Organ donation law has changed

[Saracen999]

All your base body are belong to us.

Actually I'm in favour. As posted above it's mostly about resolving the situation where a family disagrees with the person's wishes.

One of the things that concerns me is that word .... "wishes".

I've never been entirely clear where the final donation decision (*), short of a court case, actually lies :-

1) The deceased, according to opt-in or opt-out, or

2) The family, hopefully taking those "wishes" into account, or

3) Doctors, hopefully taking both 1) & 2) into account.

It strikes as a bit like making a will .... the will itself is legally binding and executors MUST follow instructions, subject only to a successful court challenge. But the "funeral wishes" bit you can optionally add to the end is exactly that ... your wishes. But next of kin don't have to honour them.

And me, having spent many years trying to distinguish (in either legal or political contexts) between what someone appears to have said/promised, and what they can be held to, and if necessary compelled to do, am concerned that the whole thing is a con.

Which is why registering "wishes", or preferences, or what you "want" makes me nervous.

Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but .....


(*) IIRC, two doctors can override either registered wishes, or family wishes. Of course, it would be extremely controversial if them actually doing so became public knowledge. But where, legally, does the. final decision rest? Anybody know for certain?

[Saracen999]

I share your concerns, and re the last point, Hexus has a rather strict code of what they will let you write. The appropriate descriptors are simply not available to me!

As a gamekeeper turned poacher I share that concern, but if so, I would point out a valid concern about comparative nit-wit-ism with the alternative, and making the best of a bad choice, we're at risk of a donation thread turning into the umteenth pointless political row.

It'd be nice not to do that.

[ik9000]

As a gamekeeper turned poacher I share that concern, but if so, I would point out a valid concern about comparative nit-wit-ism with the alternative, and making the best of a bad choice, we're at risk of a donation thread turning into the umteenth pointless political row.

It'd be nice not to do that.

my concern shared was of the healthcare being denied equally to all.

[Galant]

Another angle on this is the potentially massive implications of how we handle social media and the 'new' social pressure that's arising. With the rise of social media, and the novelty of it right now, it's easy to feel the pressure of a supposed consensus on issues and with that perhaps the idea that governments might feel that social consensus gives them a mandate. So, one, if the social media masses seem to make it clear that as a society we now hold to 'x' who is the individual to disagree. Two, where governments buy into that it becomes even scarier. I wonder about a future where the rights of the group become superior to the rights of the individual and worse, where social media is taken as indicative or instrumental in that.

[ik9000]

Another angle on this is the potentially massive implications of how we handle social media and the 'new' social pressure that's arising. With the rise of social media, and the novelty of it right now, it's easy to feel the pressure of a supposed consensus on issues and with that perhaps the idea that governments might feel that social consensus gives them a mandate. So, one, if the social media masses seem to make it clear that as a society we now hold to 'x' who is the individual to disagree. Two, where governments buy into that it becomes even scarier. I wonder about a future where the rights of the group become superior to the rights of the individual and worse, where social media is taken as indicative or instrumental in that.

or even worse, where the government actively employs/exploits social media as a means to manipulate the people and control/influence public opinion in order to promote their own agenda.

Such a government would presumably begin by cosying up to the firms leading the way in data harvesting, analysis and application for manipulative (sorry "targetted") practices. Then it would trial their success in some way, say an event of some kind requiring a public decision. Then if that was successful they'd seek to exploit this avenue even more. Presumably tell-tale warning signs would be giving such companies ever increasing access to official information, and removing the security and protections people currently enjoy, such as GDPR. It would start in a small way, like pressuring people to download voluntary applications, or to opt-in (and then as it progresses not opt-out) of data gathering, and then eventually when they have conditioned the majority enough, they will ridicule the minority protesting against it, and remove the ability to opt-out... etc etc.

Anyway, before more warnings about thread tangents, that's a bit of a jump from the opt-in/opt-out switch that's just occurred, but it is the extension of what you were saying. Social media is a vapid cess pool of "he (or she) who shouts loudest and most often" coupled with the ability to devote time to it, and often a quasi-narcissistic assumption that people at large care what the user has to say about something. That portion of the Venn diagram is not necessarily the one best placed to be deciding policy IMO.

[Helios451]

or even worse, where the government actively employs/exploits social media as a means to manipulate the people and control/influence public opinion in order to promote their own agenda.

Social media is a vapid cess pool of "he (or she) who shouts loudest and most often" coupled with the ability to devote time to it, and often a quasi-narcissistic assumption that people at large care what the user has to say about something. That portion of the Venn diagram is not necessarily the one best placed to be deciding policy IMO.

I'd actually go a little further and say that social media has encouraged the not very clever (the standard distribution of intelligence amongst the human population gives a quick and simple way of working out how many really below average intelligence people there actually are in society) to think that they have a 'right' to shout what they like and that their opinions have the weight of truth.

I don't deny their equal rights to self expression any more than I do my own, but it does support the concern that there will be a more emotional and less reasonable approach to the opt-out debate, in contrast to the intelligent and nuanced discussion we are able to have here.

It's also those lacking the knowledge or critical thinking ability to avoid the manipulation that government who lend weight to the success of such strategies. Although, IIRC, I read something in News Scientist a few weeks back in a psychology piece to say that, on the whole, people's opinions are not changed by what they see on social media - they tend to only reinforce pre-existing beliefs.

[badass]

Fair enough. If i'm dead, I ain't gunna need it.

The problem is, with our "underfunded" NHS, they are not always so great at making sure you are dead first

[Ttaskmaster]

I'm more concerned by the ever-increasing population, with their ever-decreasing intellect, and wonder if all this medical science that can save lives should be used to save lives. There is an element of natural selection at play and by saving everyone all the time, we're perhaps crossing lines and creating even more problems for ourselves.

A good deal of this stems from the idea that you can eat what you want, drink as much as you like, smoke like a chimney, do no exercise and you'll still get put on a list for organ donations to replace the heart, lungs, liver and other parts that you voluntarily neglected... and the mandatory donors get no choice over whether or not you're worth saving.

[spacein_vader]

I'm more concerned by the ever-increasing population, with their ever-decreasing intellect, and wonder if all this medical science that can save lives should be used to save lives. There is an element of natural selection at play and by saving everyone all the time, we're perhaps crossing lines and creating even more problems for ourselves.

A good deal of this stems from the idea that you can eat what you want, drink as much as you like, smoke like a chimney, do no exercise and you'll still get put on a list for organ donations to replace the heart, lungs, liver and other parts that you voluntarily neglected... and the mandatory donors get no choice over whether or not you're worth saving.

As the current situation is showing, nature has a way of managing excess populations. Survival of the fittest still stands, we've just changed the definition of fittest to "those with best healthcare access".

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The problem is, with our "underfunded" NHS, they are not always so great at making sure you are dead first

[Ttaskmaster]

As the current situation is showing, nature has a way of managing excess populations. Survival of the fittest still stands, we've just changed the definition of fittest to "those with best healthcare access".

That's my point, though - Nature has a way, but we're denying it that. We're all living so much longer and we're already reckoned to be at capacity, which is causing far wider damage as the current situation with the environment shows.
As for healthcare and the current situation, the UK and US supposedly have some of the best healthcare around, yet we have some of the highest death rates too.

[ik9000]

You raise a good point. Should we have a say in who our organs go to? If I was alive and asked to donate a kidney to a relative I'd have a say in it. Why should it be different just because I'm dead? If I don't want my organs to go to racist far-right xenophobe or a chronic alcoholic should I not be able to say so?

Edit: or to put it another way around - if I were to be in need of a transplant I would also want to know where it was coming from. I would not want the organs of someone who'd been trashing their body on dope and crack for example.

[Spreadie]

You raise a good point. Should we have a say in who our organs go to? If I was alive and asked to donate a kidney to a relative I'd have a say in it. Why should it be different just because I'm dead? If I don't want my organs to go to racist far-right xenophobe or a chronic alcoholic should I not be able to say so?

Edit: or to put it another way around - if I were to be in need of a transplant I would also want to know where it was coming from. I would not want the organs of someone who'd been trashing their body on dope and crack for example.

I'm pretty sure substance abuse usually disqualifies a voluntary donor already. How is changing the law to an opt-out system going to affect donation criteria? One could argue that the wider pool of available organs would allow the criteria to be tightened and more selective.

Besides, if your only hope for survival is an organ from someone mentioned in your post, I defy you to claim that you'll turn up your nose and willingly march through the pearly gates instead.

[Saracen999]

You raise a good point. Should we have a say in who our organs go to? If I was alive and asked to donate a kidney to a relative I'd have a say in it. Why should it be different just because I'm dead? If I don't want my organs to go to racist far-right xenophobe or a chronic alcoholic should I not be able to say so?

Edit: or to put it another way around - if I were to be in need of a transplant I would also want to know where it was coming from. I would not want the organs of someone who'd been trashing their body on dope and crack for example.

Acknowledging possible devil's advocatism, who gets to determine if a given recipient is a racist, far-right xenophobe, or not? And who watches the watchers?

A radical far-left activist .... that considers anyone to the night of Mao Tse Tung to be right wing?

If such a system existed, I'd opt out. As far as I'm concerned, the only valid criteria is clinical suitability .... which no doubt includes chance of success, and that probably excludes some, like those too old. If we start allowing donor preferences, how long before discrimination comes into it, be it racial, religious, gender-preference, sexual orientation, etc?

IMHO, the donor should have a say in whether organs can be used or not, and even which ones, but no say at all in who gets it/them, or the criteria used to determine that.

[Ttaskmaster]

As far as I'm concerned, the only valid criteria is clinical suitability .... which no doubt includes chance of success, and that probably excludes some, like those too old. If we start allowing donor preferences, how long before discrimination comes into it, be it racial, religious, gender-preference, sexual orientation, etc?

IIRC, those chances of success do include some consideration of the recipient's lifestyle... just not very much consideration.

My concern is the organ going to a messed-up drug user instead of a young child, simply because the former was higher on the list or something. A prisoner on Death Row might* receive an organ, purely because the law has decreed they must die at an appointed time.

I freely admit I believe some people would be best left to die, and saving them is not only a waste of time but comes at the expense of other far more deserving.








*Hypothetically, as I don't know if that's how it would go, but I'd not be surprised if this turned out to be true.

[ik9000]

The reason I raise it is I recall reading an article where they were suggesting there might be more to genetics and the role of the organ tissues than we currently acknowledge - things where recipients of transplants take on new personality traits, preferences, and even abilities. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I think it was a reasonable source (print sadly, not online). I'll see if I can find it. If that is the case, then I would very much want to know the background of any organ someone is proposing to put in me.

Yup, it's a thing. Here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31739081/