Chief Medical Officer proposes &#x27;opt out&#x27; organ donation system.

DrunkHamster

Not really - I'm well aware the donation rate will probably go up (but then the donation rate would go up if we harvested organs from people with life sentences. Doesn't make it a good thing...) I'm just saying it's by no means certain, and I could see this policy really backfiring if the rate didn't change but increased resentment.

I'd rather take the chance in hope that some lives are saved rather than wonder after it's too late.

Reply 62

RetiredAccount89

18

One of the things people here don't seem to take into account is one of the central fears that often causes people to not become a donor - that if they became ill/were in an accident their life may be cut short in order for organ donation - i.e. that even though they had a chance to live their life support may be turned off and donation occur.

Reply 63

Jamie

One of the things people here don't seem to take into account is one of the central fears that often causes people to not become a donor - that if they became ill/were in an accident their life may be cut short in order for organ donation - i.e. that even though they had a chance to live their life support may be turned off and donation occur.

That's very very unlikely to happen. One life won't be taken to save another.

Reply 64

L i b

19

The_Adarshster

So a little girl has to die just because some grumpy chav didn't give a ****** ?

Yep.

I suppose if the matter was immediate, it could be argued on the basis of necessity - but I still think it's theft and thus wrong.

Reply 65

L i b

19

Tomber

But having it that way results in the preventable deaths of thousands of people, it doesn't make sense. I don't think that this can be compared to filling out a taxation form or anything.

Well, apparently your taxes go towards saving lives, keeping terrorists at bay and stopping the French from making fun of us - all very important.

Equally there are very few people who don't consider their own little causes 'very important' - indeed, that was the phrase used by a chap in town today who wished to discuss my immortal soul. End of the day, I'll be the one who decides who important something is - I don't need the government doing it for me.

Reply 66

Libertin du Nord

Yep.

I suppose if the matter was immediate, it could be argued on the basis of necessity - but I still think it's theft and thus wrong.

Most people would rather save a life than care about a dead body. You don't, but hey, people have different views.

Reply 67

L i b

19

The_Adarshster

Most people would rather save a life than care about a dead body. You don't, but hey, people have different views.

Don't act the bloody arse.

If most people cared and wanted it, they'd choose it.

I care about morality before life, yes. I'm sure we could make people live longer by prescribing what they eat, what they do, where they go and who they associate with.

I've not decided whether I want to give my organs etc away or not yet. So don't even think about trying to reflect this moral decision back on my own beliefs.

Reply 68

RetiredAccount89

18

The_Adarshster

That's very very unlikely to happen. One life won't be taken to save another.

yes, but the person on the street is not typically aware of that.
and to be fair its not that far fetched.

Reply 69

Libertin du Nord

Don't act the bloody arse.

If most people cared and wanted it, they'd choose it.

I care about morality before life, yes. I'm sure we could make people live longer by prescribing what they eat, what they do, where they go and who they associate with.

I've not decided whether I want to give my organs etc away or not yet. So don't even think about trying to reflect this moral decision back on my own beliefs.

What's your point? Most people do actually want it. The rest of your post is irrelevant; I don't know what you're trying to say. You may care about morality before life, many do. It's part of many people's morals to save others lives.

Reply 70

Jamie

yes, but the person on the street is not typically aware of that.
and to be fair its not that far fetched.

Come on. I think we should trust the doctors on this. If you feel they'd do this, they could do anything. As a patient you have to trust the doctors 100%.

Reply 71

Tomber

I would veer towards the former, because I think the freedoms of the living and suffering are more important then those of the dead.

Go on then.

OK, since you asked so politely:

Scenario 1) Major pileup on the motorway and twenty people are rushed into the nearest hospital for treatment. Doctors are run off their feet. Woman dies and the paperwork is lost or whatever. Doctors remove the organs because it's opt-out and she presumably didn't opt-out. Family find out and their trauma is worse.

Scenario 2) Opt-in scheme, doctors don't find organ donor card and don't take her organs. Family not so upset.

Yes, it might not be as dramatic as life-or-death, but that isn't the point I was making. As I said, there will be some who support this idea because they think the benefits are worthwhile. Others will take the view that regardless of the benefits it is just wrong to take advantage of people to effectively trick them into giving their organs away.

And there will be some who give all sorts of stupid and illogical reasons for one side or the other. One that is beginning to annoy me is the "well, if they don't bother to fill in a form to say no they obviously don't care". This is just pathetic because, as I pointed out, the same is true the other way around and there could be a hundred reasons why a person didn't get round to filling in the form.

My opinion is a simple one: 1) It's wrong to take advantage of people's apathy to get them to do something you want and they don't particularly. 2) It sets the precedent of presupposing agreement to something which could be applied in other cases (drug-testing maybe). 3) It transfers ownership of the organs to the government unless stated.

Reply 72

Scenario 1) Major pileup on the motorway and twenty people are rushed into the nearest hospital for treatment. Doctors are run off their feet. Woman dies and the paperwork is lost or whatever. Doctors remove the organs because it's opt-out and she presumably didn't opt-out. Family find out and their trauma is worse.

Scenario 2) Opt-in scheme, doctors don't find organ donor card and don't take her organs. Family not so upset.

Paperwork is lost ? Presumably? Let's just say that she didn't opt out. She didn't care about what would would happen to her body after she died. She's in charge of her body, not her family. You're bringing a whole new twist into this by bringing family feelings into it.

1) It's wrong to take advantage of people's apathy to get them to do something you want and they don't particularly.

What do you mean they don't? If they didn't want it, they'd have opted out.

What to do in case paperwork is lost can be discussed separately.

Reply 73

The_Adarshster

Paperwork is lost ? Presumably? Let's just say that she didn't opt out. She didn't care about what would would happen to her body after she died. She's in charge of her body, not her family. You're bringing a whole new twist into this by bringing family feelings into it.

What do you mean they don't? If they didn't want it, they'd have opted out.

What to do in case paperwork is lost can be discussed separately.

The "presumably" was the opinion of the doctor who was working under the system of opt-out and would therefore assume that the woman had not opted-out. It refers back to my earlier point about the mistakes that might happen. Under the current system, if in doubt the doctor would assume that the person is not an organ donor. Under the new system the assumption would be reversed that the person is a donor and thus more mistakes will be made resulting in the loss/theft of organs.

On the point of people's preferences in this case. It runs both ways I don't understand why some of you fail so completely to grasp this incredibly simple concept. You say "If they didn't want it they would opt-out" but somehow manage to not see the opposite "If they wanted it they would opt-in". It baffles me that you can miss that.

Under an opt-in system anyone can become a donor by wanting to become one. Under and opt-out system anyone can cease to be a donor by wanting to not be one. The difference between the systems is the people who don't feel strongly either way and therefore don't bother or don't get around to filling in a form. The opt-out system is being proposed purely to enable doctors to take organs from these people. It is a means to harvest organs from people who did not express a desire to have their organs taken. Regardless of how important the result is the simple fact that this system is meant to take organs from people without their proper consent, i.e. without them actually actively wanting it, makes it wrong.

Reply 74

I'm repeating myself over and over. My arguement is that those who feel so strongly that their remains should be kept intact despite the fact the fact that they could prevent another person dying, WILL fill a form.

Reply 75

RetiredAccount89

18

The_Adarshster

Come on. I think we should trust the doctors on this. If you feel they'd do this, they could do anything. As a patient you have to trust the doctors 100%.

I'm a doctor

Reply 76

The_Adarshster

I'm repeating myself over and over. My arguement is that those who feel so strongly that their remains should be kept intact despite the fact the fact that they could prevent another person dying, WILL fill a form.

Yes you are repeating yourself because you somehow again managed to miss the flip-side to your statement even though it has been spelt out again and again:

Those who feel so strongly that their organs should go to another person WILL fill a form.

Do you get it now??

It isn't about the people who feel strongly either way it is about the people who don't feel strongly either way. It is about getting those people who don't care enough to fill in a form to give their organs away without giving proper consent. Opt-out schemes assume consent and rely on lazy people to not do anything. That is why banks and companies use opt-out schemes for things - they know that most people will forget or not bother and they will make money. This is the same it is about tricking people into giving away their organs. It's wrong.

Reply 77

Tomber

OP

13

The_Adarshster

I'm repeating myself over and over. My arguement is that those who feel so strongly that their remains should be kept intact despite the fact the fact that they could prevent another person dying, WILL fill a form.

Yes, this is exactly my position.

Out of interest who here, on both sides of the debate is actually a registered organ doner? If you're not, is that because you have a specific objection to it?

I suppose I should add that I am, though haven't been for long. I wasn't before because I thought my driving licence was sufficient, when I filled in the form for that, turns out it isn't, you have to fill in a specific form.

Reply 78

It isn't about the people who feel strongly either way it is about the people who don't feel strongly either way. It is about getting those people who don't care enough to fill in a form to give their organs away without giving proper consent. Opt-out schemes assume consent and rely on lazy people to not do anything. That is why banks and companies use opt-out schemes for things - they know that most people will forget or not bother and they will make money. This is the same it is about tricking people into giving away their organs. It's wrong

What's wrong with taking the organs away if the guy didn't care either way?

Pros : Saves lives.
Cons : ?

Reply 79