Compulsory organ donation - no thanks!

[Stonelaughter]

Having read a little more of the thread, I really don't see what the fuss is all about. Whether we have the "opt in" system or the "opt out" system, you have the absolute right to either choice... I don't see how implementing an "opt-out" system is in any way a removal of rights. You will have the right to opt out - so opt out already!! So you have to tick a box on a website - is that such a terrible, awful thing to have to do to remove yourself from the list of donors??

 

[stugster]

People seem to be assuming that it's the Government that'll be using the organs... when in actual fact, it's the people who receive the transplants that you should be shouting and balling the abuse at.

Grace Brazie : http://www.tv7-4.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=107328

Sally Slater : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5351116.stm

Demi-Lee Brennan : http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/01/australian-girl.html

Vincent Sanchez : http://www.lpch.org/newsEvents/NewsReleases/2006/vincentSanchez.html

Those are the people who you should be shouting abuse at. How dare they expect organs from those who are dead and no longer needing them? The cheek.

Because of the requirement to "opt-in", [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]in the next 24 hours three Britons will die while waiting for an organ transplant. Britain has fewer available organs than most countries in Europe.
[/FONT]

 

[andysears]

I have opted in and still alive. I have just finished phase 1 of my work up program to donate a kidney to my wife. All cross matched and correct.

My personal feeling it is up to individuals to say whether they want to opt in or not. But in saying that the people who decide not to, should also think what the situation would be if themselves needed an organ in the future, how would their thoughts be then.

My wifes case is such that now the transplant is on hold due to her now developing heart problems and she will have to go onto dialysis.

Just a thought, those that are against the opt in, what are their thoughts on receiving someone elses blood that has been donated? This is common with all sorts of accidents and operations.

 

[stugster]

On a slightly related note... does anyone currently donate bone marrow?

 

[vitalchip]

That's a shame. We should encourage more donors, like I said earlier.

We shouldn't force people to have to take action to stop their bodies being harvested after death. Donors give an amazing gift, but it's that - a gift, given freely and intentionally.

Nobody should need to fill in a form to stop someone else taking something from them. ( how simple the form might be is an irrelevance )

What if I were to suggest that you should have to 'opt-out' of being murdered? What's the big deal? if you don't want murdered just go fill in the form, it's easy. Oh, while you're there.. maybe you don't want your children kidnapped, I'd fill that one in if I were you.

If it's a good idea to donate organs then CONVINCE people, don't collude to make it something they have to work to get out of.

 

[stugster]

If your opt-out of being murdered only applies once/after you're dead, then yeh, that theory makes sense!

 

[Subbynet]

On a slightly related note... does anyone currently donate bone marrow?

I'm on the register for this, as my Mum required a Bone Marrow transplant. I wasn't a match but its hypocritical to take what you won't give, so I had the tests done.

I've never as of yet actually donated tho.

 

If it's a good idea to donate organs then CONVINCE people, don't collude to make it something they have to work to get out of.

That makes more sense to me.

There may well be 3 more people dead because the UK population didn't 'opt in' to have their organs 'harvested'.

There was also a child starved to death last week in Birmingham - I see no uproar about that.

A 17yo was beaten to death in a park the other day - nobody gives a stuff about that.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in Burmah who are going to die in the next few weeks from disease, but we have no uproar about that.

The fact is, people do what they feel they must do, and loads don't. they still should not be automatically subscribed to something they don't want to. Those who do want to - then sign up, what is the fuss?

The people who are signed up under an opt-out system who would not have donated before - why are they then donating? Is it because they didn't bother to opt-out? Is it because they reckoned they probably should donate? If the latter - then why the bloody hell did they not sign up in the first place then ??

I will happily give any of my organs to whoever needs them (so I am on the database) - but try to 'force' or 'push' me towards giving something, and I'll eat it first !

 

[vitalchip]

If your opt-out of being murdered only applies once/after you're dead, then yeh, that theory makes sense!

Well, yeh of course you can only murder someone who's alive..

Anyway, it's not a personal issue for me as such, I'm already opted in for everything, I'll be dead and won't care.

I just object to the notion of being opted into anything, I don't even like it when I have to untick boxes for email updates when I buy something.

Even the fact that it's something that helps others doesn't make it right, if that were the case then we'd all be happy to be automatically signed up for a tenner a month with every charity in the country unless we opted out, instead of the perfectly acceptable current system of giving what you want to give, when you want to give it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Basically your "rights" are what society decides.

Heaven help us if we follow this principle. This is oppression by the majority, and history reveals that a majority can certainly be wrong. A majority could believe that all disabled children should be euthanised or that non-whites must live apart from whites or that anyone who disagrees with them should be jailed. This is why a formal legal declaration of individual rights is so important - before we lose them. They should be enshrined in law.

Forcing someone to go against their conscience is immoral. While opt-out retains the element of choice, for now, it's a dangerous first step towards a compulsory program. There are many precedents for this.

We haven't touched on this, but you can almost predict the kind of scandals that will come up when organs are plentiful. For sure, more people in need will be helped, but organs will be stolen and sold overseas. Organs will be sent overseas as a form of foreign aid. It's doesn't bear thinking about.

What about retaining opt-in but allowing donors to donate their organs only to others who opted in? Some people would donate to anyone, so it wouldn't be a general rule, but the fact that some will donate only to other potential donors may encourage more people to sign up.

 

[Gillie]

Forcing someone to die as someone decides they don't 'like' giving up part of their useless body when they are dead is immoral Steve!!

As its been said, if the opt out came in ... theres the thing ... you opt OUT ... you have choice! Just this way you are forced to think about it and forced to wonder what you would do if one of your closest family members was dying in front of your eyes because the number of people donating was not big enough to deal with those needing it!

I have watched a very active 60 something year old age 20 years in just 6 months ... so yes, I might just harp on a bit about it, but somehow I feel I have the 'right' ...

 

[Subbynet]

Heaven help us if we follow this principle.

We do follow that principle Steve - and have done for hundreds of years, some would say since the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

Hence why we vote and the party with the most votes pulls the strings for the next 4/5 years.

This is oppression by the majority, and history reveals that a majority can certainly be wrong.

Yes, it oppresses you from doing things which society has found out to be a detriment. (Murder, Stealing, Speeding for starters) But I'll grant you, the majority is not always correct, nor is scientific evidence always taken on board for a decision.

I'll give the latest example of reclassifing Cannabis to Class B despite the Cheif Government Advisor saying the complete opposite about the dangers.

I'd actually argue that the majority in this country now recognise the fact that the "War on Drugs" is futile, and that legalising, taxing, and using that money to pay for treatments is a much better method.

So in this case, we can see the real danger, its not from a majority decision, but a decision taken by a minority and forced into the majority.

A majority could believe that all disabled children should be euthanised or that non-whites must live apart from whites or that anyone who disagrees with them should be jailed.

But thats far more unlikely to happen by a majority than finding a minority which supports that view.

This is why a formal legal declaration of individual rights is so important - before we lose them. They should be enshrined in law.

Formal rights, like in the US yeah Steve? Those "rights" which are trampled upon each day and ever increasingly without the slightest difference being made by the actual people.

You have no more rights in the US than I do in the UK - the only difference is a piece of paper.

The problem is the same both sides of the pond - people don't scream loud enough.

 

[vitalchip]

The only extra donors that would arise from forcing people to opt out if they didn't want their bodies automatically harvested as soon as they die would be those people who didn't act on the opt out due to lazyness or ignorance.

In order to ensure that nobody could possibly claim to be 'conned' there would need to be a huge public awareness campaign to let everyone know, so large in fact that it would probably entail writing letters to every person in the country, posters, tv adverts.. etc.

Why not just mount a campaign of the same magnitude asking people to opt-in?

 

[stugster]

I'll do it later

 

Forcing someone to die as someone decides they don't 'like' giving up part of their useless body when they are dead is immoral Steve!!

The fact that someone is not giving up an organ is not 'forcing someone to die', it is merely not choosing to help them not to die.

It is the same as not giving to a specific aid charity, or not choosing to go to Romania to help an orphan, or watching as a helpless person is beaten to death in the street, etc.

I still cannot understand what is wrong with just asking more people to 'opt-in', rather than having a forced 'opt-out'.

 

[vitalchip]

I'll do it later

Come on.. do it now.

The real problem in my opinion is that it's just not talked about enough, I've made my intentions clear to family and friends and when doing so I've encouraged them to have a think about it, some have signed up, some don't fancy the idea for whatever their own reasons are. I can't see the logic in holding onto something you can't possibly need anymore but I respect their decision in the matter.

 

[.Spiralling.]

I've already said what I think about the proposed opt-out system, but I wanted to comment on some of the things I've read on this thread.

Time and again it has been said that we all have to die at some point.

What I don't understand is why this is used as an argument for why people should be opted-in (we're all going to die, so do something useful with the body), but it's not used as a reason for not donating - we're all going to die so why should someone's organs be taken to put off that inevitable event?

I think there are some very emotive arguments being used here, but generally the people using them are ignoring the fact that those arguments work both ways.

I have another thought about all of this, and it's not so much to do with opt-in/opt-out but to do with medical advances in general. At what point do we say enough is enough? We live on an island. Space is limited. (and as we move on in time, the same can be said for the planet - we only have so much space to fill). If we keep making these advances that stop people dying from this condition or that disease, we're going to run into trouble. We'll run out of resources, space, money etc. Death is there for a reason, but we seem obsessed with cheating it. At what point do we stop and think about the consequences of that? Or do we leave that as yet another problem for future generations to deal with?

 

[Gillie]

The fact that someone is not giving up an organ is not 'forcing someone to die', it is merely not choosing to help them not to die.

Er you of all people know my feelings on this subject ... and too many negatives make a positive, therefore you are killing hi, sorry them!

Come on.. do it now.

The real problem in my opinion is that it's just not talked about enough, I've made my intentions clear to family and friends and when doing so I've encouraged them to have a think about it, some have signed up, some don't fancy the idea for whatever their own reasons are. I can't see the logic in holding onto something you can't possibly need anymore but I respect their decision in the matter.

There was money spent recently and we talked about it on here several times, and I for all my spouting do nag as many as possible to go on it, but until many are faced with the prospect of their 'choice' to be taken away from them, its still just a minor blip on most peoples horizon!

I think there are some very emotive arguments being used here, but generally the people using them are ignoring the fact that those arguments work both ways.

I have another thought about all of this, and it's not so much to do with opt-in/opt-out but to do with medical advances in general. At what point do we say enough is enough? We live on an island. Space is limited. (and as we move on in time, the same can be said for the planet - we only have so much space to fill). If we keep making these advances that stop people dying from this condition or that disease, we're going to run into trouble. We'll run out of resources, space, money etc. Death is there for a reason, but we seem obsessed with cheating it. At what point do we stop and think about the consequences of that? Or do we leave that as yet another problem for future generations to deal with?

So as you say at what stage to you say we are not going to intervene and save lives? A newborn? Small child? Teenager? Of course you would intervene to same them, so is not someone over a certain age worth saving if we can? So when we reach a certain age, we just roll over and die??

And who decides who lives and dies? This is a worse scenario than simple opt out ... this is a true dictatorship in action!

 

[Subbynet]

I've already said what I think about the proposed opt-out system, but I wanted to comment on some of the things I've read on this thread.

Time and again it has been said that we all have to die at some point.

What I don't understand is why this is used as an argument for why people should be opted-in (we're all going to die, so do something useful with the body), but it's not used as a reason for not donating - we're all going to die so why should someone's organs be taken to put off that inevitable event?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the reasons for saving lives? I don't think anyone expects to live forever, but its sure as hell nice to live long enough to enjoy the perks of life.

I have another thought about all of this, and it's not so much to do with opt-in/opt-out but to do with medical advances in general. At what point do we say enough is enough? We live on an island. Space is limited. (and as we move on in time, the same can be said for the planet - we only have so much space to fill). If we keep making these advances that stop people dying from this condition or that disease, we're going to run into trouble. We'll run out of resources, space, money etc. Death is there for a reason, but we seem obsessed with cheating it. At what point do we stop and think about the consequences of that? Or do we leave that as yet another problem for future generations to deal with?

So I take it as someone who's thought about this that when you're Ill, you'll take no medication and are willing to die?

For me, I'd say mother nature will kick us into touch when the planet is overpopulated... The lack of resources will start wars, and wars mean deaths. WW3 will see deaths on a scale never seen before.

We are miles from that point right now.

In the future, I fully expect our Space capability to grow, and the idea of living on the Moon, or Mars, wouldn't be as mad as you might think. We have already put an man on the Moon, and people live on the international space station all year round even today.

You also don't mention the benefits of a large population, it helps make sure the species is robust and will help in any event in the future such as a meteor hitting earth or a deadly plague breaking out. Hopefully, with more of us, the species won't die out.

 

[.Spiralling.]

I didn't say I don't agree with organ donation. I didn't say I don't agree with medical research or medical advancement. I didn't say we should leave people to die. I didn't say that I don't understand the reasons for saving lives. I wish people would read properly before jumping to reply.

I was simply asking the question at what point do we draw the line. It comes to something if the question can't even be asked without being accused of wanting a dictatorship!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I have another thought about all of this, and it's not so much to do with opt-in/opt-out but to do with medical advances in general. At what point do we say enough is enough? We live on an island. Space is limited. (and as we move on in time, the same can be said for the planet - we only have so much space to fill). If we keep making these advances that stop people dying from this condition or that disease, we're going to run into trouble. We'll run out of resources, space, money etc.

You're absolutely right, and these are tough decisions. The greater the medical breakthroughs, the more the procedures cost. There's simply no way that all procedures will be available to everyone. So what do we do?

- Keep offering everything to everyone until the costs exceed our wages?
- Ask doctors to decide which patients will receive the most benefit?
- Ration procedures based on the patient's ability to pay?
- Ration procedures based on the lifestyle the patient has led?
- Ration procedures based on the number of productive years a patient will afterwards lead?
- Offer basic services to all but require patients to pay for advanced procedures?
- Be stricter about who is eligible for services and who is not?

These are not easy choices, and we're going to have to decide soon what to do.

 

[streetslocal]

i used to be againist organ donation thinking i would like to be buried complete and all that.
But as you may know my son has been diagnossed with a rare condition details of which can be found on my blog:

http://cystinosis.blogspot.com/

it was because of this i have actually joined the organ reg:

Please if you have it in you consider this as it could be you or your family that may well depend on somebody doing this one day:

If you want to do this please do so now and spread the word:

https://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/RegistrationForm.do?campaignCode=-1


At the end of the day if your dead your dead and you could save some other family going through the heart break.

My little son euan is now nearly 15 months and will require a kidney transplant at some point in childhood.

I have also met many people in hospital who are awaiting transplant and it really is such a shame as they are suffering and so are there familys.