Organ Donation

Alun wrote: »

Which is a ridiculous state of affairs TBH. I'd like a "I want my organs to be used, regardless of whatever any of my relatives say or want, it's none of their business, and anyway I've already told them of my decision, so there!" box to tick.

Is there not one of these? Not being smart but I would have thought if it was your living (and dying) wish to be a donor, that had to be respected?

A side query, not strictly related but just occured to me. How do they do post-mortems on donors? If the organs have to be removed immediately, how is cause of death determined? Or will only organs arising from natural deaths be allowed?

bumper234 wrote: »

Hi kettle this is pot...guess what?

this could go on....forever

Are you black too?!

Alun

Deleted User wrote: »

This is totally incorrect. Donor cards do absolutely nothing except notify your next of kin of your desire to donate.

Ultimate decision lies with your next of kin.

Which is a ridiculous state of affairs TBH. I'd like a "I want my organs to be used, regardless of whatever any of my relatives say or want, it's none of their business, and anyway I've already told them of my decision, so there!" box to tick.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

lol at the irony of this post

Hi kettle this is pot...guess what?

bumper234 wrote: »

What a waste of 30 perfectly good words.

lol at the irony of this post

justryan wrote: »

I'll keep my organs thanks came to this earth whole and will leave it whole, I don't want some doctor poking around inside my chest cavity grabbing what he can.

What a waste of 30 perfectly good words.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thought that sounded familiar

It's flouride
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/AD23E8418C11E5118025765E0037605A/$FILE/Ryan%20v%20AG_1964.rtfSo we are back to the opt out system because you don't have to accept a medical card. And it costs nothing to opt out.

So we retain all of our constitutional rights after death ?
seriously that's your argument ?

If there was any evidence that such a campaign would reliably make up the numbers then I'd be all for it.

We had 33.5% turnout for the Childrens referendum. If you have any magic way guaranteed to improve on that then you may have a point. In the UK they've reached 30% and 3 people a day are dying because that's still too low.
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/campaigns/

Since that's never going to happen my view are that such arguments only serve to waste time. I've already posted that blood donors don't get charged for the blood they use.

whose post were you reading? Clearly not mine. Did you accidentally hit reply to the wrong one??

Incidentally, you want to use statistics for a shoddily put together childrens referendum to further your organ donation opt in system agenda? Thats your argument?

Also, I am genuinley curious what peoples thoughts are on the "only recieve if you donate" argument, who cares if its not a reality, this is a discussion board ffs - what "time" is being wasted? Are you labouring under the misapprehension that people actually care whats posted here? That it has some influence on what actually happens in this country?

Reamer Fanny

I'll keep my organs thanks came to this earth whole and will leave it whole, I don't want some doctor poking around inside my chest cavity grabbing what he can.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Art 40.3.1 - the doctrine of unenumerated rights. Constitutional right to bodily integrity was establised in 1965 (Ryan v. AG). If I'm not mistaken, it was one of the arguments invoked by Marie Fleming recently?

Thought that sounded familiar

It's flouride
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/AD23E8418C11E5118025765E0037605A/$FILE/Ryan%20v%20AG_1964.rtf

, That there is no contractual right to a piped water supply. PerKenny J.:â€”"The plaintiff has no legal right to a supply of piped water and the Act of 1960 does not impose any obligation on her or on the members of her family to drink or use the water coming through the piped water supply. . . . the plaintiff probably has a right of access to a supply of water, but this does not give her a right to a supply of water which has not been fluoridated through the piped water supply. . . . I am satisfied that the plaintiff . . . can, by the expenditure of a few pounds, remove all or almost all the fluoride ions from the water coming through the piped water supply."

So we are back to the opt out system because you don't have to accept a medical card. And it costs nothing to opt out.

I stand by what I said. Bodily integrity is a constitutional right, and an opt in system is a violation of that right. Even if thousands were dying, that doesnt change.

So we retain all of our constitutional rights after death ?
seriously that's your argument ?

Surely it would be a wiser investment of energy to run campaigns and actually get people moving on the issue themselves (because I think we are all in agreement that we do need more donors!). For now, we disagree on how those numbers can be increased.

If there was any evidence that such a campaign would reliably make up the numbers then I'd be all for it.

We had 33.5% turnout for the Childrens referendum. If you have any magic way guaranteed to improve on that then you may have a point. In the UK they've reached 30% and 3 people a day are dying because that's still too low.
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/campaigns/

Currently in the UK:

More than 10,000 people need an organ transplant
Of these, 1000 people - 3 a day - will die before an organ becomes available

While 90% of people in the UK say they support organ donation, to date 30% have joined the the NHS Organ Donor Register

I did hear people mention before that only those who are donors could avail of organs if they needed them - what are the views on that?

Since that's never going to happen my view are that such arguments only serve to waste time. I've already posted that blood donors don't get charged for the blood they use.

[Deleted User]

rednik wrote: »

Thanks to a donor my wife received a kidney last week and all going well will return her dialysis machine and all the kit to the HSE. Thank God for Donors.

Congratulations to both of you

rednik

Thanks to a donor my wife received a kidney last week and all going well will return her dialysis machine and all the kit to the HSE. Thank God for Donors.

Anyone ever see that super cheesey film with David Duchovny called "return to me"?

allibastor

bumper234 wrote: »

Ah but if you don't have your heart when you present yourself to St Peter at the heavens gates then you can't get in and this would make the baby Jesus cry bejeepers and begohrahh to be sure for sure:mad:

If god is up there and he turns me away for giving my heart away to save someone else, he can go **** himself and I will hang in hell knowing that someone else gets to live for a while longer.

bumper234 wrote: »

My apologies i have just read up on that and you are right. I have already told my kids if they try to stop my organs being donated i will haunt them

As if ghosts aren't creepy enough...now we will have organless ghosts

lol

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You are missing the point.

An opt in system means that hundreds of people will continue to die.

IF we had a system where there were enough people opting in then you might have a point. Until then you are asking for other people to be sacrificed to appease your concerns.

unconstitutionality - you keep using that word - care to point out where in the constitution these right are ??
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf

and just a reminder getting a health card is an Opt-In anyway
and you can't use everyman arguments because things like death and taxation are inevitable

Art 40.3.1 - the doctrine of unenumerated rights. Constitutional right to bodily integrity was establised in 1965 (Ryan v. AG). If I'm not mistaken, it was one of the arguments invoked by Marie Fleming recently?

It's not a matter of just downloading the Constitution and hitting ctrl F and searching for "bodily integrity" (which is what I assume you did).

I stand by what I said. Bodily integrity is a constitutional right, and an opt in system is a violation of that right. Even if thousands were dying, that doesnt change. You can talk about sacrifice and use emotive arguments all you want but that doesnt actually strengthen your argument (for an opt in system, of course it strengthens your argument for donation in general, but thats not the issue here).

People were p1ssed a while ago when an out of date search warrant meant that a certain judge could not be charged with certain offences. But, there exists a constitutional right ot due process, and evidence obtained without a valid warrant violates that right. You cannot simply change or override a right because people are dying or you dont agree with it or you think certain cross sections of society are lazy or whatever other argument you choose to throw out there.

Surely it would be a wiser investment of energy to run campaigns and actually get people moving on the issue themselves (because I think we are all in agreement that we do need more donors!). For now, we disagree on how those numbers can be increased.

I did hear people mention before that only those who are donors could avail of organs if they needed them - what are the views on that?

Deleted User wrote: »

This is totally incorrect. Donor cards do absolutely nothing except notify your next of kin of your desire to donate.

Ultimate decision lies with your next of kin.

My apologies i have just read up on that and you are right. I have already told my kids if they try to stop my organs being donated i will haunt them

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

AFAIK The current opt-in system means the family won't even be asked unless there is a donor card or a driving license with the box ticked in.

If the patient is a suitable candidate for donation, the next of kin will indeed be asked.

Hitchens wrote: »

what would be the outcome if you didn't opt out, but when you died, your family objected to your organs being harvested?

It's not so much that the family can veto,
it's that the donation can only happen if family give informed consent.

So even if we had an opt-out system the family would still have final say.

AFAIK The current opt-in system means the family won't even be asked unless there is a donor card or a driving license with the box ticked in.

http://www.organdonation.ie/medical.html

The coordinator then travels with the transplant teams to the donating hospital and meets the donor family. We explain what is involved in the donation and a little about the patients who would benefit from the donation, and any questions the family may have are answered by us. Having spoken with the coordinator if the family then wish to proceed with organ donation, and there are no contraindications to donation, the family will then be asked for consent for transplantation of the organs they wish to donate. Only organs which are specifically consented for are taken for transplantation and only if a suitable recipient has been identified.

[Deleted User]

bumper234 wrote: »

The outcome would be your organs would be harvested (such a nasty word am going to use donated from now on) The same as if you carry a donor card now, if your family object it does not matter (afaik) and your organs are donated.

This is totally incorrect. Donor cards do absolutely nothing except notify your next of kin of your desire to donate.

Ultimate decision lies with your next of kin.

Hitchens wrote: »

what would be the outcome if you didn't opt out, but when you died, your family objected to your organs being harvested?

The outcome would be your organs would be harvested (such a nasty word am going to use donated from now on) The same as if you carry a donor card now, if your family object it does not matter (afaik) and your organs are donated.

Hitchens

what would be the outcome if you didn't opt out, but when you died, your family objected to your organs being harvested?

allibastor wrote: »

when i die they can take what they want and thow me in a ditch for all i care.

On a serious note, just think if you did donate you could save a life or three.

Ah but if you don't have your heart when you present yourself to St Peter at the heavens gates then you can't get in and this would make the baby Jesus cry bejeepers and begohrahh to be sure for sure:mad:

allibastor

when i die they can take what they want and thow me in a ditch for all i care.

On a serious note, just think if you did donate you could save a life or three.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You're missing my point. It's not about the merits of donation. It's about the unconstitutionality of an opt out system. I dont see many people arguing that they dont agree with transplants end of.

And like I already said, if you feel so strongly about donating, you too "simply have to tick a box".

People who want to donate will not be prevented from doing so.

You are missing the point.

An opt in system means that hundreds of people will continue to die.

IF we had a system where there were enough people opting in then you might have a point. Until then you are asking for other people to be sacrificed to appease your concerns.

unconstitutionality - you keep using that word - care to point out where in the constitution these right are ??
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf

and just a reminder getting a health card is an Opt-In anyway
and you can't use everyman arguments because things like death and taxation are inevitable

conorhal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I am aware of that, but I was applying the line of logic put forward, namely:

It doesnt matter what happens to your body when you're dead.

And therefore it shouldnt matter what is done with the organs post-death - whether they are used or not. In fact, its "infantile bollocks" to even care what happens.

I'm curious about your point about it being too emotive for minors to be donors - dont minors die too? Aren't minors also on the waiting list? Isn't it just as upsetting (and I would say more upsetting) when a minor dies waiting for an organ?

Again, I am not arguing against organ donation, I am against an opt in system (and that has nothing to do with the time it takes to opt out btw, its the principle that bodily integrity is not something people should have to take active steps to enjoy. Whether said steps take 1 minute or 1 year is, in fact, irrelevant to my point)

I agree, clearly it does matter, even dead, you don't instantly become a peice of meat to anybody but a sociopath, and certiantly not to your family. That doesn't mean that assumed consent with an opt out clause can't be handled with sensitivity and compassion, there is room for both in such a process and any process that treats relatives with hostility and their loved one as soylient green would be rightly condemned.
As for minors, yes, I think it is more emotive an upsetting when a child dies and it might require aditional sensivity in that case, namely requesting organ donation of the parents.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem is that most people don't feel strongly one way or another.

I've already suggested an opt-out system for those getting the European Health Insurance Card http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/1/schemes/EHIC/ or a Medical Card. One tick box that you can change at any time online or at any medical place or by post.

I can't understand the mentality that would consciously allow others to suffer for years with little likelyhood of a normal life just so they don't have to tick a box once. You don't have to donate , even if you tick the box your family will still decide. And I'll repeat it again, live donation carries risks.

Let's be 100% clear about one thing. You have already spent way more time trying to explain why you don't like the idea than it would have taken to tick the opt out box. So actually the mentality I can't understand is the one that goes out of it's way to actively block possible donations by those who "don't really care either way".

People who don't want to donate won't ever have to.

You're missing my point. It's not about the merits of donation. It's about the unconstitutionality of an opt out system. I dont see many people arguing that they dont agree with transplants end of.

And like I already said, if you feel so strongly about donating, you too "simply have to tick a box".

People who want to donate will not be prevented from doing so.

Gbear

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But it does. Look at the scandal of the baby organ retention. Would you accuse the grieving parents of "infantile bollocks" for being devastated that their babies organs were harvested and retained without the parents consent? The babies were dead, so by your logic, who gives a fuuck?

I am not arguing against donation. I am arguing against the opt in system. Like I already said, if you feel that strongly about it, opt in.

I think the real problem there is surprise.

If it's accepted and known by all that all organs are recycled then emotion wouldn't enter into it. There'd be no shock.

You'd never have a doctor even having to broach the subject with a grieving family.

conorhal wrote: »

There is a difference between harvesting organs without informing anybody and retaining them for whatever purpose and harvesting organs while informing the family for the purpose of, say, saving another childs life.
I'd be infavour of an opt out clause but probably not in the case of minors, that might be too emotive.

I am aware of that, but I was applying the line of logic put forward, namely:

It doesnt matter what happens to your body when you're dead.

And therefore it shouldnt matter what is done with the organs post-death - whether they are used or not. In fact, its "infantile bollocks" to even care what happens.

I'm curious about your point about it being too emotive for minors to be donors - dont minors die too? Aren't minors also on the waiting list? Isn't it just as upsetting (and I would say more upsetting) when a minor dies waiting for an organ?

Again, I am not arguing against organ donation, I am against an opt in system (and that has nothing to do with the time it takes to opt out btw, its the principle that bodily integrity is not something people should have to take active steps to enjoy. Whether said steps take 1 minute or 1 year is, in fact, irrelevant to my point)