Turn on thread page Beta

Should organ donation be made compulsory with an oupt out option int the UK? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History-Student)
    If it's an opt out system, your NHS tax covers organ transplant by default.

    If you choose to opt out, you don't get a discount in your tax; it's your choice to do so, knowing that you won't get one. If your organs mean that much to you then you have to live with paying relatively more tax than others.
    but then a cruel hierarchy will be established wouldn't it? that would mean a lot f eople will be on the st just because they don't want o pay more tax
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sellasi6290)
    but then a cruel hierarchy will be established wouldn't it? that would mean a lot f eople will be on the st just because they don't want o pay more tax
    What? :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slacker07906)
    Ok...well say that on your death bed.
    best believe I will babes
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    :confused:



    Why? It's not like you will know any different when you are dead.
    you're right i won't know any different it's just a personal preference and so no one can go i'm selfish because it's not your problem, if i knew you personally and you needed an organ that i could live without like parts of m liver o a kidney best believe I would get tested and if i am a match i'd give it to you, living donation to me is cool but once i'm dead leave me alone
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    That is the current system is Spain and it is very successful so I think that it should be given a chance in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sellasi6290)
    here's a fun tip people with HIV and hepatitis c can donate their oragns
    They can, but that doesn't mean they get used in transplants.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rylit91)
    So the Govt now own everyone's bodies? Having an opt out option would only be an increase in petty bureaucracy.
    It would get more donors. Plenty of people just don't care, so wouldn't bother to remove themselves just like they can't be bothered to add themselves. Has worked elsewhere in Europe.

    And they wouldn't own them, the government would have nothing to do with it plus it would be assumed consent rather than ownership.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Which is why I mentioned the paperwork involved.

    See above. If someone ****s up the paperwork or wrongly labels organs then I can see people getting up in arms about it.
    Well, do you think they keep the unhealthy organs? I have never heard of a case where a patient were given a wrong labelled organs. Also, I'm sure a surgeon can identify if there is something wrong with the organ from the appearance of it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Does anyone have anything to say about this point?

    I would imagine that the organs would be "inspected" before being used for transplants.
    But it could also create a hell of a lot of paperwork.
    Really though?

    Organs would, of course, be inspected - patient history, how they died, visual, bloods etc. But this is no different to now, just we would have a few more organs available. The extra paperwork would only be that we have more organs available!

    (remember that you can opt in when you get your driver's licence, you tick what you don't mind being taken, it's not like its a complicated medical exam!)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shuvel)
    Bar religion and the emotional distress for certain organs like someone feeling uncomfortable that someone would be using their eyes, I don't think there is really a good arguement..

    "Oh sorry sir, the car crash has critically damaged some of your internal organs and we have several hundred matches from recently deceased persons....but no-one opted in for organ donation so...yeah...enjoy your last few painful hours."
    haha not sure that this would be a situation where a transplant was used

    but I agree with the sentiment...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. I want my default right to be 'no one take my organs after death' rather than 'they can take my organs if I don't say they can't'. I'm wholly against assumed consent and think it is a wrong thing.

    And I am on the organ donors register by choice at the moment.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think you should only be able to recieve if you're willing to give...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananacake14)
    I think you should only be able to receive if you're willing to give...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slacker07906)
    But if people are going to donate an organ to me, then it would be selfish for me to refuse it when millions of people are waiting for one :cool:
    No it wouldn't, if you chose to not have the organ, they're not going to throw it away, it will go to someone else who does want it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hslt)
    Really though?

    Organs would, of course, be inspected - patient history, how they died, visual, bloods etc. But this is no different to now, just we would have a few more organs available. The extra paperwork would only be that we have more organs available!

    (remember that you can opt in when you get your driver's licence, you tick what you don't mind being taken, it's not like its a complicated medical exam!)
    Of course, but if not many people opted out of it (for whatever reason; as previously stated, many people would like to be donors but don't sign up due to laziness. I would imagine the reverse of not many people being bothered to opt out to be a "problem" [for lack of a better word]) then there would be more than "a few more" available.

    (Original post by Munchies-YumYum)
    Well, do you think they keep the unhealthy organs? I have never heard of a case where a patient were given a wrong labelled organs. Also, I'm sure a surgeon can identify if there is something wrong with the organ from the appearance of it.
    Of course. But again, the problem arises when there are plenty of organs, could it turn into a "too much of a good thing" situation?
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea, but I'm feeling pessimistic this evening hence my doubts
    You've never heard of such a case, but I bet it has happened. And I can see it happening if someone is having an off day at work and isn't doing their job properly. Organs don't have to be incredibly visually ****ed up in order to have something wrong with them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would consider it selfish and irrational to seriously care about what gets done with the chunk of meat (that has the potential to save some lives) you leave behind once you die. But hey, you can opt out if you wanna be an *******. Good news is, you won't have to look in to the eye of the person who's life you might have saved, coz you'll be too busy being dead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Of course. But again, the problem arises when there are plenty of organs, could it turn into a "too much of a good thing" situation?
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea, but I'm feeling pessimistic this evening hence my doubts
    You've never heard of such a case, but I bet it has happened. And I can see it happening if someone is having an off day at work and isn't doing their job properly. Organs don't have to be incredibly visually ****ed up in order to have something wrong with them.
    Yeah, you're right. I guess anything can happen. But isn't that how doctor identify problems through visual means. I once went to the hospital because I was throwing up in the mornings then they put a camera in my mouth down to my stomach to check it visually and remember that surgeons have atleast 12 years of study to go through.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Munchies-YumYum)
    Yeah, you're right. I guess anything can happen. But isn't that how doctor identify problems through visual means. I once went to the hospital because I was throwing up in the mornings then they put a camera in my mouth down to my stomach to check it visually and remember that surgeons have atleast 12 years of study to go through.
    Yeah I know, but mistakes can be made. (Again with the pessimism) Say for example that the doctor had missed something; it would cause the public to question why they've been forced to give up their organs in the first place (I say that loosely because the opt-out option will still be there), plus raise concerns about the efficiency of the doctors who study the organs.
    Which would lead to lots more paperwork and studies and surveys and inquests and general time/money wasting.
    I admit that the points I've been coming up with have been unlikely scenarios, but that's what they were meant to be; nothing more than possibilities.

    Also, I have to ask: could you feel the camera moving through you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustMee)
    I would consider it selfish and irrational to seriously care about what gets done with the chunk of meat (that has the potential to save some lives) you leave behind once you die. But hey, you can opt out if you wanna be an *******. Good news is, you won't have to look in to the eye of the person who's life you might have saved, coz you'll be too busy being dead.
    thank God for that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Yeah I know, but mistakes can be made. (Again with the pessimism) Say for example that the doctor had missed something; it would cause the public to question why they've been forced to give up their organs in the first place (I say that loosely because the opt-out option will still be there), plus raise concerns about the efficiency of the doctors who study the organs.
    Which would lead to lots more paperwork and studies and surveys and inquests and general time/money wasting.
    I admit that the points I've been coming up with have been unlikely scenarios, but that's what they were meant to be; nothing more than possibilities.

    Also, I have to ask: could you feel the camera moving through you?
    I have read in the BBC that once a patient was given an organ from a 30 year old smoker. She died after several months though, she had no idea that she was given the organ of a smoker. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10307324 searched it out for you.

    Yeah, I could feel the hosepipe moving. It was very uncomfortable and painful. But that was my choice, the doctor told me he could do it either with me being awake or give something to make me sleep during the procedure. I took this pain in order to get out of the hospital earlier, haha. After that he told me that an organ had a weird shape, and that I have a kind of virus. Luckily I don't vomit anymore in the mornings.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.