Organ donation opt out system?

[chuckskull]

I wasn't talking about you specifically(though you did bring to the front of my mind), but a lot of people objecting to this, are trying to make it sound like the government wants to create huge stockpiles of organs by misusing the term harvesting to scare people.

I should have worded that better.

[Sinizter]

Other than the points raised by Saracen, presumably this info that you have opted out has to be held somewhere centrally accessible. I do not trust them to keep it up to date - and this can lead organ harvesting (and I mean that not in the completely technical sense, since it will be done without consent).

And if it comes to a hypothetical point where a suicide victims organs can be used to save 2-3 patients, one of them a child that has been in a RTA, I simply dont trust the NHS staff to ALWAYS make the right decision - most of the time yes, but once in a while there will be a case where it wasnt done by the book. And one single time is bad enough in my book. Will they really do all they can, all the time, when by letting this one go they could save 2-3 others?

And what is to stop the NHS from beginning to sell organs to the EU or something equally stupid in the future - especially if funding issues for the NHS persist ? After all making these organs available to the EU would only be an extension of the concept to a larger geographical area.

While some people might not have any of these concerns, I do. And I do not support an opt out system. And I will opt out - even though I carry an organ donor card now.

All of these arguments had already been presented in a better language and more clearly the first time this opt out system discussion came about. I really cant be bothered to rehash the whole lot. The government is going to force whatever it wants whenever it wants. I will just have to take whatever measures I can to make sure me or people I care about.

[educatedfool]

put more money and effort into the program.

Because they have buckets of that going around as it is...

with an opt in system, I would be happy to opt in, but I would opt out as a protest to the sheer retardedness of it.

It's not retarded at all, most certainly if your oen of the unlucky people stuck in a hospital bed most of the year because you can't get a donor.

Also, a person who wastes their life via suicide gets an organ or 3 removed unauthorised to save 2-3 peoples lives is a bad idea? Nice.

You can walk around with your opt out card and when people ask why you say 'They might sell my organs to other countries', you can also say that the american goverment did 9/11 and there was no space landing in 1969

[Sinizter]

It's not retarded at all, most certainly if your oen of the unlucky people stuck in a hospital bed most of the year because you can't get a donor.

Also, a person who wastes their life via suicide gets an organ or 3 removed unauthorised to save 2-3 peoples lives is a bad idea? Nice.

You can walk around with your opt out card and when people ask why you say 'They might sell my organs to other countries', you can also say that the american goverment did 9/11 and there was no space landing in 1969

Thank you for your mature and well presented response.

[Saracen]

Because they have buckets of that going around as it is...

So other than what appears to be mere sarcasm, do you have a point? Do you think the program is fully funded? Are there enough transplant coordinators in hospitals?

Again and again we see politicians, including but by no means limited to Brown, making headline-grabbing announcements, which sound great on the evening news, but unless money follows the announcements, it's just so much hot air. Well, if this issue is as important as GB now suggests, and if it will save as many lives (and it may well be that it does), then he needs to put money where his mouth is, rather than simply try to score some cheap popularity with it - which is what I think he's doing.

Let's face it, there are very few people that can make a real, large-scale difference to how the donor system works in this country, and the person that currently heads the government and has previously spent 10 years with his hands firmly on the country's wallet is right at the very top of the list. In fact, he virtually is the list.

[educatedfool]

So other than what appears to be mere sarcasm, do you have a point? Do you think the program is fully funded? Are there enough transplant coordinators in hospitals?

Again and again we see politicians, including but by no means limited to Brown, making headline-grabbing announcements, which sound great on the evening news, but unless money follows the announcements, it's just so much hot air. Well, if this issue is as important as GB now suggests, and if it will save as many lives (and it may well be that it does), then he needs to put money where his mouth is, rather than simply try to score some cheap popularity with it - which is what I think he's doing.

Let's face it, there are very few people that can make a real, large-scale difference to how the donor system works in this country, and the person that currently heads the government and has previously spent 10 years with his hands firmly on the country's wallet is right at the very top of the list. In fact, he virtually is the list.

Well, sorry if this next point comes across as nonsense, but I've had a few to many to drink amnd I'm listening to the quo at the moment but having a parent who works in the NHS you realise just how bad the situation is in terms of money. An opt in situation would be preferable if it was extremely simple. and I mean bloody simple, like tick box simple otherwise there is no other option than an opt out situiation. Unfortunately it is the only way with todays society.

Once again I apologise for what may appear as druniken nonsense but it seems to make sense now!

[educatedfool]

Thank you for your mature and well presented response.

I thnak you for your thoughful, yet pointless reply. Your post still contains little logic to me. Even after a good few drinks.

Oh well.

[Saracen]

Well, sorry if this next point comes across as nonsense, but I've had a few to many to drink amnd I'm listening to the quo at the moment but having a parent who works in the NHS you realise just how bad the situation is in terms of money. An opt in situation would be preferable if it was extremely simple. and I mean bloody simple, like tick box simple otherwise there is no other option than an opt out situiation. Unfortunately it is the only way with todays society.

Once again I apologise for what may appear as druniken nonsense but it seems to make sense now!

Actually, the point makes sense. But I don't agree. The NHS has had record sums spent on it in recent years. But my question would be .... spent on what? And perhaps more to the point, did we get value for money? We've seen improvements, some of them considerable, but that certainly should have been the case given the expenditure.

My original remark, though, was about the level of funding given to the donor program, not to the NHS generally. If Gordon Brown was so concerned about it, and it's been costing lives (as it undoubtedly has), why wasn't some funding prioritised?

It's far to easy for politicians to make speeches, announce programs, suggest laws, but it's all just hot air unless they actually get something done about it. And if Brown was serious, he could have done something about this by allocating funds during the last 10 years. But no, now he decides he's going to monkey with whether the system is opt-in or opt-out. It strikes me as hypocrisy on his part to pretend to be so concerned now after 10 years as Chancellor, as sheer opportunism in this announcement, as part of his "relaunch".

It remains to be seen if an opt-in or opt-out system achieves better results - if they ever go for it, and it isn't just political hot air. But whatever else, one thing is certain - it's going to be controversial, and there will be people, no doubt on both sides of the issue, with strong views. This thread has already seen some people that currently ave opted-in stating they either will or probably will opt-out if opt-in becomes the default. And some good reasons have been given for why they feel that way.

[Kumagoro]

I am not sure if I am for or against it.

But if I did donate the receiver would have to meet certain criteria like being female
and fit as you like hehehe. More seriously I wouldnt want my bits going to some fat
bloater or people like george best and the long term unemployed shall get nowt either.

[Saracen]

It's been a while since I looked, so it might have changed (though I doubt it), but one of the criteria for donations (in the UK) was that you had NO control over who it goes to. It goes on the basis of compatibility and clinical need, not any "social" factors.

[Lee H]

I'm all for this.

Look at it this way - When you die your dead, what the heck do you need to take all your organs into the grave or crematorium for?

They should say that donating your organs to others before cremation lowers greenhouse gasses and then the "masses" who think it's cool to be enviromentally friendly would sign up straight away

I've always stated that my organs can be used to improve others life and the left overs can be used for lab testing to help improve medical care. I'll be dead so theres no need for me to have it all is there?

[Lucio]

I'm all for this.

Look at it this way - When you die your dead, what the heck do you need to take all your organs into the grave or crematorium for?

They should say that donating your organs to others before cremation lowers greenhouse gasses and then the "masses" who think it's cool to be enviromentally friendly would sign up straight away

I've always stated that my organs can be used to improve others life and the left overs can be used for lab testing to help improve medical care. I'll be dead so theres no need for me to have it all is there?

I think, that despite the people who say "this scheme is bad", most of us understand the benefits of organ donation and can agree, in principle it's a good thing. Views like those held by Blitzen, are understandable, who wants to know their organs may have saved a chronic alcoholic like George Best or some sponger who'se been smoking 40 a day on welfare for 40 odd years.

What people object to in general is the concept that you are assumed to have said yes, despite not ever responding to the question. Making up people's minds for them isn't something that should have a place in a democractic society, and whilst yes, there is a clear opt-out, how do you know it's going to be followed correctly all the time? If you're going to ignore someone's opinions isn't it far better to err on the side of caution and NOT take action than it is to take action.

[Sinizter]

I thnak you for your thoughful, yet pointless reply. Your post still contains little logic to me. Even after a good few drinks.

Oh well.

If you given it some, even a minute amount, of thought, you would see that the NHS staff should be saving lives regardless of who it is and not make judgements on who to save and who to let go. This opens up possibilities for such occurences.

I would love to be there when you land on the wrong side of that equation.

This reply might be completely pointless as it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with ....... some people. I dont know if you are one of them.

[Blitzen]

Thank you for your mature and well presented response.

Your response stating 'retardedness' was obviously a mature and well presented response though wasnt it

[Sinizter]

Your response stating 'retardedness' was obviously a mature and well presented response though wasnt it

Probably not the best way to put it, but thats the only way I can express my disgust without getting it all caught by the swear filter.

[Jimmy.H]

Organ donation is a very worthy cause if it means saving a life, but the only problem I have with such a scheme is; When the surgeons remove the necessary organs from the body is the donor clinically dead ? I remember a TV programme many years ago in which a doctor informed a questioner of the donor system that; "as doctors we have to move fairly rapidly on the body in order to ensure that the organs are fresh when removed" How fresh, is the question I would ask?

Is there a possibility that the donor could be still partially alive when the removal of organs take place to ensure their freshness, especially if it involved removal of heart, liver or kidney/s ?