Should Organ Donation Rules Be Changed?

Quote:

---

Should organ donation rules be changed?


Doctors have called for an overhaul of the consent system for donating organs for transplant.

Currently, the law states that permission must be given before an organ can be used for transplant surgery.

However, the British Medical Association wants a new system which would allow doctors to make use of organs unless expressly forbidden.

The BMA is angry the plans have been left out of the forthcoming Human Tissue Bill which could help tackle the chronic shortage of organs available for transplant.

---

Source.

I think this a great idea, because I would gladly have my organs used after my death but have only recently been put on the donar's list (thx to Lamsey's link). How many more people out there would also wish to donate but haven't been put on the list because they just don't have the time?

I think you should have to have a card to confirm that you DON'T want your organs removed in the event of your death. In my mind if someone can be helped after my death then that would be great.

If anyone is interested here is the link for UK Organ donation:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/how_to_beco...ome_a_donor.htm

i'm not sure if you should be made to carry a non-consent card but i do feel that if someone carries a donor card the family should not be allowed to intervene and stop the wishes of the deceased being carried out....i might be wrong on this but i think it is the case in the uk or at least it might have been at one time. Nor should the doctors have to wait for the family if the deceased carries a card.
i wholeheartedly believe in organ donation and wish to help as many people as possible after my demise, however what would the situation be if someone lost their life in an accident and the forbid card was not present (be it through loss or forgetfulness).
i do in a way fully support the wishes of the doctors, however just as in life we control our destiny to a degree, so should we in death.

Quote:

---

however what would the situation be if someone lost their life in an accident and the forbid card was not present (be it through loss or forgetfulness).

---

Well I'm on a database and I have no card, so as long as they have a positive ID on me then they will know I am a donor (I believe that's how it works...I could be wrong).

I fully agree that we should 'control our destiny' in death, but feel the system is the wrong way round at the moment.

do you believe in the "opt out" option purely because of the nature of the topic or in life in general?
As a blood donor and an opt in organ donor i do wish there was more people on the plan. But should someone be forced to opt out of a scheme they don't want to join? where would it end? would you have to opt out of having those book companies sending products in the mail unless you opted out?
i do fully agree with your opinion having a very just reasoning behind it, and this is one thing that i wish i could agree with 100% but to me i feel that compulsory donation unless you opted out is kind of pushing the boundary slightly.
apathy and lethargy rule the day..perhaps a campaign with no holds barred to make people realise the true magnitude of the problem might tug at the moral heartstrings and get people to sign up. I'm not one for exploiting children, especially sick children but look at all the volunteers and fundraisers you get when a sick child is brought up in the headlines...perhaps a campaign that will awaken people that it's not just adults that need organs might be a better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@15 January 2004 - 18:56
to me i feel that compulsory donation unless you opted out is kind of pushing the boundary slightly.
apathy and lethargy rule the day..perhaps a campaign with no holds barred to make people realise the true magnitude of the problem might tug at the moral heartstrings and get people to sign up.

---

I don't think compulsary donation unless you opt out is a bad thing. If you really have a moral problem agaist it, for religious reasons or whatever, fine. I think there are more lazy people than religious people though, and I think a lot of people are dying needlessly because signing up for an organ doner car is too much work.

Although emotional advertising does work (we've had huge drops in road fatalities due to some hardcore ads, and the graphic ads showing the organs of dead smokers work too) wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just create a "donate by default" system?

I am a blood donor (O- goes into any body, my blood is the first one they use in an emergency and I don't need all of it) and an organ doner too. Hey, when I'm dead, what would I want all my body's bits for?

They can take any part of my body they feel might be useful. But the problem with opt-out schemes is exactly what Alex H has pointed out - their are too many lazy people. This would also come into play when looking for an opt-out card, some of those looking would be too lazy to make a thorough search.

What would happen if, after the organs have been used for transplant, the opt-out card is then found and the relatives demand the return of the organs? Since there would be a specific request that organ donation was not permitted, could we then say it is too late?

While opt-out schemes look very attractive at first, they are riddled with dangers and obstacles, and because of the risk of litigation where organs are used from a person who has decided to opt-out they can become unworkable. A simplification of the opt-in system could reap huge benefits with no risk of subsequent litigation.

Why not add an incentive to organ donation? How about cheaper cremations? After all, there is going to be less tissue to burn. :rolleyes:

I think in this day and age we wouldn't be using cards to opt-out, we would sign up to a database which would have our name on it. A simple search of the database would tell the doctors whether the person inquestion has opted out or not.

In the case of any doubts they should not go ahead with any organ removal.

although i do sympathise with the problem and have thought about the arguements for and against long and hard i still think the only moral way without infringing any human rights would be an opt in program.
i too am a blood donor and organ volunteer, when i lived in the UK i was amazed that i couldn't sign up at the blood donation sessions for things like being on the bone marrow register, they could give me the details of the charity that ran it...yes a charity, not an NHS run scheme, but they couldn't organise it there and then. Afetr contacting the charity i was sent a letter with all the details of the process....it would require them sending me a blood test kit for which they asked for a voluntary 50 gbp donation (a sponser form was included) which i was to take to my GP to have a blood test...why couldn't it be done at the donation sessions?
at no point in my blood donating times was i asked if i would like to be an organ donor nor did i see any cards. i have no doubt they do have them but they weren't pushed.
the registry idea using a database is a very good idea and i'm sure if there isn't already one there soon will be one where one could sign up online.
the bottom line for me is that i wish there were more people aware of the problems. Its amazing how many people start working for charities involved in research into illnesses that one of their loved ones falls victim to. This is probably because it is the biggest wake up call one could get, that's why i favour a hard hitting and totally graphic campaign of awareness.

P.S. if any members of this forum are reading this please consider becoming an organ donor if you are not already one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@20 January 2004 - 11:32
What would happen if, after the organs have been used for transplant, the opt-out card is then found and the relatives demand the return of the organs? Since there would be a specific request that organ donation was not permitted, could we then say it is too late?

---

"Whats that? You want us to open him up and look for your dad's liver?"

The situation is even worse the other way around: they can't find the opt IN card and you get buried with organs that you wished for someone else to have.

I think there are laws against performing un-nessesary life-threatening medical procedures, so if somebody wants a relative's organs back the doctors would not be allowed to perform the procedure.

i think it should be up to the person if they want to donate and that they should register for a card to give permission, not that if they dont want to donate they will have to carry a card, or something along those lines.

i think this rule is totally ridiculous and unethical. How can u removed somebody's organ without explicit consent after death? and u have to "carry" a non-consent card in order for ur organs NOT to be removed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@22 January 2004 - 21:59
How can u removed somebody's organ without explicit consent after death?

---

You can't. Once they are dead they are unable to give their consent. :P

Why do you care about what happens to your body after you're dead?

i sure do, if they removed stuff from me how am i gonna survive in heaven?? :lol: :lol:

but seriously doing that could get ur doctor's license revoked for good so dont do it....it's not right ;)

I thought the whole thing about heaven whas that you were leaving this "mortal world". Organs are biodegrabeable and must therefore be mortal. So you don't need them in heaven.

How do you know? Have you been? ;)

:ninja:

it's just an ancient chinese myth

u keep the organs u have after u die

that's why many chinese ppl are relunctant to donate their organs, especially vision related organ like eyes and eyelids.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 January 2004 - 05:58
How do you know? Have you been? ;)

:ninja:

---

I had holiday there once. It was really nice. Jesus has a cool house by the lake.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@20 January 2004 - 14:18
they could give me the details of the charity that ran it...yes a charity, not an NHS run scheme.....

---

I am struck by your use of the term "scheme", vidcc.

Do you have a problem with the NHS?

It has been presented here previously as (to coin a pun) the cure for what ails ya'", and promoted as a model for the U.S. to emulate.

While I myself have not decided exactly where I stand on the ultimate viability of such a system in the U.S. (where there are many more obstacles to such institutions), I am nonetheless interested in what you refer to.

Seriously. ;)

I think he means it in terms of schematic plan, i.e. the organization of concepts, actions and systems that can be revised or changed with the help of new information and data.

You're right, it wouldn't work in the US. A change in policy? Ha! Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex H@29 January 2004 - 22:59
I think he means it in terms of schematic plan, i.e. the organization of concepts, actions and systems that can be revised or changed with the help of new information and data.

---

I believe you have failed to ascertain the underlying sentiment, Alex.

I'll wait for vidcc's response, thanks.

my point was on the fact that the NHS doesn't keep a national register of bone marrow donors, instead it is run by a charity which seemed to be odd when they have all the needed equiptment to test donor suitability at blood donor sessions and it could be done alongside the register of blood donors. And the point of this topic is about the availability of donors, admittedly organs after death.
The actual operation for transplant and the following recouperation treatment would be done by the NHS (no charge to the patient) but the donor would be sought from the register run by the charity.
The NHS isn't perfect, it does have problems and it could be run much more efficiently than it is at present. As to if it would work in the USA.....well with our profit above all else thinking we could do it a lot more efficiently, however there is and always will be too many influecial people making a nice penny or two out of the status quo to make it viably realistic.

Edit: i have read a lot of arguements about the best way with healthcare. Many say a social system is the only way to go, others say that private healthcare is best as it offers choice. My view is that with the amount of wealth in a country such as ours we should not be having discussions about people that can't afford healthcare, because it's immoral that we have such a problem. So i probably side with a social system but run with a private sense of efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@30 January 2004 - 03:15
Edit: i have read a lot of arguements about the best way with healthcare. Many say a social system is the only way to go, others say that private healthcare is best as it offers choice. My view is that with the amount of wealth in a country such as ours we should not be having discussions about people that can't afford healthcare, because it's immoral that we have such a problem. So i probably side with a social system but run with a private sense of efficiency.

---

Just so-

As you say, a social system (publicly funded) could work even better, due to the bent toward efficiency brought on by "for profit" status-

But, as you also say, the "influencial people" (crooks, actually) see ways to con the system to their specific benefit, which in turn necessitates oversight (public? private?), which then becomes the bureaucracy that blows the roof off the expense of the system, rendering it less than adequate.

Reality intrudes, you see?

That's the American way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Withcheese@15 January 2004 - 17:39

Quote:

---

Should organ donation rules be changed?


Doctors have called for an overhaul of the consent system for donating organs for transplant.

Currently, the law states that permission must be given before an organ can be used for transplant surgery.

However, the British Medical Association wants a new system which would allow doctors to make use of organs unless expressly forbidden.

The BMA is angry the plans have been left out of the forthcoming Human Tissue Bill which could help tackle the chronic shortage of organs available for transplant.

---

Source.

I think this a great idea, because I would gladly have my organs used after my death but have only recently been put on the donar's list (thx to Lamsey's link). How many more people out there would also wish to donate but haven't been put on the list because they just don't have the time?

I think you should have to have a card to confirm that you DON'T want your organs removed in the event of your death. In my mind if someone can be helped after my death then that would be great.

If anyone is interested here is the link for UK Organ donation:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/how_to_beco...ome_a_donor.htm

---

In Germany ppl are being set on a list and have to wait. That is sometimes hard
as not all ppl can find what they need in time. But that is the most right thing.

That is the normal process here. Probably in near future it will be possible to clone
new organs from your own DNA/DNS. That would be great.

There is also the organ mafia - they are taking organs from poor people and sell
it for big money. I don&#39;t like them - but have no right to judge about them, as they unfortunately just humans. That is a difficult issue. And I have to say what I think about it. <_< :(

In Germany: THERE is a kind of card where you can say which organs they can
take if you die or being hurt or whatelse... Normally if you don&#39;t have it they don&#39;t
take any organs of you. Obviously, each situation might be special. But, we have to - and this is hard - to accept what someone who died accidentally what kind of attitude he has. The best solution would be: if we could one time technically communicate and share with someone ofter death with his energy and energetic thoughts, but this may take a few time.