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

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

They dont apply these criteria when giving people blood donations.

Blood is very different. I can go off, donate some blood, and I'll be fine after a little time. A person doesn't have the same fortune with organs, and people are on waiting lists due to limited supply. They're very different, and should be treated differently, too.

mikom

my teapot is orange wrote: »

(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".

*George Best chooses to be on the system to ensure he gets priority

Maximus Alexander

Tabnabs wrote: »

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.

You don't have the choice though, I've just given you examples of the choices you can't make. A choice that limited is no choice at all. The state already decided what can be done with your corpse after death, the only difference here is that you're happy to be complicit with that decision.

OldNotWIse

catallus wrote: »

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, you're 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.

You realise that the Constitutional right to bodily integrity does not cease just because you have been convicted of an offence?

Fussgangerzone

My auld fella reckons he'll need his kidneys on the day of judgment.
Personally, anyone who needs my organs can have them (once I'm finished with them), and I think opt-out is the way to go.

Can the family can still say no even if you don't opt out? I think they can, but not sure where I got the idea.

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

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.

Oh please.

Well-run, harmonious and successful opt-out systems are in place, in real-life countries, involving real-life people.

There is nothing socialist, authoritarian, utopic, or remotely paradise-like in my world-view, and that includes my views on organ donation.

I am fully open to debate about the merits of various organ donation systems, but not this.

Uaru

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.

What about being encased in amber?

catallus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You realise that the Constitutional right to bodily integrity does not cease just because you have been convicted of an offence?

They should change that for a start.

Tabnabs

catallus wrote: »

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, you're 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.

Tyranny, plain and simple.

my teapot is orange

mikom wrote: »

*George Best chooses to be on the system

Yeah, that's fine. Was he before he needed one?

You would have to work out the rules i.e. exceptions for people who can't/people who are too young to have any history of being on the system etc./but it can't just be Mr. 45 year old decides the minute he's given his diagnosis that he would like others to have his organs.

Also, George Best, under my system wouldn't have chosen to be on the system, he would have been in it automatically unless he had opted out.

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

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.

You won't be calling him/her that when you need surgery.

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

Blood is very different. I can go off, donate some blood, and I'll be fine after a little time. A person doesn't have the same fortune with organs, and people are on waiting lists due to limited supply. They're very different, and should be treated differently, too.

I'm talking about the logic you apply. You can only receive if you donate. People will die without blood transfusions and emergency donations too, why do you think the IBTS are constantly asking people for donations?

Pushtrak

catallus wrote: »

They should change that for a start.

No. Just no.

Tabnabs

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You won't be calling him/her that when you need surgery.

I would if the surgery is without my consent.

catallus

Pushtrak wrote: »

No. Just no.

Stop repressing me!!!

OldNotWIse

catallus wrote: »

They should change that for a start.

Well go and lobby your local politicians to begin making noise for a constitutional ammendment in this regard. I'll put the kettle on. Good luck with it

mikom

my teapot is orange wrote: »

Also, George Best, under my system wouldn't have chosen to be on the system, he would have been in it automatically unless he had opted out.

So under your "system", George Best who pickled his liver with alcohol would get a transplant before someone who opted out.
The questions are........... Who really opted out, and who made the worse decision?

iwantmydinner

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

Can the family can still say no even if you don't opt out? I think they can, but not sure where I got the idea.

They can in soft opt-out systems. However, in an opt-out system, where the 'default' (for want of a better word) is in favour of donation, families are much less likely to override the deceased's wishes re: donation.

My feeling is that a hard opt-out system (whereby families absolutely cannot override the deceased's wishes) could cause quite a bit of trauma and wouldn't be appropriate. My mind isn't fully made up on that one yet, though.

KKkitty

When my mother was dying the doctor did ask did we want to donate her organs . We said yes at the start but considering what she had gone through we changed our minds. We felt she had been through more than enough in life so said no to it. It's a very personal choice and no one should be slated for saying no to it.

iwantmydinner

Tabnabs wrote: »

I would if the surgery is without my consent.

How many (non-emergency) surgeries are carried out on live people without consent??

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm talking about the logic you apply. You can only receive if you donate. People will die without blood transfusions and emergency donations too, why do you think the IBTS are constantly asking people for donations?

So as to obtain and maintain a supply, obviously. Now, I don't know how good or bad the situation is with regard to supply, so I'd not really be all that informed on posting on the subject. It isn't something I've looked up.

my teapot is orange

mikom wrote: »

So under your "system", George Best who pickled his liver with alcohol would get a transplant before someone who opted out.
The questions are........... Who really opted out, and who made the worse decision?

I don't really agree with your assessment that the one is less deserving than the other. A person saying I wouldn't give an organ but I'd take one ranks fairly low in my estimation. Alcoholism is a disease that people can't help. Also doctors will still assess whether it would work or not and his chances of staying sober before wasting an organ. There is currently a policy of considering alcohol related problems in this regard.

Shenshen

Tabnabs wrote: »

I would if the surgery is without my consent.

Like after you've had an accident, are unconscious and need a replacement organ immediately?

iwantmydinner

KKkitty wrote: »

When my mother was dying the doctor did ask did we want to donate her organs . We said yes at the start but considering what she had gone through we changed our minds. We felt she had been through more than enough in life so said no to it. It's a very personal choice and no one should be slated for saying no to it.

Absolutely. While I am in favour of opt-out, and can't see any good reason to not donate my organs, I would be against causing further trauma to bereaved families and in a situation like the above, can fully understand why ye would make that decision.

However, in an opt-out system, the subject is brought out into the open, becomes a topic of regular conversation, people know more about the actual procedures and how respectfully the deceased is treated by the transplant team, and the mystery/horror/trauma of it can be significantly lessened.

mikom

my teapot is orange wrote: »

Alcoholism is a disease that people can't help.

Really, they can't help it?
Better tell some of the folks here they are wasting their time so.......... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1015

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

So as to obtain and maintain a supply, obviously. Now, I don't know how good or bad the situation is with regard to supply, so I'd not really be all that informed on posting on the subject. It isn't something I've looked up.

Yes, because it is needed to keep people alive. I raised the point that the suggested "dont donate, dont receive" does not apply to blood donation, when in fact it is just as important.

edit: I wonder would they be as precious about organs as they are about blood donations in refusing them from homosexual men? The words "beggar" and "chooser" come to mind.

my teapot is orange

mikom wrote: »

Really, they can't help?
Better tell so of the folks here they are wasting their time so.......... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1015

You know well what I mean. The fact that some people can control it eventually doesn't mean everyone can help it.

Anyway it's irrelevant, because alcoholics already have this carefully considered before they are given an organ. They are at a disadvantage when it comes to priority. Doctors don't waste organs if they don't think it will work.

Gannicus

DebDynamite wrote: »

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 )

As I've said in other organ donation threads, I think an opt out is a fantastic idea and should have already been implemented. I saw a case where a person in the UK died and held an organ donor card but his family held up the organs by contesting it in court.

I think it would be an easily run system. A couple of things I would like to see as part of the plan

1 Anyone under 18 Parent(s) opts out for you. When you turn 18 you yourself must opt out again as an adult yourself.
2. Family have no control of it after your death so they can't appeal it etc. and the organs are not wasted.
3. You pay a fee to opt out (€100 for arguments sake) and that money goes straight to H.S.E treatments
4. You can choose how much you want to opt out (like keeping your eyes etc.)
5. If you get an donor organ you are not allowed opt out of donating your own organs when you pass. (an eye for an eye and all that)

mikom

my teapot is orange wrote: »

You know well what I mean. The fact that some people can control it eventually doesn't mean everyone can help it.

Anyway it's irrelevant, because alcoholics already have this carefully considered before they are given an organ. They are at a disadvantage when it comes to priority. Doctors don't waste organs if they don't think it will work.

My point being that someone opting out and someone else pickling their liver have both made decisions that will hamper their chances of getting a transplant.
However, under your system the person who destroyed their own liver would have a better chance of a transplant.

Big Steve wrote: »

3. You pay a fee to opt out (€100 for arguments sake) and that money goes straight to H.S.E treatments

"You can keep your liver if you give us €100".
WTF.

my teapot is orange

mikom wrote: »

My point being that someone opting out and someone else pickling their liver have both made decisions that will hamper their chances of getting a transplant.
However, under your system the person who destroyed their own liver would have a better chance of a transplant.

Yes, because I don't accept that the person who destroyed their own liver is 100% at fault, bearing in mind the disease of alcoholism.

Pure selfishness on the other hand, is the persons rational decision. "I don't regard other member of society like you as important enough for me to have to do something difficult. However I am so important that I will let you do it for me if necessary."