might support organ donation and be in possession of donor cards ourselves, believe is a dangerous precedent to set.

Why?

There is a phenomenally clear delineation between being alive and being dead. The suggestion that an assumption of choice (and that is what it is, not an over-riding of rights) of a person who is dead could somehow lead to government infringement on the rights of a living person are farcical at best.

osarusan · 10-05-2017 4:44pm

maudgonner wrote: »

That's fair enough. How do you feel about the current system though? Because as things stand I don't really see how you have any more control over what happens to your organs after you die.

Indeed, this is what I was thinking. As it stands, there is no binding control. Opting in or saying nothing - it will still be up to the family.

The opt-out option of an opt-in system is the most binding decision of all that that the person themself can make, as far as I can see.

Although, I don't have any problem with somebody arguing that deemed consent is not something they think is appropriate as a principle. I don't have a problem with it myself, but i can understand how others would feel that way.

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 4:44pm

Zillah wrote: »

Crass or just getting to the core question?

On one hand I have people saying they don't like the idea of their organs going to someone after they die. Sympathy level 2/10.

On the other I have people suffering and dying for want of donated organs. Sympathy level 10/10.

That's the heart of it.

What do you mean by precedent? Can you give me an example of something that this could genuinely lead to? Have other countries with opt-out systems encountered these slippery slopes?

Crass - whether a dead person or a living person in need of an organ score higher on your pity scale is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I re-iterate - I do support organ donation, but not implied consent.

You seem intent on categorizing people on the basis of their views on the matter, to the extent that you now appear to have a scoring system out of 10. I find this odd and less than useful.

I use precedent in its colloquial rather than legal meaning. In other words, implied consent is allowed for circumstances surrounding organ donation and then further down the line will be applied in other circumstances which do not involve organ donation.

Would you like me to dream up some hypotheticals for you to dismantle?

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 4:47pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why?

There is a phenomenally clear delineation between being alive and being dead. The suggestion that an assumption of choice (and that is what it is, not an over-riding of rights) of a person who is dead could somehow lead to government infringement on the rights of a living person are farcical at best.

You miss the point.

I have not said I am against organ donation. I am against presumed consent and the precedent that it sets for other situations (which might conceivably include living persons) in the future hence a discussion on the merits of organ donation is irrelevant to the argument I have put forward.

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 4:50pm

maudgonner wrote: »

That's fair enough. How do you feel about the current system though? Because as things stand I don't really see how you have any more control over what happens to your organs after you die.

I do see the point that opting out can be a more binding move for one who wishes not to donate and I accept that. I will admit it is news to me that a family can override someone's wishes under the current system, though why anyone would want to do that to their deceased loved one is beyond me). It's just the implied consent in general (not specifically towards donation) that does not sit well with me. Nothing against organ donation personally.

Zillah · 10-05-2017 5:01pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I use precedent in its colloquial rather than legal meaning. In other words, implied consent is allowed for circumstances surrounding organ donation and then further down the line will be applied in other circumstances which do not involve organ donation.

What other circumstances? If you can't actually describe a specific concern then yours is a rarefied notion that I don't think has any value.

maudgonner · 10-05-2017 5:06pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I do see the point that opting out can be a more binding move for one who wishes not to donate and I accept that. I will admit it is news to me that a family can override someone's wishes under the current system, though why anyone would want to do that to their deceased loved one is beyond me). It's just the implied consent in general (not specifically towards donation) that does not sit well with me. Nothing against organ donation personally.

OK, but there already is implied consent in other medical matters. E.g. in lifesaving emergency medical intervention. Do you object to that?

(And I'm not saying it's the same as organ donation, just asking where the limit is)

Podge_irl · 10-05-2017 5:11pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You miss the point.

I have not said I am against organ donation. I am against presumed consent and the precedent that it sets for other situations (which might conceivably include living persons) in the future hence a discussion on the merits of organ donation is irrelevant to the argument I have put forward.

I didn't mention organ donation.

Presumed consent of a dead person (who, a priori, has no rights over their body any more) can not, in any logical way whatsoever, lead to a scenario of a living person being forced to abdicate rights. The yawning chasm between a living and dead person is about as distinct a scenario as you are going to come across.

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 5:44pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I didn't mention organ donation.

Presumed consent of a dead person (who, a priori, has no rights over their body any more) can not, in any logical way whatsoever, lead to a scenario of a living person being forced to abdicate rights. The yawning chasm between a living and dead person is about as distinct a scenario as you are going to come across.

You don't know this.

If you insist on continuing to miss the point then there is no point having circular arguments.

Organ donation applies to dead people.

Other scenarios where very much not dead people are involved might also be affected by the rationale of presumed consent, if it becomes precedent.

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 5:44pm

maudgonner wrote: »

OK, but there already is implied consent in other medical matters. E.g. in lifesaving emergency medical intervention. Do you object to that?

(And I'm not saying it's the same as organ donation, just asking where the limit is)

This is a compelling argument

Of course I don't object to that. Good point though.

OldNotWIse · 10-05-2017 5:46pm

Zillah wrote: »

What other circumstances? If you can't actually describe a specific concern then yours is a rarefied notion that I don't think has any value.

Are you debating the existence of precedent in it's entirety? Really?

maudgonner · 10-05-2017 5:53pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This is a compelling argument Of course I don't object to that. Good point though.

I suppose the way I see it is that we're currently giving our implied consent to something anyway - to having our organs disposed of after death with no attempt to have them used for better purposes.

As far as I'm concerned it's a no-brainer that I would want to have my organs donated, and I think the majority of people would/should feel likewise, so I have no problem with that being the default position.

If I thought the majority of people felt otherwise (and I don't agree that the low uptake rates of donor cards/driving licence consent indicates that most people are against organ donation), I might change my mind. If the opt-out system was brought in and we saw a majority of people signing up against donation, then I'd be in favour of returning to an opt-in system. Other than that, we could put it to a referendum, but I think we might have a few too many of those coming up anyway :pac:

Zillah · 10-05-2017 5:58pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you debating the existence of precedent in it's entirety? Really?

If I find my neighbours drinking in my garden I will nip that behaviour in the bud, because otherwise it would set a precedent for further encroachments and maybe other people treating my private property as public.

I dislike Ireland's blasphemy law because it sets a precedent for civilised nations having such restrictions on free speech and favouritism for religion. Other nations use this precedent to justify their own restrictions on free speech.

You don't like the precedent of the government assuming consent for organ donation where not otherwise specified because it sets a precedent of ___, leading to ___?

I understand what a precedent is, I'm asking you to articulate the nature of your concern. Please fill in the blanks.

Podge_irl · 10-05-2017 7:26pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You don't know this.

If you insist on continuing to miss the point then there is no point having circular arguments.

Organ donation applies to dead people.

Other scenarios where very much not dead people are involved might also be affected by the rationale of presumed consent, if it becomes precedent.

I do know this, because there is no logical way to connect them. You may as well consider owning pets to be a slippery slope towards slavery. In fact it would be a closer argument seeing as at least pets are alive.

There is a colossal chasm between a living person and a dead one. It is not going to set a precedent. Please give any example were you think this encroachment might happen?

weldoninhio · 10-05-2017 7:50pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult, they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

It would no longer be "donation" though, it would be organ harvesting by implied consent.

jackofalltrades · 10-05-2017 7:53pm

maudgonner wrote: »

I suppose the way I see it is that we're currently giving our implied consent to something anyway - to having our organs disposed of after death with no attempt to have them used for better purposes.

As far as I'm concerned it's a no-brainer that I would want to have my organs donated, and I think the majority of people would/should feel likewise, so I have no problem with that being the default position.

If I thought the majority of people felt otherwise (and I don't agree that the low uptake rates of donor cards/driving licence consent indicates that most people are against organ donation), I might change my mind. If the opt-out system was brought in and we saw a majority of people signing up against donation, then I'd be in favour of returning to an opt-in system. Other than that, we could put it to a referendum, but I think we might have a few too many of those coming up anyway :pac:

Or you could just ask people, face-to-face or on one of the myriad of forms that adults have to fill in.
Make it a Yes/No question that has to be answered.
It respects everyone's wishes, no one has a decision made for them without knowing or that goes against their wishes.
If the support that people say is there for donation then this would dramatically increase numbers.
Everyone should be happy with this kind of solution. (although I await being corrected)

weldoninhio · 10-05-2017 7:56pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Or you could just ask people, face-to-face or on one of the myriad of forms that adults have to fill in.
Make it a Yes/No question that has to be answered.
It respects everyone's wishes, no one has a decision made for them without knowing or that goes against their wishes.
If the support that people say is there for donation then this would dramatically increase numbers.
Everyone should be happy with this kind of solution. (although I await being corrected)

100% agree. Would be easy to make it a mandatory question on any govt form. Passport, driving license, medical card, when you register to vote without making presumptions on people's wishes.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2017 9:29pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

No, I am willing to save the govt money. €50k to save €450,000 seems a good deal.

it does, but it's not a one in ten thing.

280 people received an organ donation in 2016 out of 4.588 million

That's 3 out of every 50,000.

If you agree to abstain from smoking, drinking, injecting, keep fit and not do any of the things that would stop you donating blood , I might see if I can find €3 down the back of the sofa.

Probably best if you invested that €3 in a healthcare scheme that would cover any organ donation you'd need.

10-05-2017 11:08pm

Again, it's the next of kin thing we need to remove. All the rest of the arguments are purely academic, "implied consent" means nothing, same as how donor cards mean nothing right now, because the family are asked.

maudgonner · 11-05-2017 12:01am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Or you could just ask people, face-to-face or on one of the myriad of forms that adults have to fill in.
Make it a Yes/No question that has to be answered.
It respects everyone's wishes, no one has a decision made for them without knowing or that goes against their wishes.
If the support that people say is there for donation then this would dramatically increase numbers.
Everyone should be happy with this kind of solution. (although I await being corrected)

I've heard this argument before in debates and the reason given against it was that if this was a mandatory question tacked onto a passport application/voter registration etc people would answer it without properly considering the implications or having the necessary information. 'Do I want to be an organ donor? I haven't thought about it, yes, no, I don't care just give me my bloody passport!' It's not informed consent. (It's one of the reasons ticking the box on your driving licence should not be binding). And of course you still would not cover everyone - not everyone has a passport, driving licence or is registered to vote, so a default position would still be needed.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-05-2017 11:43am

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult, they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

It would no longer be "donation" though, it would be organ harvesting by implied consent.

Anyone who cares enough about the issue to listen to ingest any if the information campaigns would be giving tacit consent. The ones who opt out would have expressed their wish, as is their right. The ones who don't care, don't care.

animaal · 11-05-2017 12:21pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult, they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

It would no longer be "donation" though, it would be organ harvesting by implied consent.

Anyone who cares enough about the issue to listen to ingest any if the information campaigns would be giving tacit consent. The ones who opt out would have expressed their wish, as is their right. The ones who don't care, don't care.

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to <worthy cause>. If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

Opt-Out Organ Donation

Comments