This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B835 - Organ Donor Bill 2015, the Hon. RotatingPhasor MP, seconded by the Rt. Hon. RayApparently MP, the Hon. adam9317 MP, the Hon. thehistorybore MP
Image
Organ Donor Bill 2015
A Bill that aims to increase the number of organs available for transplant[/CENTER]

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty,in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1: Definitions
(1) Organ donor: A person who is registered on the organ donor list or who has previously donated an organ.
(2) Exempted group: The exempted group is anyone under the age of 19 or someone who is not able to donate organs due to extenuating circumstances.

2: Priority of Organ Transplants
(1) Anyone who is an organ donor or a member of the Exempted group will be given higher priority in receiving organs.
(2) By higher priority what is meant is that those who are given higher priority will be given organs before anyone who is not in this group.
(3) If the person is over the age of 19 they must have been on the organ donor list for at least 3 months before being given priority over people who are not organ donors.

3: Family
(1) In the event of death, the family of the deceits may not prevent the deceased’s organs from being extracted if the deceased is on the organ donor list.
(2) Any family member who prevents organ extraction will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000.

4: Opt Out
(1) As soon as a person turns 18 they will be automatically put on the organ donor list with a letter being sent to their address at least a month before this to make them aware of this.
(2) The person will be given the option to remove themselves from the organ donor list a month before they turn 18 and onwards.

5: Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Organ Donor Bill 2015.
(2) This Act shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force 12 months after the bill has come into effect.

Notes: In this country we have a large shortage of organs for transplant, some people expect an organ when they are in a life threatening situation however not many people are actually on the organ donor list. It is believed that this bill will add fairness to the system and encourage people to register for the organ donor list. It also seems unfair that a family can overrule the wishes of a deceased.


NB. Apologies if there are any mistakes between the Hon. and the Rt. Hon. Just let me know and I'll correct OP accordingly.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
In realationship to the family, what if they belive that the person had opted out? Also is it then possible that people who did opt out would be put on by people who have power for money or something?
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Aye.
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Aph)
In realationship to the family, what if they belive that the person had opted out? Also is it then possible that people who did opt out would be put on by people who have power for money or something?
It is the person who is on the donor list's responsibility to make their family aware of it, but this should be considered almost like a will. Even if a family believes someone changes their mind on who gets inheritance the will will still be the document that is acted upon rather than speculation by family as far as I'm aware.

Also I assume in the second part you're talking about corruption which I have no real comment on.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
How do you define 'extenuating circumstances'?
0
It's a Shame
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Nay.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by RotatingPhasor)
It is the person who is on the donor list's responsibility to make their family aware of it, but this should be considered almost like a will. Even if a family believes someone changes their mind on who gets inheritance the will will still be the document that is acted upon rather than speculation by family as far as I'm aware.

Also I assume in the second part you're talking about corruption which I have no real comment on.
But there could be an error in the system and they did withdraw but the system says they didn't and yes corruption.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Going to abstain for now, wouild like assurance that the opt out is clearly advertised as an option rather than having another debacle like with affiliated unions. Also, I would like to see priority also given to people who need donations for reasons other than lifestyle choices, unless this is already the case, although this might be better for a separate bill.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Burford99)
How do you define 'extenuating circumstances'?
I would assume medical or religious grounds, but assumptions are not good enough
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Burford99)
How do you define 'extenuating circumstances'?
Any circumstance in which a person would normally not be able to donate an organ such as being HIV positive etc.
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Going to abstain for now, wouild like assurance that the opt out is clearly advertised as an option rather than having another debacle like with affiliated unions. Also, I would like to see priority also given to people who need donations for reasons other than lifestyle choices, unless this is already the case, although this might be better for a separate bill.
At the moment I just made this bill to encourage donations rather than change the way we priorities donations which don't encourage donation so it probably would be better in another bill.

The information will be given a month before they're put on the register and it would be advertised sufficiently outside of that too. I didn't think specific methods of advertising were required in the bill as it would be assumed that information would be given that is reasonable.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Aph)
In realationship to the family, what if they belive that the person had opted out? Also is it then possible that people who did opt out would be put on by people who have power for money or something?
There is a register of donors so the family can be proven right or wrong.


However, I can't support this bill, in particular section 2.
0
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Aye, I like this bill a lot.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
There is a register of donors so the family can be proven right or wrong.


However, I can't support this bill, in particular section 2.
Further consideration of section 2 has lead me to switch my opinion to nay also, for a start, RotatingPhasor, does the way the bill it written not open up the NHS to lawsuits due to discrimination against those who opt out on religious grounds, even if it is then perhaps hypocritical for them to accept the donation?
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by RotatingPhasor)
Any circumstance in which a person would normally not be able to donate an organ such as being HIV positive etc.
This needs to be defined in the bill, as it's a massive factor.

Apart from that, Aye. Our opt-in system is inefficient.
0
Krollo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
In general this looks reasonable. I will ask, though, to what degree section 2 will apply. Am I to believe that an organ donor a year from death will receive an organ prior to a non-donor in critical condition?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Krollo)
In general this looks reasonable. I will ask, though, to what degree section 2 will apply. Am I to believe that an organ donor a year from death will receive an organ prior to a non-donor in critical condition?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Technically according to the wording of the bill, yes. But I would expect section 2 to not really come into effect as if we have what I expect to be most of the population on the organ donor list there should be such an excess that it won't really matter.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
'Nay'.

It should be opt in.
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Further consideration of section 2 has lead me to switch my opinion to nay also, for a start, RotatingPhasor, does the way the bill it written not open up the NHS to lawsuits due to discrimination against those who opt out on religious grounds, even if it is then perhaps hypocritical for them to accept the donation?
As you said I believe it is hypocritical; but from a non legal perspective religious I do not believe religious people should be exempt from the laws. Furthermore this is not direct discrimination such as 'if you are christian you are higher on the list and muslims are lower on the list', so I would not expect this to be an issue.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by RotatingPhasor)
As you said I believe it is hypocritical; but from a non legal perspective religious I do not believe religious people should be exempt from the laws. Furthermore this is not direct discrimination such as 'if you are christian you are higher on the list and muslims are lower on the list', so I would not expect this to be an issue.
It's fairly direct indirect discrimination, they are being made to wait for longer on the basis that their religion says that they should not do this and they follow through with that, therefore they are being penalised for their religious beliefs. The hypocrisy, I would say, is largely irrelevant, particularly in the public eye, saying that though, to my knowledge, the groups this would apply to are the ones where the community opinion bias would have people shouting about the hypocrisy and that they should be banned from taking a donation if they opt out on religious grounds and whatever else.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (64)
14.81%
I'm not sure (16)
3.7%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (145)
33.56%
I have already dropped out (7)
1.62%
I'm not a current university student (200)
46.3%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed