Compulsory organ donation - no thanks!

[Cornish Steve]

Here's yet another reason why not. This lady came back to life after being dead for 17 hours. Rigor mortis had even set in.

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/16363548/detail.html

 

[Dizzydiza]

wow.....i think that was a miracle

My kids have just got their provisional driving licences and one of the questions on the application form was did they wish to donate their organs in the event of their death. My son could not make his mind up and decided not to make the decision just now and my daughter was just distraught at how could i possibly ask such a question. I have to admit that i dont carry a card but if i could help someone in the event of a premature death i think i would like to help but ultimately i will leave the decision up to my family.

 

[Gillie]

I have a father who is dying before my eyes each day ... he needs a kidney and heart transplant but because not enough people sign up for it, his age counts against him as the few people that do dontate they like to give to younger people, so I say, what the hell use is your organs when you are dead??

And how many times do we read of people coming back to life after such a long time declared dead??

So, on the off chance that this major miracle should occur, we write of thousands of other lives just in case??

I carry a card, my kids carry cards, and I think compulsory is the way to go, that or let scientists try other means, but heck we can't, as that is deemed experimental and playing god with people ... come on people, make your mind up!!

 

[Cornish Steve]

we can't, as that is deemed experimental and playing god with people ... come on people, make your mind up!!

For sure, this is an emotive topic, and sorry Gillie for what you are going through with your dad. Nonetheless, no-one should have the right to 'play God', as you put it, and decide that someone else's organs should be removed. I have no problem at all encouraging people to donate, and our family chooses to have the donor sticker on our driver's licenses. Still, it is bordering on the immoral for the government to believe that the default decision is to steal organs without formal and considered permission. Organs can be offered in advance by their owner, but they should never be stolen by authorities or 'scientists' who believe their decisions are somehow better, wiser, or morally more important.

 

The case you have highlighted Steve is one of those freaks of nature, which do happen from time to time. To be honest, if the lady in question had've carried a card, this would not have come to light - she would have been stripped down for spares a long time before rigor mortis ever set in.

We need to decide, as a nation, if we are happy to have our bodies looked upon as spare parts. Personally I have conflicting feelings on it - I am on the transplant database, in the event of my untimely (or otherwise) death, but I do not want anyone elses 'bits' put into me. If I get to the stage of needing a transplant, then I would rather they took whatever was useful out of me, and dumped the rest.

I think that, because of the multitude of thoughts/opinions on this, it would be wrong to 'opt in' people, but there should probably be a little more done to ask those recently berieved if they wish to donate, plus to get people to carry cards, etc.

We need to take account of peoples religious belief, their fears, phobias, etc - and the fact that some people just think of themselves and loved ones as something personal, not to be shared out.

 

[Gillie]

Ok, so think of this one then ... if we stopped and wondering about upsetting someones religious thinking ALL the time, we would not have had the scientific break throughs we have had in medical science so far ... I think debates are well and good on this subject but why do we need to consider religion in it? What about those who don't believe, don't they have a right to make decisions without the god card being thrown in?

 

[The Instructor]

I would like to donate my whole body to medical research, when Im gone.
My view may change though as I get older, but thats how I feel about it right now.

 

But, should they have the right to trample over others beliefs, just because they see things in a purely scientific way ??

It will always come down to religion, as religion is such an important part of our society as a whole (rightly or wrongly). You ought to see the things that have been banned over here, all in the name of religion

To me personally, I see myself as nothing but a piece of meat, with some organs steering it. That is not everyone elses way though, and I have no right to trample their views, as I reserve the right to prevent them from ignoring mine.

 

[Gillie]

I am not asking for peoples views to not be aired and listened to, however, to state that its immoral to take things from dead bodies, and then bring the religion card in, makes me think back to the good old days ... I mean without the good old bodysnatchers of a century ago how the hell would we understand the workings of the human body?

To make progress sometimes we have to challenge the stereotypes and push the boundaries ...

 

[stugster]

I can't understand why they'd keep her on a ventilator if there was no blood circulation? If there was no pulse, and no heart beating... why keep the respiration on?

Something smells! And it's not me!


"However, Thomas was kept on a ventilator a little while longer as an organ donor issue was discussed."

Great, but what about the oxygenating of all the cells in the body to prevent them dying? Without blood flow, there's no diffusion of O2?

 

[Subbynet]

It doesn't completely add up for me ever.

It comes from the bible bashing hotspot of Ohio, so I have a feeling this story is preaching to the choir and who of course will see this as an act of God.

 

[borobabe]

I can't understand why they'd keep her on a ventilator if there was no blood circulation? If there was no pulse, and no heart beating... why keep the respiration on?

Something smells! And it's not me!


"However, Thomas was kept on a ventilator a little while longer as an organ donor issue was discussed."

Great, but what about the oxygenating of all the cells in the body to prevent them dying? Without blood flow, there's no diffusion of O2?

It does seem a little odd doesn't it. Surely you dont think its a fictional story?

 

[Dizzydiza]

If you are brain dead and there is no pulse your body the reason to ventilate is to keep the blood flowing around the body so that the organ being harvest is in the best condition it can be to transplant otherwise the organ will start to die.
Whose religion prevents their organs from being harvest for donation? ...surely this is a personal decision nothing to do with religion

 

[JamieM]

I know what you are saying Steve but like most people have said this appears to be a really isolated incident.

I have always been really indecisive about registering for organ donation but just a few days ago I heard that my Mum's friend had been lucky enough to have had a kidney transplant. When I realised just how much this will improve her life it made me think again.

I am still undecided at this stage and for that exact reason I think that it should be made compulsory unless you opt out. If you simply can't make up your mind either way then it is surely the sensible way to go.

Gillie I hope things work out for your father.

 

[stugster]

If you are brain dead and there is no pulse your body the reason to ventilate is to keep theg blood flowin around the body so that the organ being harvest is in the best condition it can be to transplant otherwise the organ will start to die.

I was under the impression that a hospital ventilator simply raised and lowered air pressure in the lungs therefore venting the air in and out of the body. A ventilator doesn't do the blood flow at all. For that, you would need to be using a Heart-Lung machine which pumps the oxygenated blood around the body to preserve the cells of all the organs (and therefore keep them alive for future transplant).

Which would lead me to my next point. Assuming the article is incorrect because doctors were in fact using a HL machine, rigor mortis wouldn't set in at all.

Either the story is a lot of crap, or the story is a lot of crap.

 

[Cornish Steve]

it should be made compulsory unless you opt out.

Let me state this another way: Opt-in means the individual is in control of his/her own body. Opt-out means the government is in control of everyone's bodies. To me, this is a matter of individual rights versus "nanny knows best". Sorry, but I trust the government with nothing.

By all means, we can encourage everyone to opt-in; however, it's a very slippery slope to claim that government or 'scientists' or anyone else knows best.

 

[.Spiralling.]

Whose religion prevents their organs from being harvest for donation? ...surely this is a personal decision nothing to do with religion

Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow blood or organ transplants.

I'm undecided on the whole issue. I can see why organ donation is needed, but it makes me feel uneasy, and I can't say why that is exactly. I do know that it feels like something to do with my spiritual beliefs, but I couldn't be more specific than that.

What about those who don't believe, don't they have a right to make decisions without the god card being thrown in?

yes, and they can do that now, just as those with beliefs can do. What you're advocating is giving those who don't believe the right to make decisions for everyone, which is something you don't want believers to be able to do.

Personally, I think the only way forward is to allow individuals the right to make their own decisions, and if people choose to donate, carry a card etc, this decision should be honoured after their death, rather than then asking the permission of a grieving family who may or may not agree, and who may not be in a position emotionally to make that decision.

I don't think any one group of people should be allowed to decide for the whole population.

 

[stugster]

I'm all for automatic opt-in, and having to opt-out. If people feel that strongly about preserving their organs once they've gone, they should be responsible for filling out the form to say so. The greater good should be the main objective with individual feelings secondary (to a certain degree, in that those that want their organs preserved should make the effort).

It does sound a bit Irish (sorry Mark!), having to fill out a form just to keep your own organs, but the reasons behind it are as sound as they come.

 

[JamieM]

Opt-out means the government is in control of everyone's bodies.

No it doesn't. You would have the control and if you opt out you take your organs with you.

 

[Cornish Steve]

No it doesn't.

Oh yes it does. (Is it pantomime season?)

Opt-out means that when in doubt, because an individual didn't put anything in writing, the government steps in and decides. The needs of the state trump the rights of the individual. Surely the default option should be to respect the individual and require opt-in.

 

[JamieM]

Oh yes it does. (Is it pantomime season?)

Opt-out means that when in doubt, because an individual didn't put anything in writing, the government steps in and decides. The needs of the state trump the rights of the individual. Surely the default option should be to respect the individual and require opt-in.

Well yes that is the point. But you still have the control as you have the option to opt out. It would need to be managed effectively and I think you should also be given an option to specify and restrict use. i.e. only for transplant instead of research etc if you choose.

Think about the amount of organs that are wasted because people can't make a decision or don't get round to it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Think about the amount of organs that are wasted because people can't make a decision or don't get round to it.

But your statement indicates bias. You assume that an organ is 'wasted' if it's not taken by the authorities, and such terminology is revealing. From the perspective of those who believe it's OK to take organs from bodies, organs are wasted if not taken. From the perspective of those who believe organs belong to the individual, they are stolen if taken without permission. Who's right? It depends on whether you believe the individual or society should have the ultimate say. As you can tell, I'm with the individual.

 

[Subbynet]

Oh yes it does. (Is it pantomime season?)

Opt-out means that when in doubt, because an individual didn't put anything in writing, the government steps in and decides. The needs of the state trump the rights of the individual. Surely the default option should be to respect the individual and require opt-in.

The needs of society ALWAYS trump that of the individual. Like John F. Kennedy said "Do not think what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". I've probably paraphrased that incorrectly, but you get the drift.

We have had years of "opt-in", yet we still hear how people wanted to donate, but didn't fill in the card... Or of families with loved ones dying, waiting for the phone call to rush them into hospital for that life saving operation - which as we all know means someone else died to give this chance of life.

The number of people this will actually effect is much lower than the numbers of people who die each day. With only hours to take out, deliver anywhere in the country, and to perform the operation it greatly cuts down the numbers who can be a donor.

If you die in a bad crash, you're unlikely to be a donor due to the time it takes to remove your body. If you die of some diseases you won't be a donor. If you're too old, or too young, again its unlikely...

This is without even thinking about finding blood matches to make it possible for a transplant....

The actual window of finding suitable donors is small, and for all I care they can take anything they wish once I'm dead.

 

[Subbynet]

But your statement indicates bias. You assume that an organ is 'wasted' if it's not taken by the authorities, and such terminology is revealing. From the perspective of those who believe it's OK to take organs from bodies, organs are wasted if not taken. From the perspective of those who believe organs belong to the individual, they are stolen if taken without permission. Who's right? It depends on whether you believe the individual or society should have the ultimate say. As you can tell, I'm with the individual.

A Organ is wasted if its not used... That surely is not in doubt? I mean unless its used quickly, its function as an organ is over, and its now 10lb's of meat.

You've took the position that the government "steals" the organs, this is incorrect, because you have the right to opt-out. So its no secret to you, me, or anyone what will happen when you die so I feel the word "stolen" in this context is wrong.

Its like saying the government have "stolen" my car because I didn't tax it. No, they didn't "steal" it, but because I "opted-out" of paying for tax, society takes a collective action.

With Rights come Responsibilities, and if the system is "opt-out" then you have the responsibility to inform the authorities, and you can do this by speaking to the doctor (if possible), and if not by taking the decision earlier in life and calling the number. I mean the Donor Card has just a few details (Name Address and what to donor) on it, so its not much to ask of someone.

As its currently "Opt-in", if anyone is that booooovered, you can do it:

• By adding your details online on this website - online registration page
• By telephoning the Organ Donor Line on 0845 60 60 400.
• When completing a driving licence application form.
• When registering with a new doctor or GP's surgery.
• When applying for a Boots Advantage Card.
• When applying for a new passport, using the leaflet enclosed with the application form.
• When registering for a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), using the leaflet enclosed with the application form.

I had a card, but I've just stuck myself on the register. If everyone who believed in donating done the same thing hopefully we wouldn't have to change the system to Opt-out.

 

[Cornish Steve]

If everyone who believed in donating done the same thing hopefully we wouldn't have to change the system to Opt-out.

I agree with much of what you say and, if more people take the time to register, opt-in versus opt-out won't be an issue. Plus, much of what you write is true regardless of opt-in or out.

The point remains, though, that individual human beings are the ones that are sacred. Every human life is sacred. The moment we believe that a political structure of some sort carries more moral clout, we're in trouble. This is what led to mass murder in the authoritarian states of the 20th century. For them, life is cheap and serves the greater good of the state. At the most fundamental level, I disagree with that. If ever in doubt, individual choice trumps the state every time. Agreed that opt-out still gives choice, but opt-out is a crucial first step in transferring responsibility for organ harvesting from the individual to the government. It's not such a big step to then get to no opting out.

Can't you hear the argument already? "These organs are wasted. The person is dead, so it's stupid not to take the organs." The numbers in agreement slowly increase. Then the argument becomes "The person is going to die. They are old and have lost their mind anyway. It's stupid to prolong an unproductive life and not to give the organs to someone who is young and has their whole life in front of them." Suddenly this argument becomes reasonable too. The Chinese, for example, whip out the organs of criminals when they are executed. If in need of organs, condemn a few more people to death. At that point, all kinds of scenario become possible.

And the first step in giving the state the right to take control is shifting from opt-in to opt-out. It's a crucial turning point.

 

[Subbynet]

The point remains, though, that individual human beings are the ones that are sacred. Every human life is sacred. The moment we believe that a political structure of some sort carries more moral clout, we're in trouble.

Well... I can understand this - mostly from the Knowing the mind of God thread, so I doubt its surprises you that I have a different opinion.

Obviously life is precious, but is my life any more sacred than that of another? No, not for me... You call is sacred, I call it precious, but what ever you call it the gift of life is the most valuable gift you can give.

This is what led to mass murder in the authoritarian states of the 20th century. For them, life is cheap and serves the greater good of the state.

Steve I have to say that's a comparison not worthy of being spoken by a man with your intellect. The mass murders of previous years are nothing like the donor situation, in fact the complete and utter opposite.

At the most fundamental level, I disagree with that. If ever in doubt, individual choice trumps the state every time. Agreed that opt-out still gives choice, but opt-out is a crucial first step in transferring responsibility for organ harvesting to the government. It's no bigger a step to get to the point where no-one can opt out.

I think it comes down to responsibility, and as such its your responsibility, not the governments, not your families, but yours, to make sure your wishes are documented for after your death.

Like said earlier, this scheme won't be a secret, so how many people will take personal responsibility to make sure their choice of action is done? By means of being a Donor, sorting out a Will, Life Insurance and Funeral Arrangements? How many of us have sat down and properly thought about it before its too late?

Many die knowing these decisions will have to be taken by someone else. (And so many times we've heard - "They wished to donate their organs")

 

[Cornish Steve]

You call is sacred, I call it precious, but what ever you call it the gift of life is the most valuable gift you can give.

Yup. Just terminology. We're in the same boat. The point is that a child born into poverty in Malawi is just as precious as a child born to the richest person on earth. And both are more precious than any government or state or political institution. As state machineries become more powerful, we must take care to protect the rights of individuals.

Steve I have to say that's a comparison not worthy of being spoken by a man with your intellect. The mass murders of previous years are nothing like the donor situation, in fact the complete and utter opposite.

At face value, having to opt out of organ donation appears to have little to do with the disdain for human life displayed by certain regimes in the last century. The principle, though, is very important. Regimes gain such power in small, almost imperceptible, steps. (Didn't you once quote Hitler on this point, or did someone else provide the quote?) Giving the government the benefit of the doubt instead of the individual is a crucial point that shouldn't be taken lightly.

I think it comes down to responsibility, and as such its your responsibility, not the governments, not your families, but yours, to make sure your wishes are documented for after your death.

Agreed, so please don't take away that responsibility by giving government the power. Educate me. Encourage me. Urge me. Make it easy for me. But let me be the one to donate. Don't risk going against my wishes on such an important matter.

 

[Dizzydiza]

I was under the impression that a hospital ventilator simply raised and lowered air pressure in the lungs therefore venting the air in and out of the body. A ventilator doesn't do the blood flow at all. For that, you would need to be using a Heart-Lung machine which pumps the oxygenated blood around the body to preserve the cells of all the organs (and therefore keep them alive for future transplant).

ah....sorry i assumed it was all one machine

Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow blood or organ transplants

I should have know that ....for a few years, many moons ago my ex sis in law was involved with that religion and I remember being in fear of anything happening to her children.

I think I am all for the automatic Opt In so that if anyone felt strongly about it, would then have to Opt out....simply because Im not brave enough to Opt in myself

 

[Gillie]

ah....sorry i assumed it was all one machine



I should have know that ....for a few years, many moons ago my ex sis in law was involved with that religion and I remember being in fear of anything happening to her children.

I think I am all for the automatic Opt In so that if anyone felt strongly about it, would then have to Opt out....simply because Im not brave enough to Opt in myself

You don't have to be brave to opt in ... you will be dead hence they can't ask you for your permission there and then!

Lots of money has recently been spent on bringing this matter to the forefront of everyones mind and whilst it did evoke some response and got some more people signed up etc, its still a mere pittance.

All this talk about it not being moral etc ... can I just throw one thing in then ... is being selfish moral?? As thats in effect what you are doing by not allowing dontation to go ahead ... perhaps opting out is the only way this subject will come to the forefront of everyones minds and make them think about it instead of just 'leaving it to others'!

I do NOT see it as a means of being controlled by government or anyone else, I see it as a means to give back to society when my body is no longer of use to me ....

 

Do they 'ask' for organs in hospitals etc when someone dies? I think this would be a better approach than 'opt-in'. Make it compulsory to 'ask'.

Let's face it, we are run by a government of misfits, freaks and clowns - who the hell wants to give them control over our body parts now as well. This whole world is heading down a route which is starting to look like a cheap Sci-Fi movie as it is.

'opt-in' is the only option which will be acceptable to the majority, no matter how much we discuss it. Take a poll amongst ordinary people (as opposed to the business community on here), who don't really think too much about this subject, and they'll tell you that they are not going to be happy with the gov't (or whoever) having direct control over their body parts. The majority would not bother to 'opt-out' if it came to it, and there would be all sorts of horror stories when they realised their loved ones were about to go under the knife because they didn't fill in a form at some stage.

When we roll this all back 'for the greater good', does nobody accept that we are all going to die eventually, and this should not be looked at as an exercise in extending our populations life (that brings its own problems)? We need to ensure that we are discussing this for those who are actually 'needy' and who are having a 'life-saving' op, rather than a 'life-extending' op.

We also need to be sure that the technology, once it is fully developed by science, is not then used by large companies to create the whole 'designer baby' fiasco, along with god knows what else.

As I said before - I would never want a transplant, but I am happy to give any bits of me that are necessary to those who may need it. Nobody is going to tell me they are taking them though, without me specifically saying that they can - otherwise I am going to come back and bloody haunt you !!

On a serious note however - take this situation..... I have a close relative who dies, but did not fill in the forms to 'opt-out'. I know for a fact they did not want their organs given out, as I know they had a phobia of some sort about it (or whatever). You tell me at the hospital that they have passed away, and I am at a pretty low-ebb. Then I find out that you are about to take organs from their body. I ask that this is not done, and am told that the relative did not 'opt-out'. I tell you that I knew they would not have wanted this, but the gov't now have control.... In this situation, I am likely to hurt some of your nearby staff I'm afraid, because I am always going to put the wishes of my relative first, even if they did forget to post a form or suchlike.

 

[Gillie]

So who defines what a life saving operation/transplant is and who says its not a life extending one?

At what age are we expected to just roll over and say, hey life has been good to me, its given me years and years of pain and no quality of life, but heck I am a certain age now and shouldn't expect anything out of this life anymore??

What about those who have had illnesses all of their life yet medical 'science' has managed to prolong their life as much as they can and the only and next step is transplant?

This debate has raged about rights and letting someone else make a decision for you about taking your organs now that you are dead, yet you want to make a decision not to help others live, and say this is moral??

I honestly think that by making it opt out ... the debate WILL come to the forefront and people will stop and think about it, and only this way can be move forward and make people aware!

 

[vitalchip]

Absolute nonsense, NOBODY has the right to decide that an individual should be carved up after death and used for spare parts for someone else.

All this 'right to opt out' is a ridiculous notion, what else? will I have to sign an opt out to stop the government selling my clothes and emptying my wallet as well? maybe they'll sell my car by auction in the hospital car park?

No, Never.

For the record they can have MY organs if they like, I won't have any use for them but I will not sit here and make that decision for someone else, in country and a world where our choices are increasingly shaped and controlled by governments we should at least allow people the final say over the one single thing that's truly ours.

 

[Subbynet]

All this 'right to opt out' is a ridiculous notion, what else? will I have to sign an opt out to stop the government selling my clothes and emptying my wallet as well? maybe they'll sell my car by auction in the hospital car park?

Well, actually yes, its called a Will.

 

[Gillie]

Absolute nonsense, NOBODY has the right to decide that an individual should be carved up after death and used for spare parts for someone else.

All this 'right to opt out' is a ridiculous notion, what else? will I have to sign an opt out to stop the government selling my clothes and emptying my wallet as well? maybe they'll sell my car by auction in the hospital car park?

No, Never.

For the record they can have MY organs if they like, I won't have any use for them but I will not sit here and make that decision for someone else, in country and a world where our choices are increasingly shaped and controlled by governments we should at least allow people the final say over the one single thing that's truly ours.

Just a tad overly dramatic!! Do you really think that the powers that be don't already know everything about you and what you do?? Are you really that niaive?

So then I take it you are now heading over to the organ donation site and signing up, being the wonderfully understanding human you are??

 

[vitalchip]

I fail to see what this has to do with 'the powers' knowing anything at all about me? I don't see the connection and I certainly never mentioned anything about who knows what. I'm talking about peoples rights.

It's got nothing to do with drama, you can play it up for that if it helps but really you're proposing to give away the rights of others by proxy and that's just plain wrong.

Besides the primary issue there's a nasty practical side to all of this.. just exactly how would it work? I'm in a car accident, pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital and as is always the case, time is of the essence.. So how would the doctors know if I'd opted out? Would I have to get a tattoo on my arm or would I need to carry my 'papers' about with me at all times, ready for inspection? No, no thanks, that's a dark wedge right there and I won't help to drive it in.

 

[Subbynet]

I hate talking about "rights", its always a poor basis for an argument because its so hard to pin down.

Basically your "rights" are what society decides.

I'm talking about peoples rights.

It's got nothing to do with drama, you can play it up for that if it helps but really you're proposing to give away the rights of others by proxy and that's just plain wrong.

No its not... Its proposing that you get off your ass and plan for your death - like it or not you will die, its the only certain thing to happen.

Besides the primary issue there's a nasty practical side to all of this.. just exactly how would it work? I'm in a car accident, pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital and as is always the case, time is of the essence.. So how would the doctors know if I'd opted out? Would I have to get a tattoo on my arm or would I need to carry my 'papers' about with me at all times, ready for inspection? No, no thanks, that's a dark wedge right there and I won't help to drive it in.

No, if you're in a car accident you're unlikely to be a donor - hence why the numbers which can be donors are so small. And just to answer your question, how would they know? Well, hopefully you've bothered yourself to signup to the register (link provided earlier). So they would just check your details, which takes seconds.

Its up to you, but to speak of "rights" without speaking of "responsibilities" is never a good thing.

 

[vitalchip]

Sorry, I disagree, planning for the inevitable is a sensible enough thing, which is exactly why we have an 'opt-in' register and it should stay that way. If I want to donate my organs ( and I do ) then I'll sign up ( and I have ) but it shouldn't be forced upon anyone.

We should highlight the issue more, we should have doctors telling people about it when they go for a checkup, we should have booths in supermarkets.. whatever. It's a great idea.

'My rights are what society decides' - true, so will we have a vote before we implement this opt-out system? If we implement it and over 50% opt out, will we abandon it? Or we could just do the right thing and let people make up their own minds, like adults.

We should NOT require people to opt-out, it's wrong. If you get your electricity from Scottish Power and then a bill from Powergen drops through the door.. would you accept that they had signed you up to them because they had put an opt-out box on their website and you hadn't gone and ticked it? Doubtful.

It's always going to be an emotive issue, how nice that we have the right to air our opinions in public, enjoy it before some idiot opts you out of that right too.

 

[Subbynet]

Well... All I can say is...

I want a new tick box in the register form... This part of the form will allow me not to donate to anyone who isn't prepared (and registered) to donate themselves.

 

[Stonelaughter]

The proposed changes to the organ donor system have nothing to do with "compulsory" organ donation; they are to do with the default state. Currently, you are not a donor unless you opt in. The changes being bandied about are to make you "opted in" unless you specifically opt out. Personally I don't think that many people would bother to opt out; and what would your quality of life be after being brain dead for 17 hours? The brain damage would be extensive after starvation of oxygen for so long - I wouldn't WANT to come back to life.

No - I would be more than happy to be opted in - and as far as people who want to opt out are concerned, once I'm dead I'm happily altruistic enough to not care whether the beneficiary of my organs has opted out or not - why should I care? I'd be dead!!

 

[vitalchip]

Well... All I can say is...

I want a new tick box in the register form... This part of the form will allow me not to donate to anyone who isn't prepared (and registered) to donate themselves.

I think that's very fair. I'm all for individual choice.