Jump to content

Organ Donation - Yes unless it's a No, No.


Recommended Posts

I haven’t bothered to read all the previous posts, just a quick skim. Personally if I or any of my family were able to help someone to have a better life after our deaths, I am all for it. If there is an afterlife, I won’t be taking my liver, heart etc with me anyway, and if not, it matters even less. If one of my family were to pass on, I would feel some comfort by the possibility of their helping another. Make the default position to be ‘consent’. If you really feel strongly against default consent, opt out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A lot of nonsense in this thread, as usual. Most organ donors are patients with head injuries or catastrophic brain haemorrhages.  They're 'alive', as in their heart is beating, but on ITU on a v

And if you needed a transplant? Should those who opt out of donating be opted out of receiving?

I don't think anyone would want my liver

Posted Images

2 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

Also, I also think that those who would not consent themselves should still be able to receive a transplant the same as anyone else. It's a bit too binary for my liking otherwise.

I can see the appeal of restricting transplants to those who opt out of being potential donors, but as a practical proposition it’s nonsense - any sane person caught up in that position would simply opt back in to get themselves accepted on the transplant list. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wrighty said:

I can see the appeal of restricting transplants to those who opt out of being potential donors, but as a practical proposition it’s nonsense - any sane person caught up in that position would simply opt back in to get themselves accepted on the transplant list. 

Exactly. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ThreeRaccoonsInATrenchCoat said:

That’s extreme but is why many people don’t donate anything. The state can pretty much do what they like with your body after you’re gone in these situations. The laws need to get tighter on what you are and aren’t consenting to. 

Edited by Southfork
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wrighty said:

I can see the appeal of restricting transplants to those who opt out of being potential donors, but as a practical proposition it’s nonsense - any sane person caught up in that position would simply opt back in to get themselves accepted on the transplant list. 

So make it only count if they haven't just opted in after being diagnosed as requiring a transplant....

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to healthcare. I think we should treat, no questions asked, non-citizens, people of any age, people of any creed, people of any means, smokers, drinkers, drug users, whatever else. But to specifically opt out of your organs being used to potentially save other people's lives whilst at the same time expecting other people's organs to be used to save yours is a twat's game.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no response about the figures on how many "brain dead" people end up fully recovering. We know it happens, so there must be figures. 

One doctor, in dismissing an OBE case, even claimed that the brain dies from the outside inwards, so they just somehow missed the fact that she wasn't dead. The outer part of her brain apparently tricked them into thinking she was dead, whereas the middle of her brain was alive and well. I thought hospitals usually called the whole brain? This explanation or rationalisation sounds desperate. Doctors are so up themselves that they'll never admit to being wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HeliX said:

So make it only count if they haven't just opted in after being diagnosed as requiring a transplant....

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to healthcare. I think we should treat, no questions asked, non-citizens, people of any age, people of any creed, people of any means, smokers, drinkers, drug users, whatever else. But to specifically opt out of your organs being used to potentially save other people's lives whilst at the same time expecting other people's organs to be used to save yours is a t**** game.

Forgive the edit - I'd rather play the ball, not the man, as the Speaker once said. :flowers:

Back to topic - How long then would you say is acceptable to opt in? Six months, a year, or as soon as you are diagnosed with a condition that may at some point in the near future require organ donation. Would you advocate a doctor withholding blood transfusions for the same reasons ? 

If you support treatment for the groups of people you refer to above do you disagree that clinicians can 'impose' some conditions for treatments for say obese people and smokers albeit on clinical grounds.

If the state can assume your wishes by not doing anything (that is, opting out and being entered on a national database as having done so) does it create the potential for further personal decisions being assumed in a similar fashion. ? Do we completely trust the politicians and public services who we bemoan on here everyday to debate and then pass law with so many ethical ramifications and impacts? 

Some of the debate about this can of course be resolved by the use of living wills and Powers of Attorney. 

Finally on this topic for me - just like many people I have been there when machines are turned off and also I have watched as patients being denied the fluids to sustain life and in the old days of the use of medication to help people die. I have seen the anguish and anger of relatives, the guilt and emotional carnage that some of these decisions bring. Anyone though who thinks the end of life care here works is unfortunately wrong. For a long time the Liverpool pathway was thought to be the 'gold standard" but look at how that turned out and the distress it contributed to.

There are big problems with our policies designed to protect vulnerable people today and the  IOM DHSC is well aware of them. Lets get them fixed before we start introducing more scope to hurt or damage people. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple said:

Forgive the edit - I'd rather play the ball, not the man, as the Speaker once said. :flowers:

Back to topic - How long then would you say is acceptable to opt in? Six months, a year, or as soon as you are diagnosed with a condition that may at some point in the near future require organ donation. Would you advocate a doctor withholding blood transfusions for the same reasons ? 

If you support treatment for the groups of people you refer to above do you disagree that clinicians can 'impose' some conditions for treatments for say obese people and smokers albeit on clinical grounds.

If the state can assume your wishes by not doing anything (that is, opting out and being entered on a national database as having done so) does it create the potential for further personal decisions being assumed in a similar fashion. ? Do we completely trust the politicians and public services who we bemoan on here everyday to debate and then pass law with so many ethical ramifications and impacts? 

Some of the debate about this can of course be resolved by the use of living wills and Powers of Attorney. 

Finally on this topic for me - just like many people I have been there when machines are turned off and also I have watched as patients being denied the fluids to sustain life and in the old days of the use of medication to help people die. I have seen the anguish and anger of relatives, the guilt and emotional carnage that some of these decisions bring. Anyone though who thinks the end of life care here works is unfortunately wrong. For a long time the Liverpool pathway was thought to be the 'gold standard" but look at how that turned out and the distress it contributed to.

There are big problems with our policies designed to protect vulnerable people today and the  IOM DHSC is well aware of them. Lets get them fixed before we start introducing more scope to hurt or damage people. 

"How long then would you say is acceptable to opt in?"

Prior to any diagnosis of a condition that has a tendency to lead to transplantation. There will, of course, still be people who game the system. But fewer of them.

"do you disagree that clinicians can 'impose' some conditions for treatments for say obese people and smokers"

Depends on the conditions imposed! And the penalty (if any) for not adhering to them.

"If the state can assume your wishes by not doing anything (that is, opting out and being entered on a national database as having done so) does it create the potential for further personal decisions being assumed in a similar fashion?"

Aside from slippery slope arguments being rubbish, no. Assessing one change on its merits and agreeing with it does not remove our ability to assess future changes on their merits.

"Lets get them fixed before we start introducing more scope to hurt or damage people."

You missed out the most important thing transplantation does. Saves people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about donated blood products. No-one has come back on that.

Transplantations do save lives. Agreed. It works.

This is about the decisions to support that process and who makes them, the how, and the why, and the freedom to choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple said:

What about donated blood products. No-one has come back on that.

Transplantations do save lives. Agreed. It works.

This is about the decisions to support that process and who makes them, the how, and the why, and the freedom to choose.

No I don't think receiving blood should be limited to only people who donate it, though I can see why one might make the comparison. But I believe it's significantly different for a number of reasons. You can donate blood a virtually unlimited number of times. Blood donation is done on very much non-braindead people, and some people struggle terribly with needles/blood. Blood donation does require you to take time out of your day, albeit not a long time. It's not quite the same as just deciding whether or not something is permitted once you're gone.

That said, more people should donate blood.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Apple said:

What about donated blood products. No-one has come back on that.

 

That's stupid and you know it. Some people may have conditions that don't allow them to donate blood. Are you saying that because they can't donate they shouldn't receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Neil Down said:

That's stupid and you know it. Some people may have conditions that don't allow them to donate blood. Are you saying that because they can't donate they shouldn't receive.

Lets leave out the insults eh? Each to their own.

Are you saying they should? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...