Organ Donation becomes Opt Out from June

In the case of a person who is still alive, I would assume that would become a "ward of the court" situation.

There is no halfway house. My preference is to let my next of kin to have the overriding choice about what to do with my remains. I want to give them the choice, a real choice.

Instead, what will happen is that organs will be harvested and families will be only informed that it has happened afterwards. That's what the "consultation" will end up as.

Except maybe the people in kidney failures, who's lives have been already screwed up by long term illness and are unlikely to have a spare €5k-€10k lying round to buy an organ to save their life.

But sure, let's not get the feelz about them or anything.

The State could pay. You'd absolutely see organ donation rise voluntarily if payments effectively covered funeral costs.

I am an organ donor anyway. I just hope my family doesn't have to wait for the rest of the body to get released for burial.

And this response demonstrates exactly why there should be no assumed consent.

Ultimately, in my view if there is no record of consent (e.g. donor card or driving licence ticked) and no relative can be found to give consent, then the deceased should be buried or cremated intact, as their wishes are not known and should not be assumed.

Meaning that we all would be paying.

I'm not sure we should have financial incentives for such a sensitive situation. Those families who really struggle with money for funeral and other expenses would effectively be operating under duress.

You have stated that you want to conditions applied on how donations are allocated to recipients, that is not based on medical need. That is attaching conditions. That is a change, whether you accept that or not.

I haven't told anyone other than my immediate family what my own wishes are in relation to donating my own organs. So don't assume. Whether I am a registered donor or not is not relevant to this discussion. (And it's no one's business).

This is about a change of legislation to assumed consent to organ donation, and I will say it again, I am not comfortable with that. So I will be making sure to discuss the topic again with my family members and friends, so they are all aware of the changes.

Sure, you keep thinking that, if it makes you more comfortable.

You need to start reading what's being posted properly, it's making things very confusing……you're all over the shop.

I didn’t say anything about you refusing to be a donor until they do. It was your declaration that those who choose not to donate should be put to the back of the queue (not the way it works).

I never said anything about refusing to be a donor, that's you getting the wrong end of the stick. You accused me of attaching T&Cs to the act of donation, when I clearly do not.

You said, verbatim: "declaring that you’re only willing to help your fellow man with terms and conditions attached, is far worse than being unwilling to become a donor". I never declared anything of the sort. And that's you accusing me of something I never did. I do, however, think that receiving a donation should have T&Cs attached, namely "are there any other patients on the list who are waiting on this organ who are registered as donors?".

I also am well aware this is not how it works, as evidenced by me saying "I hope it changes to this" multiple times.

I detest the idea of anyone who is in need being denied because they failed the donors morality check, or the idea of organ donation being turned into a vehicle for people’s spite, or to give Govt a bloody nose (it won’t, Govt won’t care!), but it sours the whole concept.

And I detest the though of anyone getting a life-saving donation ahead of someone else who is more deserving. And yes, if someone is willing to donate their organs then they are more deserving of someone who is unwilling to donate theirs.

To your mind, maybe. I feel it's overly simplistic.

As I said, in my line of work I have encountered many people without the literacy skills to navigate even basic things, so I can see this being an issue for more than you might expect.

You have stated that you want to conditions applied on how donations are allocated to recipients

Correct. (this already happens, by the way. Every day, with every organ).

that is not based on medical need

Incorrect. I had hoped that "all other things being equal" was taken for granted, yet here we are.

That is attaching conditions.

To allocation of the donated organ. Not to donation. The accusation was "you’re only willing to help your fellow man with terms and conditions attached". I'm not. I'm already donating indiscriminately. I said I hope that this change happens, but, even if it doesn't, it won't change anything. I'll still carry my donor card. And I'll still be willing to help my fellow man unconditionally. Unlike you, who refuses.

That is a change, whether you accept that or not.

A change to what? To the donation process? No, it's not. To the allocation process? Yes, that's what I hope happens. It still doesn't mean I'm only willing to help people with T&Cs attached. I'm already helping people before that change comes in, completely disproving his assertion.

Whether I am a registered donor or not is not relevant to this discussion. (And it's no one's business).

The discussion is about who should, and should not, be prioritised when it comes to organ transplants. I'm saying donors should be prioritised (when all other things, including medical need are equal) over those who say no. It is entirely relevant to this discussion. If there is a list of people who are all eligible for organ X, those who are registered donors should be front of the queue, IMO, ahead of those who aren't. If you're not comfortable giving yours then you should be passed over for those who are.

This is about a change of legislation to assumed consent to organ donation, and I will say it again, I am not comfortable with that. So I will be making sure to discuss the topic again with my family members and friends, so they are all aware of the changes.

And I am uncomfortable with you receiving a donated organ ahead of someone who is a donor (again, all other things being equal). Being willing to accept a donation while also being unwilling to make one makes you a hypocrite, in my eyes. Make sure your family are all aware of your hypocrisy, while you're at it.

You need to start reading what's being posted properly, it's making things very confusing……you're all over the shop.

I read it just fine. In summary you hope they pass a law whereby anyone who opts out is automatically placed at the back of the queue when it comes to receiving a donated organ.

That means anyone who opts out is placed at the back of the queue. A donor is more deserving in your view than someone who for whatever their reasons chooses not to become a donor.

That’s your idea of ‘helping your fellow man’.

It’s an odd one, I’ll give you that.