Joe Brolly and opt-out law for organ donation

mikom · 19-11-2013 01:50PM

my teapot is orange wrote: »

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."

Who is assessing these rational decisions?
Will there be a psychiatric evaluation.
Seeing as we as classifying alcoholism as a disease and all

my teapot is orange · 19-11-2013 01:52PM

mikom wrote: »

Who is assessing these rational decisions?
Will there be a psychiatric evaluation.
Seeing as we as classifying alcoholism as a disease and all

Yes, if there's a question over anyones capacity, same rules as for any other major decisions. There aren't generally problems over peoples wills.

iwantmydinner · 19-11-2013 01:53PM

Big Steve wrote: »

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)

Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form should it cost even a cent to register your wishes regarding organ donation.

mikom · 19-11-2013 01:55PM

my teapot is orange wrote: »

Yes, if there's a question over anyones capacity, same rules as for any other major decisions. There aren't generally problems over peoples wills.

"Your honour, my client was an alcoholic at the time he ticked the opt out box".
Some tangle of snakes to be sorted out yet........

my teapot is orange · 19-11-2013 01:57PM

mikom wrote: »

"Your honour, my client was an alcoholic at the time he ticked the opt out box".
Some tangle of snakes to be sorted out yet........

No, if he had opted out, that would push him down the list. Then if they ever got to him, his alcoholism would be considered separately. Lawyers deal with the order of priority in which they have to use different provisions in legislation every day.

Gannicus · 19-11-2013 01:59PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form should it cost even a cent to register your wishes regarding organ donation.

Your strictly registering your wishes. you're opting out of a scheme that could potentially save someone's life. I'm sorry generaly you can't put a price on someone's life put I think you can put a price on selfishness.

humanji · 19-11-2013 02:01PM

Tabnabs wrote:

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

Can you not boil it down further to say which is more important: a living person or a dead person?

Regardless, as stated before, the only logical thing to do, in my opinion, is force people to decide if they're in or out (the example being given on a passport application, for example). That way everyone wins.

mikom · 19-11-2013 02:02PM

Big Steve wrote: »

Your strictly registering your wishes. you're opting out of a scheme that could potentially save someone's life. I'm sorry generaly you can't put a price on someone's life put I think you can put a price on selfishness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl9Nvg4yuus

my teapot is orange · 19-11-2013 02:05PM

mikom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl9Nvg4yuus

I have no clue why you quoted me in that post. I said nothing about charging or paying for anything.

mikom · 19-11-2013 02:06PM

my teapot is orange wrote: »

I have no clue why you quoted me in that post. I said nothing about charging or paying for anything.

Twas a misquote.
Fixed now.

Mitch Connor · 19-11-2013 02:07PM

Opt in suits me better. As I don't have to do anything. If it becomes Opt out I have to go actually opt out. I don't like extra effort...

iwantmydinner · 19-11-2013 02:11PM

Big Steve wrote: »

Your strictly registering your wishes. you're opting out of a scheme that could potentially save someone's life. I'm sorry generaly you can't put a price on someone's life put I think you can put a price on selfishness.

I completely disagree with you. I am not minded to penalise someone for choosing not to donate. I will do my best to persuade that person to favour donation, but there is a distinct line. The State should take the same approach.

To be flippant about it, how can you put price on what you call selfishness?

And to get back to being serious, if we introduce a fee to opt-out, how can we be sure that a particular person didn't opt-out as a result of financial hardship? I'm not exactly on the breadline but your instance of a €100 fee would certainly delay my action, as I'd have to actively save it up. The system has to be unimpeachable and the introduction of financial transactions would corrupt that.

Nonoperational · 19-11-2013 02:11PM

Never understand what the issue is. When I'm dead I'm dead, if someone wants to use every last working bit of me then more power to them. It's better than it rotting in the grave anyway.

Pushtrak · 19-11-2013 02:14PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Opt in suits me better. As I don't have to do anything. If it becomes Opt out I have to go actually opt out. I don't like extra effort...

In the event of you needing to be on a waiting list for an organ, why do you think you'd deserve the place given what you just posted?

Sleepy · 19-11-2013 02:15PM

The hell with opt out, just make it mandatory.

Once I'm dead, "I" won't exist to object and my body was never my Next of Kin's property in life so I can't see why that should change in death.

The only reason I've heard against this is that it goes against some people's religious beliefs. Well sorry, but in my opinion a sick person's right to life trumps your right to have a belief in a fantasy paid heed to.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 19-11-2013 02:15PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Once I'm dead, "I" won't exist to object and my body was never my Next of Kin's property in life so I can't see why that should change in death.

.

if your next of kin has no right to prevent it because they never owned your body then what right does the state have to do it in the first place?

Pushtrak · 19-11-2013 02:20PM

Sleepy wrote: »

The hell with opt out, just make it mandatory.

Nah, just make it so people who don't opt in to donation can't get on a waiting list. They don't deserve to receive if they'll not give.

Once I'm dead, "I" won't exist to object and my body was never my Next of Kin's property in life so I can't see why that should change in death.

That'd end up doing away with wills entirely. In the case of people with organ donation cards, no one should have a say. The say has been said. If there is no say, NOK has to have the final say.

The only reason I've heard against this is that it goes against some people's religious beliefs. Well sorry, but in my opinion a sick person's right to life trumps your right to have a belief in a fantasy paid heed to.

Jehovas Witnesses don't do organ donation. They'll neither receive nor give. In the case of adults, at least, if they don't want to take part, it shouldn't be expected of them. Now, JW children, that's where it gets complicated, and the courts get involved.

GarIT · 19-11-2013 02:23PM

There are ways in which opt out is wrong and can be abused. Opt in clearly isn't generating enough donors. Why not take a middle ground, have no default but have making a choice mandatory. How about in every census each individual is asked if they want to be a donor or not. Make it illegal not to answer and have a register of who wants to be a donor or not from the results. It would mean nobody is forced into it but nearly every potential donor would be registered to do so.

I really don't like religion, most beliefs are just crazy but we still have to give people a right to choose what they want to do.

seamus · 19-11-2013 02:29PM

GarIT wrote: »

There are ways in which opt out is wrong and can be abused. Opt in clearly isn't generating enough donors. Why not take a middle ground, have no default but have making a choice mandatory. How about in every census each individual is asked if they want to be a donor or not. Make it illegal not to answer and have a register of who wants to be a donor or not from the results.

It's already illegal to not fill out a census form, but are you going to prosecute people for not ticking a box? How much time and money will that waste? And a good defence would be, "Oh, I didn't see it".

The only good argument against opt-out really is the concern that doctors would be less likely to fight to save someone whose organs could be used. But given that organs have to be tested for compatibility, I'm not sure how valid a concern this is.

All the other stuff about property rights and state interference is nonsense tbh. If you're dead, you're dead. Your body is only good then for donation or experimentation. Why deny the former on some misguided notion of ownership?

19-11-2013 02:31PM

No need for an opt-out system, just have it so that consent means consent. When someone smugly says something about having an organ donor card while I don't I point out it was a waste of time, energy and plant material on their part since if we were both killed on the way home our respective next-of-kinds would still be asked whether the organs could be taken or not and the card will have no bearing on the outcome.

Clearlier · 19-11-2013 02:33PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah I can't really rationalize it, but I don't like the idea of someone walking around with my eyes looking out of their head.

Might have something to do with the eyes being "the windows to the soul". Where do you look when you're talking to someone? They just seem like a fundamental piece of your identity. Also, as **** as it must be to be blind, you don't need eyes to live.

I know it's not much of a rationalization, and I'm not trying to defend it. Just offering a perspective on what it is that I think makes me uncomfortable with the idea. I mean I am consciously aware of the fact that my eyes are fairly useless to me when I'm dead.

My wife (who is blind) has said that the one part of her body she would really, really like to be donated are her eyes. I think that she is amused at the thought of someone being able to use their when she couldn't (she has optic atrophy so her eyes actually work well).

wandatowell · 19-11-2013 02:33PM

Even as a person who donates blood and carries an organ donor card, the hardcore "its selfish to let your organs rot in a box" people really piss me off. Who are they to tell other people what to do with their bodies. The State nor anybody has a right to do so.

Its a shame that it happens but though titties, that's life I'm afraid.

Pushtrak · 19-11-2013 02:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No need for an opt-out system, just have it so that consent means consent. When someone smugly says something about having an organ donor card while I don't I point out it was a waste of time, energy and plant material on their part since if we were both killed on the way home our respective next-of-kinds would still be asked whether the organs could be taken or not and the card will have no bearing on the outcome.

You should... Though I'd suggest tact. You should let people know the limitations of the card when people talk about having one.

GarIT · 19-11-2013 02:34PM

seamus wrote: »

It's already illegal to not fill out a census form, but are you going to prosecute people for not ticking a box? How much time and money will that waste? And a good defence would be, "Oh, I didn't see it".

The only good argument against opt-out really is the concern that doctors would be less likely to fight to save someone whose organs could be used. But given that organs have to be tested for compatibility, I'm not sure how valid a concern this is.

All the other stuff about property rights and state interference is nonsense tbh. If you're dead, you're dead. Your body is only good then for donation or experimentation. Why deny the former on some misguided notion of ownership?

I can give you plenty of arguments against opt in and opt out. Making people register their choice wouldn't cost much at all. Census results are already transferred from paper to computer so it won't be much more effort having one more field to tick. The only time I've ever missed anything on a census the collector always asks me to fill it in, I thought that's what all of them did.

Pushtrak · 19-11-2013 02:37PM

wandatowell wrote: »

Even as a person who donates blood and carries an organ donor card, the hardcore "its selfish to let your organs rot in a box" people really piss me off. Who are they to tell other people what to do with their bodies. The State nor anybody has a right to do so.

They should be allowed have their organs rot all they want. I'd be interested in hearing a case why they should have the right to be on a waiting list if that is their intention though.

seamus · 19-11-2013 02:37PM

GarIT wrote: »

I can give you plenty of arguments against opt in and opt out. Making people register their choice wouldn't cost much at all. Census results are already transferred from paper to computer so it won't be much more effort having one more field to tick. The only time I've ever missed anything on a census the collector always asks me to fill it in, I thought that's what all of them did.

Plenty of people just choose not to answer some questions though. The collectors can see this, but they can't make people answer.

I agree that simply finding a way to ask people the question will probably help a ****load, but you will still find people who refuse to answer. I would also not bundle it with a census, lest the ignoramuses who oppose any kind of state questions tick "no" on the organ donation box out of sheer donkeyness.

iwantmydinner · 19-11-2013 02:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No need for an opt-out system, just have it so that consent means consent. When someone smugly says something about having an organ donor card while I don't I point out it was a waste of time, energy and plant material on their part since if we were both killed on the way home our respective next-of-kinds would still be asked whether the organs could be taken or not and the card will have no bearing on the outcome.

Consent always means consent. Are you saying we should just leave the system the way it is?

I'm a bit taken aback at your attitude to people who tell you they carry an organ donor card. I'm aware that my organ donor card isn't a binding document. It's an important indication of a person's wishes, and should always, always be accompanied by a discussion with that person's next of kin. Dismissing the function of an organ donor card out of hand is really unhelpful.

Absoluvely · 19-11-2013 02:39PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

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

Tabnabs wrote: »

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

Such nonsense.

Of course the state should (but doesn't) have the right to harvest your organs without your specific instructions after brain death.

You may as well be arguing that the state shouldn't have the right to bury someone's corpse because that person didn't explicitly say they wanted their corpse buried. Consider a homeless atheist who nobody knows but dies without declaring their intentions for their corpse. There's no reason to do anything with their corpse other than whatever is most useful. Why would you assume homeless person wanted some arbitrary and wasteful ritual performed upon their corpse?

And transplanting your organs is actually saving the organs. If you believe that your organs are still an important part of you after you die, then you should believe that transplanting them is essentially saving your life. The idea that a lack of instruction is an instruction to rot your corpse is utter crap.

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 ultimately have the choice of what happens to your remains. You don't get to choose the cryonic route unless you can fund it, for instance.

The idea that someone should automatically have arbitrary bodily rights after they die is a load. Once someone dies, there is no more reason to treat their organs sacredly than to treat their car sacredly. I say recycle.

Pushtrak · 19-11-2013 02:40PM

seamus wrote: »

I would also not bundle it with a census, lest the ignoramuses who oppose any kind of state questions tick "no" on the organ donation box out of sheer donkeyness.

Where would you suggest? The fact a census has so many other questions anyway could be argued to be a strength or a weakness. I'd not be too sure which side would be right on that one, to be honest.

iwantmydinner · 19-11-2013 02:41PM

Pushtrak wrote: »

They should be allowed have their organs rot all they want. I'd be interested in hearing a case why they should have the right to be on a waiting list if that is their intention though.

Everybody is entitled to the medical treatment they need (delays due to high demand, etc notwithstanding). You simply cannot place arbitrary restrictions on access to appropriate medical treatment.

Joe Brolly and opt-out law for organ donation

Comments