NHS considering giving those on the organ donation list transplant priority

Among other things like stopping families overriding the wishes of the deceased.

I think this is a brilliant idea that should hopefully encourage more people to register. Thoughts?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23260057

Reply 1

james22

16

This is only a good thing, if you don't like the idea of donating organs you shouldn't like the idea of recieving them either. Also this should encourage more people to sign up.

Reply 2

Hopple

18

I agree with ignoring families trying to override someone's wishes with regards to donation, but how would giving donors higher priority work? Presumably people would still be able to change their mind, so what would stop someone from agreeing to donate then withdrawing after they get their new organ(s)? Perhaps higher priority the longer someone has been on the register for, but then you disadvantage youngsters who haven't had the opportunity to be around as long.

Reply 3

MissMedicine

1

I think this is a good idea. However I think that England should follow Wales-people will naturally be on the organ donation list unless they opt out.

Reply 4

SebMurphy

17

Original post by MissMedicine

I think this is a good idea. However I think that England should follow Wales-people will naturally be on the organ donation list unless they opt out.

I think it's a better idea than the opt out system. The whole "my body does not belong to the state" argument is quite convincing from a Human Rights perspective.

That being said, I do support the opt out system and would be glad to see it implemented.

Reply 5

The_Duck

7

An interesting incentive. However I would still prefer to see a stricter sense such as an opt-out system or just compulsory donorship.

Reply 6

CamH

1

Yeah this is better than the current system for sure. As others have said I'd prefer the opt-out system though, ideally both.

Reply 7

Captain Crash

9

Original post by Hopple

I agree with ignoring families trying to override someone's wishes with regards to donation, but how would giving donors higher priority work? Presumably people would still be able to change their mind, so what would stop someone from agreeing to donate then withdrawing after they get their new organ(s)? Perhaps higher priority the longer someone has been on the register for, but then you disadvantage youngsters who haven't had the opportunity to be around as long.

A similar system is in place in Israel, and the potential problem you highlight doesn't seem to happen.

Reply 8

DoubleYikes

I disagree with selective donor giving. It should not matter what the persons view on donation is, if they wish to receive a transplant, then the NHS, which everyone pays equally into (based on income tax) should not show selective behavior. That's when corruption starts to creep in and this in fact is a form of bribery. What next, those who don't give charity should not be allowed cancer treatment?

I understand the point of view that if you don't want to give, why should you want to receive. This is not the fundamentals the NHS should be built upon. Giving and receiving should not be as one. i.e You should not give to receive. The person who has been on the list longest and/or needs the transplant soonest should always take priority. I certainly would not wish for my organs to be given to someone who would also donate over a person who does not wish to donate, but is in more needy or of a transplant or has been on the waiting list longer. This ideology, if anything will put me of donating.

We could apply the giving to receive theory to lots of situations in life.

At the same time as saying the above, I think most people who would accept a donor would also donate.

Reply 9

Brachioradialis

18

1) Selfish enough to not want to donate your organs? Why should you then be able to receive one? Double standards are not acceptable.
2) Opt-out is probably outdated as an idea -- very few people die with viable organs for transplant.

Reply 10

RtGOAT

12

What a silly idea. Incredibly counter intuitive.

You want those on the donor list to die sooner so you can scavange their organs. Why help them live longer?

Reply 11

guitardad

10

Original post by RtGOAT

What a silly idea. Incredibly counter intuitive.

You want those on the donor list to die sooner so you can scavange their organs. Why help them live longer?

I think you've got the wrong idea.

If the the patient wasn't willing to to donate their organs to help others, why should they expect to receive organs from people who are willing to donate them?

Reply 12

bertstare

6

Original post by RtGOAT

What a silly idea. Incredibly counter intuitive.

You want those on the donor list to die sooner so you can scavange their organs. Why help them live longer?

Lol was waiting for this response

Reply 13

Brachioradialis

18

Original post by bertstare

Lol was waiting for this response

It's so depressingly common through British society too. How can people truly be that thick?

Reply 14

thegodofgod

19

Original post by SebMurphy

I think it's a better idea than the opt out system. The whole "my body does not belong to the state" argument is quite convincing from a Human Rights perspective.

That being said, I do support the opt out system and would be glad to see it implemented.

I really despise this argument (if you can even call it that) as it is simply not true. If it were true, that would mean that you would not have the right to opt out of automatic organ donation, which, clearly, isn't the case.

By having an opt-out system, people who really wouldn't want to donate their organs, for whatever reason, would be able to do so, whereas those, who wouldn't really mind either way, would have their organs automatically donated if they were to die in circumstances 'favourable' (for lack of a better word) towards organ donation.

However, with the current system, people, who really don't want to donate their organs, do not sign up and neither do those who don't mind donating their organs, because there's no natural incentive to sign up to the donor list.

So in conclusion, the new opt-out system would only be a positive to society.

Reply 15

Farm_Ecology

12

Original post by DaveSmith99

Among other things like stopping families overriding the wishes of the deceased.

I think this is a brilliant idea that should hopefully encourage more people to register. Thoughts?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23260057

I definitely think that families should not be able to override the wishes of the deceased, thats a given.

However, I am not very keen on the idea of giving organ donors priority. Sure, it would would increase donors, but there are multiple reasons why someone isn't on the donor list, most often due to unawareness of apathy. I know very few people that would be unhappy about donating their organs, but almost no one that is on the register.

Frankly, I think the opt-out system in wales would be better. But honestly, I would prefer that everyone were on the register, with no option to opt-out.

There are no ill effects from having your organs harvested, and superstitious nonsense is irrelevant in the face of a human life.

Original post by Algorithm69

Your argument is crap, quite honestly, and does nothing to dispel my believe that an opt-out system would mean my body belongs to the State. You've only argued that my body would belong to the State unless I specifically tell them otherwise. Well gee whizz, that makes it all better. This country is a libertarian's dream land in that case, huh?

I think the issue of "my body does not belong to the state" is a moot argument anyway. When you die, your body is no longer yours.

Reply 16

thegodofgod

19

Original post by Algorithm69

Your argument is crap, quite honestly, and does nothing to dispel my believe that an opt-out system would mean my body belongs to the State. You've only argued that my body would belong to the State unless I specifically tell them otherwise. Well gee whizz, that makes it all better. This country is a libertarian's dream land in that case, huh?

If you can't put a proper argument together, don't bother trying to dispute mine.

I have clearly stated above that the state does not own your body, because you have the option to opt-out from donation. Simple.

Reply 17

thegodofgod

19

Original post by Algorithm69

I did dispute you. You have simply repeated your ill-founded argument again. Where in your brain does having the option to opt-out mean the State does not own your body until they are forced to relinquish control of it?

Okay, let's go back to the basics.

Do you agree that you have the right to opt-out, meaning that you do not have to donate your organs against your wish?

Do you agree that more people would be on the organ donation register than currently if the opt-out system were introduced, as opposed to the current opt-in system?

Therefore, do you agree the more organs would be available for donation to those who really need them?

Therefore, do you agree that more lives would be saved?

If you answer 'Yes' to all of the questions, you have no credible argument left.

Reply 18

thegodofgod

19

Original post by Algorithm69

Actually, your leading questions mean absolutely jack****, and your argument is shallow and superficial. The fact that this system would mean more organs were available, and that more lives would be saved, is quite honestly irrelevant. We're arguing whether the ends justify the means. My libertarian brain, with it's emphasis on individual liberty and a small State, say they absolutely do not. You have to take the good with the bad when it comes to freedom I'm afraid. I'll take freedom any day of the week. You obviously wouldn't.

You're not going to budge from your viewpoint, are you?

I'm out of here now - I won't bother wasting my time arguing against someone who clearly doesn't understand the system.

Reply 19

Farm_Ecology

12

Original post by Algorithm69

I find your blatant disregard for individual rights pretty sickening to be honest. I don't even want to waste my time to debate you. The fact that you would prefer a system where nobody could stop their organs being harvested is probably the biggest encroachment on individual rights I've heard in a long time. Your totalitarian state sounds wonderful.

Individual rights have nothing to do with it. Rights do not extend beyond yourself, and once you are dead, your body is no longer yourself.

We all live in a society, we take from that society and we give to that society. As long as we are part of it, we cannot simply stop giving back the moment we don't like it. While other citizens or the state do not have a right to the deceased's body, property rights of the deceased are no longer relevant as they are dead. Thus, while the family (or the deceased) may have had qualms about organ harvesting, the life of another human trumps said qualms.

Unfounded superstitious nonsense should only be tolerated so far. The moment someones life is at stake,those beliefs go out the window.

While it may not be pretty, such as system would be saving lives at the expense of offending idiocy.

(edited 10 years ago)

NHS considering giving those on the organ donation list transplant priority

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you