The Student Room Group

Only organ donors should be allowed to receive an organ?

I strongly agree with this. There are moves already being made to prioritise patients who are already organ donors over those who aren't when deciding who deserves an organ. And steps should also be taken to catch out people who sign up just because they anticipate they might need one urgently (I.e. Acute kidney failure), because it's not fair.

There's already very limited resources, those who aren't willing to give should not be allowed to receive. Just my two cents, the opt out system isn't taking the seriousness of transplant shortages far enough.

Edit: and if you're (one of many people) willing to receive an organ but don't want to be an organ donor, what's your reasoning behind it?
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I could see an argument for prioritising those who are signed up to be organ donors, but I'm not sure if I'd go as extreme as saying those who haven't signed up themselves can't receive organs. Maybe if their life wasn't on the line without it, but otherwise that seems somewhat immoral to me.
Original post by shadowdweller
I could see an argument for prioritising those who are signed up to be organ donors, but I'm not sure if I'd go as extreme as saying those who haven't signed up themselves can't receive organs. Maybe if their life wasn't on the line without it, but otherwise that seems somewhat immoral to me.


How is it immoral? Someone else who needs an organ and is on the register is surely a priority over someone who isn't. And you're right, it shouldn't be an absolute but considering that there is very scarce resources, it makes sense to keep it that way?
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
How is it immoral? Someone else who needs an organ and is on the register is surely a priority over someone who isn't. And you're right, it shouldn't be an absolute but considering that there is very scarce resources, it makes sense to keep it that way?


As I said in my post, I can see an argument for prioritising those who are on the register. I was stating the absolute of not allowing those not on the register to receive organs as being immoral :tongue:
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
Someone else who needs an organ and is on the register is surely a priority over someone who isn't.


I assume you'd support people who are excluded from the donor registry (e.g. those who have had cancer that has spread in the past 12 months, or those excluded by age from donating some organs) still being eligible to receive donations? Would these people rank above or below those who have willingly joined the register?
What about children who would willingly join the register but whose parents, who get the final say, won't allow them to?
Finally, do I have to have registered to donate any and all of my organs to receive any in return - e.g. if I've only signed up to donate my corneas, can I get a donor heart valve?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just interested in what you think re: the above.
Original post by radarmaker
I assume you'd support people who are excluded from the donor registry (e.g. those who have had cancer that has spread in the past 12 months, or those excluded by age from donating some organs) still being eligible to receive donations? Would these people rank above or below those who have willingly joined the register?
What about children who would willingly join the register but whose parents, who get the final say, won't allow them to?
Finally, do I have to have registered to donate any and all of my organs to receive any in return - e.g. if I've only signed up to donate my corneas, can I get a donor heart valve?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just interested in what you think re: the above.


The current laws state that people with active infection, malignancy or cardiovascular heart disease and other major co-morbidities are excluded and probably rightly so because they're unlikely to survive such an operation. They would rank below those who are healthy and need an organ.

I support children who would like to join the register against the wishes of their parents if they are deemed gillick competent and have mental capacity to make that decision but the law doesn't allow that at the moment so nothing to say about that. Even the family of fully grown adults who are on the register can decline their child's wishes to donate their organs which needs to change in my opinion.

If you have been generous to be willing to part with any of your organs then you have the right to receive one in return, I'm not advocating a tit for tat ideology with regards to organ donation. Just being generous with the gifts you have to those who may need it should be enough.
Reply 6
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
Edit: and if you're (one of many people) willing to receive an organ but don't want to be an organ donor, what's your reasoning behind it?


Up until recently I gave blood, but now have a bowel disease that means I'm not allowed to. The same thing that prevents me giving blood would probably limit my ability to fulfill my decision to be an organ donor (although I admit, I haven't fully looked into it, I'm still on the register).

It's not an active infection, I'm no worse off day to day than anyone else, and despite your assertions otherwise, I'm no more likely to die in surgery than someone healthy is.

I was perfectly willing to be an organ donor, I specifically signed up to be one. Why should an illness beyond my control prevent me from having a transplant should I need one?
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
I strongly agree with this. There are moves already being made to prioritise patients who are already organ donors over those who aren't when deciding who deserves an organ. And steps should also be taken to catch out people who sign up just because they anticipate they might need one urgently (I.e. Acute kidney failure), because it's not fair.

There's already very limited resources, those who aren't willing to give should not be allowed to receive. Just my two cents, the opt out system isn't taking the seriousness of transplant shortages far enough.

Edit: and if you're (one of many people) willing to receive an organ but don't want to be an organ donor, what's your reasoning behind it?

I think.it would be fair to leave that up to the donor. They can choose to only have their organs donated to other organ donors, or to anyone that desperately needs it
Original post by Drewski
Up until recently I gave blood, but now have a bowel disease that means I'm not allowed to. The same thing that prevents me giving blood would probably limit my ability to fulfill my decision to be an organ donor (although I admit, I haven't fully looked into it, I'm still on the register).

It's not an active infection, I'm no worse off day to day than anyone else, and despite your assertions otherwise, I'm no more likely to die in surgery than someone healthy is.

I was perfectly willing to be an organ donor, I specifically signed up to be one. Why should an illness beyond my control prevent me from having a transplant should I need one?


It shouldn't? If you've got a health reason why you can't give an organ then you shouldn't be excluded. I've got an autoimmune blood condition that prevents me from giving blood too but tbh I'm still on the register, you may need to ask about the specifics of whether or not you're allowed to. I think you should still be allowed to and I think you're probably still medically fit enough to receive an organ.
Original post by cherryred90s
I think.it would be fair to leave that up to the donor. They can choose to only have their organs donated to other organ donors, or to anyone that desperately needs it


No I don't think so, because people do not understand the serious lack of organs available out there. If we leave it up to the donor then we may leave lots of things up to the donor for example, they may only want to donate to someone of the same race or someone who supports their favourite football team. The government needs to step in and develop an incentive for being an organ donor.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
No I don't think so, because people do not understand the serious lack of organs available out there. If we leave it up to the donor then we may leave lots of things up to the donor for example, they may only want to donate to someone of the same race or someone who supports their favourite football team. The government needs to step in and develop an incentive for being an organ donor.


theres a serious lack of organs so your solution is to limit that even more by only allowing organs to be donated to other organ donors? I think that's unfair for you to decide who gets their organ. You're not allowing them to save lives because you want more people to become donors
Original post by cherryred90s
theres a serious lack of organs so your solution is to limit that even more by only allowing organs to be donated to other organ donors? I think that's unfair for you to decide who gets their organ. You're not allowing them to save lives because you want more people to become donors


But the issue would easily be rectified if the incentive was there, meaning far more people would sign up to be organ donors. If someone wasn't on the register for one of many silly reasons like they "just haven't gotten round to it", then the threat of not receiving one if they needed it would persuade them to sign up.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
It shouldn't? If you've got a health reason why you can't give an organ then you shouldn't be excluded. I've got an autoimmune blood condition that prevents me from giving blood too but tbh I'm still on the register, you may need to ask about the specifics of whether or not you're allowed to. I think you should still be allowed to and I think you're probably still medically fit enough to receive an organ.


But you're telling me that if I'm not on the donor list I shouldn't be allowed to receive one, or at least shouldn't be first choice.

Why? It's not my fault that I might not be allowed to donate myself.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
But the issue would easily be rectified if the incentive was there, meaning far more people would sign up to be organ donors. If someone wasn't on the register for one of many silly reasons like they "just haven't gotten round to it", then the threat of not receiving one if they needed it would persuade them to sign up.

I suppose so, but don't you think you should take the feelings of the actual donor into consideration too? They may have decided to become a donor simply because they want to help, not because they want something in return
Original post by Drewski
But you're telling me that if I'm not on the donor list I shouldn't be allowed to receive one, or at least shouldn't be first choice.

Why? It's not my fault that I might not be allowed to donate myself.


If you read my post, I clearly said that if there's a medical reason that you're not on the donor list then you should be exempt.
I'm opposed to putting complex people in simple boxes and then making life-changing or life-ending decisions about them based on those classifications. I think that everyone capable of it should sign up for organ donation, but I can still respect that there might be somewhat valid reasons why a person wouldn't want to. Consider, for example, a man who has sex with men, who knows he'd be rejected on that basis, and who doesn't want to come out of the closet to the government. Is it fair to deny him access to organ donations?
Original post by cherryred90s
I suppose so, but don't you think you should take the feelings of the actual donor into consideration too? They may have decided to become a donor simply because they want to help, not because they want something in return


I'm not a donor because I want something in return and that's not the purpose of my argument. My argument mainly concerns people who are very happy to receive an organ should they need one but are unwilling to donate one themselves for others who need it. That's the angle I'm coming from. I don't care who my organs go to so long as it's not someone who selfishly wants to receive but isn't willing to give.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
If you read my post, I clearly said that if there's a medical reason that you're not on the donor list then you should be exempt.


But then who would get priority? The medically exempt person or a fellow organ donor?
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
I'm not a donor because I want something in return and that's not the purpose of my argument. My argument mainly concerns people who are very happy to receive an organ should they need one but are unwilling to donate one themselves for others who need it. That's the angle I'm coming from. I don't care who my organs go to so long as it's not someone who selfishly wants to receive but isn't willing to give.


Aren't you happy to receive an organ from the donation system, though?
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
I'm opposed to putting complex people in simple boxes and then making life-changing or life-ending decisions about them based on those classifications. I think that everyone capable of it should sign up for organ donation, but I can still respect that there might be somewhat valid reasons why a person wouldn't want to. Consider, for example, a man who has sex with men, who knows he'd be rejected on that basis, and who doesn't want to come out of the closet to the government. Is it fair to deny him access to organ donations?


I'm not aware that homosexual men aren't allowed to donate their organs? Maybe to give blood but not organs. The only thing that should exempt you from donating organs is medical reasons. Even 60-70 year olds are still allowed to be on the register.

Quick Reply

Latest