Opt-Out Organ Donation

El_Duderino 09 · 11-05-2017 12:35pm

animaal wrote: »

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to . If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

I'll opt out. Thanks.

And this would be with the government with whom I don't have a personal relationship or couldn't possibly be remembered or held against me when I go to work, unlike your scenario which us what I presume you we're alluding to

jackofalltrades · 11-05-2017 12:44pm

maudgonner wrote: »

I've heard this argument before in debates and the reason given against it was that if this was a mandatory question tacked onto a passport application/voter registration etc people would answer it without properly considering the implications or having the necessary information. 'Do I want to be an organ donor? I haven't thought about it, yes, no, I don't care just give me my bloody passport!' It's not informed consent. (It's one of the reasons ticking the box on your driving licence should not be binding).

Hang on a second, you're happy for the state to make the choice for people, without asking their opinion, assuming they want to be a donor.
But you have a problem with an opt-in system where everyone is asked because they might not have enough time to consider the implications.

You're seem to be applying different standards to the different systems.
Do you think opt-out is informed consent?

The system can be designed so that people have time to think about the choice that they are being given.
You could even go door to door giving people advice and asking them to opt-in.

And of course you still would not cover everyone - not everyone has a passport, driving licence or is registered to vote, so a default position would still be needed.

I'm fairly sure that ever adult will have a PPS number.
Even at that you don't need to cover everyone.
And the default position would still remain as opt-in.

Glenster · 11-05-2017 12:49pm

animaal wrote: »

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to <worthy cause>. If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

Id send an email like a shot.

Jayop · 11-05-2017 1:05pm

Good move. Implied consent should open up more potential organs to be used for life saving operations. I do think the opt out list should be easy to sign up to and anyone on the list should not be able to join the waiting list for organs should they need one.

d9oiu2wk07blr5 · 11-05-2017 1:18pm

The problem is that under the proposed opt out system, the next of kin will still be able to veto our decisions. Why don't they develop a national registry that records if we opt in or opt out, and one where the next of kin cannot veto our decisions. There's so much scope to record a yes or no answer to organ donation under the tax, PPS, driving license, electronic patient records, or even the census.

osarusan · 11-05-2017 1:27pm

Jeffrey Tight Bone wrote: »

The problem is that under the proposed opt out system, the next of kin will still be able to veto our decisions. Why don't they develop a national registry that records if we opt in or opt out, and one where the next of kin cannot veto our decisions. There's so much scope to record a yes or no answer to organ donation under the tax, PPS, driving license, electronic patient records, or even the census.

You'd imagine that virtually everybody will visit a doctor at some point in their life, so it could be done this way too - during a visit, the doc notices/gets an alert from a national database that their patient has never made a decision about organ donation, puts the question to them*, records their answer on the database.

*There's a risk of this being a bit biased, but it could be scripted to be as fair as possible. If so, it would constitute well informed consent too.

Of course some people might say they are not sure, but have a leaflet ready to hand them with info and instructions on how to access the database themselves to opt in or out.

The Welsh system, even though it is opt-out, does have 3 options on the site - you can still 'opt-in' (which is a way of confirming your wishes, even though it's the default anyway), you can 'do nothing' (which means that you have no objection to being a donor) or you can 'opt out'.

rondog · 11-05-2017 1:28pm

ANYONE that doesn't donate their organs after death is a SELFISH INCONSIDERATE WASTE OF SPACE as far as im concered.You have absolutely no need for organs when you are lying in the ground.they will be used for feed by worms.You coudlbe saving the life of a father ,a young girl/boy that inherited a disease through no fault of their own.
Ill never understand the retardedness of people wanting to bring their organs to a gravesite with them when they could give untold happiness ,life and hope to so many.

Donnielighto · 11-05-2017 1:41pm

They should put an option on the form that your organs can't go to an adult who wasn't donating before being on the list.

maudgonner · 11-05-2017 1:46pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Hang on a second, you're happy for the state to make the choice for people, without asking their opinion, assuming they want to be a donor.
But you have a problem with an opt-in system where everyone is asked because they might not have enough time to consider the implications.
You're seem to be applying different standards to the different systems.
Do you think opt-out is informed consent?

The system can be designed so that people have time to think about the choice that they are being given.
You could even go door to door giving people advice and asking them to opt-in.
I'm fairly sure that ever adult will have a PPS number.
Even at that you don't need to cover everyone.
And the default position would still remain as opt-in.

I'm more than happy for the state to ask everyone their opinion (or close to everyone - I don't think it's practical to aim to cover everyone). I think that would be a great move. But I think it has to be done in such a way that people understand what they're being asked and can make an informed decision, that wouldn't be a legal minefield (which, it seems tacking a mandatory question onto the census/driving license/passport application would be). And in a way that won't be too costly (which I think your door-to-door-dedicated survey would be). I think Osarusan's suggestion could work, if they can get the IMO etc to agree to implement it :pac:

But no matter what, we still need a default position. I can't see why we wouldn't assume most people would want to donate their organs, if they knew the facts. It's an amazing thing to do. Very few of us would have the opportunity to save a life any other way, I think organ donation is a privilege that all of us should want to contribute to, should we ever be unfortunate enough to be a candidate. Shouldn't that be our national mindset - that unless you have a good reason not to, you will give someone else (or many other people) the gift of life? That it is normal behaviour to want to do so, not exceptional?

LirW · 11-05-2017 2:23pm

As an Austrian Citizen I'm automatically a donor if I'd be declared brain dead in Austria, I also never opted out. There was exactly not a single case of trouble in that regard in Austria. Opt out if you want to, other than that the laws are pretty clear.
I also own a Donor card in Ireland and would, in the worst case possible, also give green lights to donate the organs of my children. I'm registering with the Bone Marrow registry soon, when I find the time to drop into town.
My partners cousin had Leukemia when she was a little girl, it saved her life.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-05-2017 2:38pm

Jayop wrote: »

Good move. Implied consent should open up more potential organs to be used for life saving operations. I do think the opt out list should be easy to sign up to and anyone on the list should not be able to join the waiting list for organs should they need one.

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

maudgonner · 11-05-2017 3:31pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

Totally agree with this. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath and part of that is vowing not to 'play God'. They should treat everyone, without moral judgements, not withhold treatment because they don't like someone's views and want to punish them. That's a slippery slope.

jackofalltrades · 11-05-2017 3:42pm

maudgonner wrote: »

I'm more than happy for the state to ask everyone their opinion (or close to everyone - I don't think it's practical to aim to cover everyone). I think that would be a great move. But I think it has to be done in such a way that people understand what they're being asked and can make an informed decision, that wouldn't be a legal minefield (which, it seems tacking a mandatory question onto the census/driving license/passport application would be). And in a way that won't be too costly (which I think your door-to-door-dedicated survey would be). I think Osarusan's suggestion could work, if they can get the IMO etc to agree to implement it :pac:

If there are legal concerns(which I'd want to see some kind of proof of) then they can be addressed.
And given the support for organ donation, I can't see why volunteers couldn't be used to keep down the cost of any kind of face-to-face campaign.

But no matter what, we still need a default position. I can't see why we wouldn't assume most people would want to donate their organs, if they knew the facts.

Yes but an opt-out system makes the assumption for everyone, even people that are against organ donation.
The state shouldn't be making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and then putting the onus of them to correct it themselves, that's unethical IMO.

It's an amazing thing to do. Very few of us would have the opportunity to save a life any other way, I think organ donation is a privilege that all of us should want to contribute to, should we ever be unfortunate enough to be a candidate. Shouldn't that be our national mindset - that unless you have a good reason not to, you will give someone else (or many other people) the gift of life? That it is normal behaviour to want to do so, not exceptional?

People shouldn't need a "good" reason to not donate.
If you don't want to then that's it and you don't need to explain further.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-05-2017 3:47pm

maudgonner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

Totally agree with this. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath and part of that is vowing not to 'play God'. They should treat everyone, without moral judgements, not withhold treatment because they don't like someone's views and want to punish them. That's a slippery slope.

Right. I'd disagree with people who op out. But when it's action stations in a medical setting, I wouldn't factor that into the equation st all.

osarusan · 11-05-2017 3:49pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes but an opt-out system makes the assumption for everyone, even people that are against organ donation.
The state shouldn't be making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and then putting the onus of them to correct it themselves, that's unethical IMO.

Doesn't an opt-in do just the same thing in reverse though? Set a default even though you know it doesn't meet everybody's wishes, and ask those whose wishes are not met to take steps to correct it?

I agree with you though that nobody should have to justify their decision not to become a donor, and the notion that those who decide not to become potential donor should be excluded from receiving a donation is laughable.

PandaPoo · 11-05-2017 3:56pm

I'll be donating whatever is possible at the time. Hopefully they can take a few of my limbs off so my coffin is actually able to be carried

My husband says he doesn't mind either way so I'll be making the decision for him, hopefully they take eyes by then because he has a really cool half blue half brown eye.

I was just thinking the other day, id donate a kidney now if someone needed it. Probably a stupid decision considering I'm 25 and could end up needing it myself down the line.

maudgonner · 11-05-2017 4:08pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If there are legal concerns(which I'd want to see some kind of proof of) then they can be addressed.
And given the support for organ donation, I can't see why volunteers couldn't be used to keep down the cost of any kind of face-to-face campaign.
Yes but an opt-out system makes the assumption for everyone, even people that are against organ donation.
The state shouldn't be making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and then putting the onus of them to correct it themselves, that's unethical IMO.
People shouldn't need a "good" reason to not donate.
If you don't want to then that's it and you don't need to explain further.

But the state is currently making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and putting the onus on them to correct it themselves. An opt-in system makes just as many assumptions as an opt-out system.

And yes, I think everyone should need a good reason to decide not to try to save a life. It doesn't mean I have to approve of their reason, or even have to know what it is. It's a personal thing. But I can't see how anyone, in good conscience would decide to let someone die or suffer without having a very good reason for doing so.

jackofalltrades · 11-05-2017 5:40pm

maudgonner wrote: »

But the state is currently making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and putting the onus on them to correct it themselves. An opt-in system makes just as many assumptions as an opt-out system.

The state isn't making any assumptions at the moment though, it's not even involved.
The opt-in system leaves this choice in the hands of potential donors, which IMO is the way it should be.

maudgonner · 11-05-2017 6:25pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The state isn't making any assumptions at the moment though, it's not even involved.
The opt-in system leaves this choice in the hands of potential donors, which IMO is the way it should be.

The state sets the system of organ donation, so yes, by having it currently as an opt-out system they are assuming that people do not want to be organ donors. The state also runs the organ donation system, through the HSE.

The choice will still be left in the hands of potential donors and those who chose not to donate. We all have a choice, either way.

Jayop · 11-05-2017 7:30pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

Good call actually. I was a bit over excited with my earlier posts. I do think not donating is selfish and to then expect to be a receiver is hypocrisy in the extreme but you're right that it shouldn't come into it.

jackofalltrades · 11-05-2017 7:40pm

maudgonner wrote: »

The state sets the system of organ donation, so yes, by having it currently as an opt-out system they are assuming that people do not want to be organ donors. The state also runs the organ donation system, through the HSE.

I'm assuming you ment opt-in?
Under the current system the state makes no assumptions as to people wishes.

The choice will still be left in the hands of potential donors and those who chose not to donate. We all have a choice, either way.

People will only have a choice provided that they are aware of it.
So in this case there will be people who don't want to donate that will be on a list that says they do.

maudgonner · 11-05-2017 8:10pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm assuming you ment opt-in?
Under the current system the state makes no assumptions as to people wishes.

People will only have a choice provided that they are aware of it.
So in this case there will be people who don't want to donate that will be on a list that says they do.

Sorry, yes I meant opt-in.

Under the current system we're told that if we wish to be organ donors we should carry a donor card and inform our next of kin of our wishes. We're not told to do the opposite if we don't want to donate organs. There is no such thing as an anti-donor card.

In an opt-in system positive action must be taken if organs are to be donated. The next of kin must grant permission, not deny it. So yes, the default assumption of the state is things stand is that you do not wish to have your organs donated and they will not take them unless expressly given permission.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-05-2017 11:07pm

animaal wrote: »

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to <worthy cause>. If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

That would be illegal.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/25/section/5/enacted/en/html

Simply put there aren't enough organ donors for everyone on the waiting list. If you wait too long you may no longer be able to receive an organ.

If you have a problem with organ donation, opt out or tell your family about it. Otherwise you are part of the problem that's causing needless death, pain and suffering.

At least the delusional anti-vaxers can pretend there's a health risk with vaccines ( people in Europe are dying from preventable diseases ), there isn't much health risk when you are already dead.

wakka12 · 11-05-2017 11:10pm

Soft opt out option will not increase number of organ donations what so ever imo. I assume most organ donations from deceased need to be done so very soon after death. So next of kin suddenly learn their loved one had died, then theyre asked btw can we harvest their organs? Obviously their initial response will be no because theyll be in a state of shock and fear

Cupcake_Crisis · 11-05-2017 11:16pm

I'd be one of the people who are 100% for donating..... once it's not my eyes. The idea of them taking my eyes just doesn't sit right with me. They can have whatever else is of any use though.

animaal · 12-05-2017 9:06am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That would be illegal.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/25/section/5/enacted/en/html

Simply put there aren't enough organ donors for everyone on the waiting list. If you wait too long you may no longer be able to receive an organ.

If you have a problem with organ donation, opt out or tell your family about it. Otherwise you are part of the problem that's causing needless death, pain and suffering.

At least the delusional anti-vaxers can pretend there's a health risk with vaccines ( people in Europe are dying from preventable diseases ), there isn't much health risk when you are already dead.

Yes, "opt-out" of charity donations would be illegal. As is harvesting organs without permission,. My point is that it's possible to alter the law to make any good cause "opt-out". I disagree with the principle.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by being "part of the problem". The language is very black and white. Over simplistic. Would you use this language about people who don't donate to charity? About those who don't volunteer their time at homeless shelters or victim refuges? Those who don't donate bone marrow?

Also, Agreed that there's no health risk to the dead. I'm not aware of anybody claiming that there is.

I'm all for organ donation. What's being discussed is a change so that there will be no more organ donation, it will be replaced by organ appropriation.

Opt-Out Organ Donation

Comments