Organ Donation

[kalniel]

Nope.

Which was my point

[Rob_B]

I think it's awful, consent should never be presumed, ever.

If someone doesn't wish to donate for whatever their reasons they should be allowed to deny it. Saying that I think if consent is obvious ie a donor card then the family shouldn't be able to over-rule that, of course that would need some work to make it fair but that isn't my problem.

NB/ I am on the donor register, I clicked a few boxes when renewing my driving license so it's not like it's hard to sign up for. I think a big, possibly guilt-inducing marketing push should be done instead of presumed consent.

[spanna5]

Rob_B is spot on

[wasabi]

NB/ I am on the donor register, I clicked a few boxes when renewing my driving license so it's not like it's hard to sign up for. I think a big, possibly guilt-inducing marketing push should be done instead of presumed consent.

Likewise - I did it after renewing my taxdisc. This year was the first time I got it as part of the DVLA renewal process. Surely if they kept this up it would give us enough spare parts? Given the state of the country's post-offices, surely most people renew online nowadays?

[Saracen]

I'm behind this as hopefully it will stop families of people who agreed to donate interfering with donations because of THEIR OWN BELIEFS.
I find that reprehensible.

Obviously it is different in cases where the person isn't a registered donor... But an opt out system should only be for yourself and any minors you are responsible for. And with minors it should be until they reach the age of majority (18/21)

The only sticky wicket I can see is for mentally handicapped people or similar - but perhaps opt out will help there....

To clarify, the law changed a few years ago over the rights of family. It was 2006 in Scotland, and 2004 in the rest of the UK.

For adults, if the adult consents (to a living donation), or for a deceased adult if they have consented, the family has NO legal rights to prevent organs being used for transplant.

So ... if the process is causing too much familial distress, the transplant team don't have to harvest, BUT given that failing to do so could result in the intended recipuent dying, they are under no obligation to pay heed to the families wishes IF consent was given. There are stipulation as to the form of that consent, but families can no longer prevent donations.

As for children, the situation is almost identical, except that the child must be "competent", and that's essentially a legal decision. Does the "child" understand what's being discussed, the implications, etc?

If the child is "competent", and IF a valid consent from the child exists, than THAT consent rules, and even the parents cannot overrule it. If no qualifying consent exists, then the next line of consent goes to a qualifying parent, and the is a further list of qualified relationships if no parent can give, or refuse, consent.


In relation to "mentally handicapped", the situation is more complex. The issue isn't actually the handicap, but the mental "capacity" to make, and understand, decisions. And it doesn't just apply to mentally "handicapped", but reflects the fact that "capacity" can change, in either direction, and incapacity can be temporary.

Basically, ALL adults are presumed to be capable unless sufficient evidence exists to establish otherwise. That's the starting point, and it comes from the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

But .... one wrinkle comes from "advance decision". Some people suffering from deteriorating conditions can make decisions while they have capacity that will be legally valid once they become legally incapacitated. Such decisions, if they exist, will usually be legally binding.

However, some people's legal rights to determine their own future is overridden if the Mental Health Act removes them. This is essentially the process that used to be referred to as being "committed", and if you are subject to that act, which may be as simple as having sufficient mental problems that require hospitalisation, then you can lose more or less all rights to make decisions, including over medical treatment.

Any adult with "capacity" can refuse ANY medical treatment, including life-saving treatment, and about the only exception to that is if the Mental Health Act applies. And the stansard is higher than many people might expect to get that applied. For instance, actions based on personal belief or choice are NOT sufficient to force medical treatment by themselves, even if others find them incomprehensible. For instance, someone that has attempted suicide cannot be forced to have treatment against their wishes unless the Mental Health Act applies, and the attempt itself is not sufficient for it to do so.

That's the nature of the "capacity" issue. Someone attempting suicide might or might not lack capacity under the MHA, but if they have capacity they can refuse trwatment that might save their live, and the attempt is not sufficient evidence of lack of capacity, but the underlying condition being why the attempt was made could be.

And that "capacity" issue is essentially what applies to adults, to children and to those with mental issues, and what determines if any of us, adult or not, mental problems or not, can make our own decisions, be it treatment while alive or organ donation once deceased.

[Saracen]

Which was my point

Fair enough. I took the question at face value, as a request for clarification. I should have known you weren't that naive. So apologies. In my defence, my post was at daft-o'clock and I wasn't thinking that clearly.

[melon]

A whole bucketload of regulations .... and laws.

Of course, it'd hardly be the first time we've seen utter disgraces in the NHS, from mid-Staffs, to organs secretly taken from deceased babies, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that such travesties are anything other than very rare exceptions to otherwise carefully adhered-to rules.

Since when has that ever stopped the Government acting on behalf of itself though ( even if its means spiting us ) they do it all the time, look at the expenditure issues or even Prism , no one whistleblowed on any of it and yet they would of been more than aware of how it would of how well it would have been received ( hence the need to hide their actives )

They will simply change the laws without telling us their full intent at the time, or do it secretly until its too late and someone else is forced into plating the martyr like Snowden just to expose it.

[peterb]

Likewise - I did it after renewing my taxdisc. This year was the first time I got it as part of the DVLA renewal process. Surely if they kept this up it would give us enough spare parts? Given the state of the country's post-offices, surely most people renew online nowadays?

Given the state of the country's post offices, it would be a good place to harvest organs from those that die waiting in the queue to be served!

Since when has that ever stopped the Government acting on behalf of itself though ( even if its means spiting us ) they do it all the time, look at the expenditure issues or even Prism , no one whistleblowed on any of it and yet they would of been more than aware of how it would of how well it would have been received ( hence the need to hide their actives )

They will simply change the laws without telling us their full intent at the time, or do it secretly until its too late and someone else is forced into plating the martyr like Snowden just to expose it.

The Welsh Government issuing a proposal is hardly 'secret'. Sorry - no conspiracy here.

[Smudger]

Unless this is some huge Dr Who plot, I'm not sure this is the government acting on its own behalf. Are they harvesting the organs to make some giant Frankenstein's monster baddie? Seems it's an attempt to increase the amount of organ available for transplant, albeit a pretty clumsy one.

[scaryjim]

... Are they harvesting the organs to make some giant Frankenstein's monster baddie? ...

If they were, they might get more people signing up! "Sign your donor card today, and you could be part of a world-destroying monster!"

[Saracen]

Since when has that ever stopped the Government acting on behalf of itself though ( even if its means spiting us ) they do it all the time, look at the expenditure issues or even Prism , no one whistleblowed on any of it and yet they would of been more than aware of how it would of how well it would have been received ( hence the need to hide their actives )

They will simply change the laws without telling us their full intent at the time, or do it secretly until its too late and someone else is forced into plating the martyr like Snowden just to expose it.

The government doesn't harvest organs. What do you think, that the Health Secretary nips out of the Ministry, pops into a hospital and whips out a quick kidney or two?

Any doctor that acts outside the law on taking organs for donations faces fines, 3 years in jail, or both. And, most likely, the end of his/her career.

Nor can you blame our government for PRISM, seeing as it's a US program. I see lots of accusations that it's illegal under US law, or that GCHQ get data illegally from it, but no, and I mean absolutely NO evidence whatever that it has done so.

The plain fact is we have some simplistic slides referencing the existence of PRISM, some allegations as to it's scope and method of operation, some of which have been vehemently denied in categorical and unequivocal terms, by third parties like MS and Google. And naff-all hard evidence of what the program actually does, let alone whether it's illegal or not. But this isn't a PRISM thread, it's an organ donation thread.

[melon]

The government doesn't harvest organs. What do you think, that the Health Secretary nips out of the Ministry, pops into a hospital and whips out a quick kidney or two?

Of course not because they have pretty much have any one else at their disposal to do it instead.

[peterb]

Of course not because they have pretty much have any one else at their disposal to do it instead.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Nor can you blame our government for PRISM, seeing as it's a US program.

Tempora is the UK equivalent which might be greater in scope than PRISM.

[melon]

Not a bad film...

[Million]

This may go some way to alleviating the shortage, and is probably cheaper and definitely more effective than an ad campaign. I believe the vast majority of people either assume that there will be a life saving organ available to them should they come to need it, or do not consider it at all. Then, when the worst happens, they realize their predicament, and they and their family and friends become pro-donation activists.

Assume you're going to get an organ if and when you need it? Then I'll assume you're willing to give one when you don't need it and someone else does