nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Joe Brolly and opt-out law for organ donation

DebDynamite

I was watching the Joe Brolly programme last night about him donating his kidney to a friend which unfortunately didn’t work out.

He’s now started a campaign to try to change the organ donation law of consent to a 'soft opt-out' system where presumed consent is taken unless otherwise stated by the individual.

I think this is a great idea. Do the people of After Hours agree? What reason would you have for not wanting to donate your organs? (no innuendo please

)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SpaceTime

While I'm sure it's unfounded and a bit irrational, I think the concern that a lot of people who would say no might have is that life support might be switched off sooner if someone thought your organs were useful for someone else.

I'm sure that's not the case, but I think it's the niggling worry that some people have about the idea of automatic organ donation.

biko

I have a tattoo

"Organ donor, take what you need"*

*actually I don't have this but it'd be kinda cool to have.

Uaru

If they take my lungs on earth how will I smoke in heaven?

Mardy Bum

Starokan wrote: »

I like the idea of an opt out system, I'd imagine a lot of people go through life without ever considering organ donation at all. Something like opt out would make it much more of a discussed topic and perhaps result in more donations being available.

All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

Maximus Alexander

Uaru wrote: »

If they take my lungs on earth how will I smoke in heaven?

If you smoke enough to be worried about that, they might not want your lungs.

iwantmydinner

Pushtrak wrote: »

Very easily. There are waiting lists for organs. There would be a list of people opting to donate organs. When someone needs to be put on the waiting list, they're being put so will be dependent on being on the other list.

Not a hope. There is no (scrupulous) medical professional in the world that would get on board with a system like that. Not a chance in hell.

Tabnabs

Your organs are now public property? If you feel strongly enough about it, you should carry a donor card and inform your next of kin. Where does it end once your body is no longer yours? Can they take organs from those in long term comas with no chance of recovery? If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

mikom

Iang87 wrote: »

As for those saying some form of incentive please seriously get a grip not everything in this world is money based

The healthcare system is...........

iwantmydinner

Mardy Bum wrote: »

All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

My understanding is that an opt-out system would be based on a State-run, centralised database.

NTMK

Manach wrote: »

I would be against this State imposing harvesting of organs and their presumption that unless otherwise stated, anything not explicitly stated is theirs by default ownership. People have a fundamental right of ownership over items that continues beyond death until certain legal forms are followed into the winding up of the estate. For the State to overturn this, and have their employees intrude into one of the most stressful time in a family's existence shows an insensitivity that only exists in a modern state that has tipped over into bureaucratic madness.
For the record, I carry an organ donor card.

I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

imo that would eliminate the lazy factor and will not give the state perceived ownership of organs

Pushtrak

Tabnabs wrote: »

If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

Euthanasia should be allowed without the prerequisite of looking at this issue.

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

Your organs are now public property? If you feel strongly enough about it, you should carry a donor card and inform your next of kin. Where does it end once your body is no longer yours? Can they take organs from those in long term comas with no chance of recovery? If these organs are so valuable in the eyes of the state, should the law be altered to allow euthanasia if a person donates their organs in return?

You're letting your imagination run away with you.

Opt-out systems work extremely well in several countries and (although I am open to correction on this) these issues have not arisen.

My name is URL

A good incentive might be to give organ donors free healthcare. I wonder how many would be in favour of it then!

Mr Porridge

Tasden wrote: »

I think its a great idea, those who feel strongly enough about not donating can opt out, those who are on the fence can have the decision made for them once they are dead. Alot of people are against anything involving the eyes though (never understood this myself but it seems to be common enough) so I wonder would that be opt out separately.

Well if i'm going to be a ghost then I dont want to be a blind ghost.

iwantmydinner

NTMK wrote: »

I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

imo that would eliminate the lazy factor will not giving the state perceived ownership of organs

I agree to an extent - I think a mandatory choice system would be a better option than opt-in; but I still think a well-run, 'soft' opt-out system is the best.

Pushtrak

My name is URL wrote: »

A good incentive might be to give organ donors free healthcare. I wonder how many would be in favour of it then!

This country would never be that awesome.

OldNotWIse

Mardy Bum wrote: »

All it will be is a question on the driving license form i.e Tick if you wish to opt-out _

What about people who dont drive?

Tabnabs

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You're letting your imagination run away with you.

Opt-out systems work extremely well in several countries and (although I am open to correction on this) these issues have not arisen.

But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

You can't own anything, after your death.

Tabnabs

So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What about people who dont drive?

NTMK posted something similar.

NTMK wrote: »

I will happily be harvested but imo an opt-out system isnt the best idea it would be better it it was a mandatory question on state documentation (passports, DL, social welfare forms). A yes or no question with the automatic assumption if you manage to avoid all those then your not a donor

imo that would eliminate the lazy factor will not giving the state perceived ownership of organs

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?

Em, I've been very clear about this. I'm fully in favour of an opt-out system, in which case, I would NOT opt-out.

ETA: In an opt-out system, choosing not to opt-out = specific consent for organ donation.

Also: why do you use the term 'harvest'? Organs are generally retrieved.

Maximus Alexander

Tabnabs wrote: »

But it boils down to the question, who owns your organs, the State or you?

Well if that bothers you, you should already have been asking that question. You can't, for example, demand that your body be left sitting on the couch in front of the TV for years after you die. Even if your family agrees. You can't be buried in your back garden either, nor be taken to a taxidermist as far as I am aware.

Tabnabs

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Em, I've been very clear about this. I'm fully in favour of an opt-out system, in which case, I would NOT opt-out.

Also: why do you use the term 'harvest'? Organs are generally retrieved.

Well your vision of a socialist/authoritarian utopia where a simple law change makes your very body state property to do with as they wish, is not a view of paradise that I share, comrade.

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

How about a system whereby, one isn't forced to donate their organs, but if they want to be on a waiting list they'd have to be willing to donate their organs themselves. Doesn't seem particularly equitable for me to give my organs on to someone who'd not be willing to do the same.

They dont apply these criteria when giving people blood donations.

Nerdlingr

I'm for an opt-out system. They can take whatever they want, I won't be needing it. If any of my organs can save a life then brilliant.
The next of kin thing as well... Is it not the case you discuss with them your wishes and get them to sign your card and thats it? once they sign its binding?

my teapot is orange

I have three view on this topic

(i) It should be an opt-out system so that it doesn't rely on people finding the time/motivation/thinking about it

(ii) People who choose to be in the system i.e. be donors should get priority on the list if they ever need an organ. I don't entertain any of this, "I'm squeamish, I don't want to give away my organs, but if I need one it's fine, I'll get over my squeamishness".

(iii) Family consent should come into it a lot less. They shouldn't be entitled to override your views. If you wanted to give your organs to help others, no family member should be allowed to say no, anymore than if you willed a stranger a house.

Tabnabs

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Well if that bothers you, you should already have been asking that question. You can't, for example, demand that your body be left sitting on the couch in front of the TV for years after you die. Even if your family agrees. You can't be buried in your back garden either, nor be taken to a taxidermist as far as I am aware.

But you can decide if you want to be buried, cremated, your ashes scattered at sea etc. YOU have the choice of what happens to your remains, not a desk bound bureaucrat nor a scalpel welding surgeon.

Tasden

Also, just in case anyone wasn't aware, if you donate your organs, they treat the process like they would if you were alive- they close you up neatly and all the rest- its not like they take what they want and off they go. Sometimes people are put off by it, thinking that they'll be left torn open or whatever, its all done respectfully and whatnot.

catallus

Tabnabs wrote: »

So you believe the State have the right to harvest your organs without your specific consent, yes or no?

This is a no-brainer: of course "the state" should have the right to harvest a person's organs without specific consent.

I have my own opinions about specific scenarios (for example the taking of organs from criminals and so forth) but it really isn't relevant.

The prodigious waste of life is being maintained by reprehensible supernatural beliefs about the sanctity of the body.

If you're dead, your body is fair game for medical professionals to use to save other lives.

I think the science people are working on growing organs now? In the future it may negate organ-donors. But for the time being there is no grounds for debate. We shouldn't allow policy to be directed by the supernaturally fuelled feelings of self-involved man-children.