Now Gordon wants your organs

[scorp]

Smart roadster said:

I get the feeling that a lot of the anti is coming from the fact that Gordon has backed this.

I suspect your right, it comes down to trust I guess, and speaking personally I don't trust this government at all. In principle I would have no problems with people putting my out-of-action body parts to use.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 18th November 08:54

[Nick_F]

Compulsory organ harvesting - doesn't sound quite so cuddly as 'presumed consent', does it - works well in China: it makes execution an even more cost-effective solution.

As I understand it the idea has been floated, a commission has looked into it, and the conclusion has been reached that it will not lead to an increase in the number of organs available for transplant. Gordon has let it be known that he thinks differently and knows best, so the issue remains open.

[staceyb]

I'm all for it. People still have to consent. The consent is still there, you would have to actively say no rather than leaving the decision to your grieving families.

I agree with the chap earlier on who said that if you opt out you also opt out of receiving organs.

I am a registered blood, organ, marrow and platelet donor, and when I'm dead and gone then they can take as much of me as they like. And all the bits they don't need are to be donated to Newcastle university medical school for research or for some trainee to practice on or whatever they want to do with it.

[DucatiGary]

what happens if you die, organs go to somone else, few months later your family finds that you had signed the forms a couple of times saying you do not want to be in the scheme?

will they take them out of the new guy?

[Mr Whippy]

staceyb said:

I am a registered blood, organ, marrow and platelet donor, and when I'm dead and gone then they can take as much of me as they like. And all the bits they don't need are to be donated to Newcastle university medical school for research or for some trainee to practice on or whatever they want to do with it.

Thats all great, and I'd be the same, but I just don't trust the 'system' we have right now.

Do I literally have to be as dead as a Dodo before they start chopping, or can you be at the 90% chance of dying, but still have a chance stage?

We already have plenty of mix ups in our NHS system, to have mix ups with 'assumed' consent just looks like asking for trouble.

Dave

[NEAKY]

Its obvious that anyone who objects to "presumed consent" has never known anyone who is or has been on the transplant waiting list.
Both my little boys have been on the list waiting for organs to save their lives ( the youngest was 1 and the eldest 4 at the time ) and the wait for organs is terrifying because if you don't get a suitable donor in time you know that your child will die !!
When you finally get the call and they have the transplant that will save their life its the most amazing thing ever.
Most people would donate but don't register or carry a card so this way is a far better system to cut the waiting time down.
If someone has an strong objection to this then its up to them to opt out of donating , its as simple as that.
All these people who wouldn't donate would expect an organ to be found for them if something happened to them i would presume !!

[G'kar]

NEAKY said:

Its obvious that anyone who objects to "presumed consent" has never known anyone who is or has been on the transplant waiting list.
Both my little boys have been on the list waiting for organs to save their lives ( the youngest was 1 and the eldest 4 at the time ) and the wait for organs is terrifying because if you don't get a suitable donor in time you know that your child will die !!
When you finally get the call and they have the transplant that will save their life its the most amazing thing ever.
Most people would donate but don't register or carry a card so this way is a far better system to cut the waiting time down.
If someone has an strong objection to this then its up to them to opt out of donating , its as simple as that.
All these people who wouldn't donate would expect an organ to be found for them if something happened to them i would presume !!

Best wishes to you all. Can't imagine what that must be like.

Have they both received organs now?

[Nick_F]

NEAKY said:

Its obvious that anyone who objects to "presumed consent" has never known anyone who is or has been on the transplant waiting list.
Both my little boys have been on the list waiting for organs to save their lives ( the youngest was 1 and the eldest 4 at the time ) and the wait for organs is terrifying because if you don't get a suitable donor in time you know that your child will die !!
When you finally get the call and they have the transplant that will save their life its the most amazing thing ever.
Most people would donate but don't register or carry a card so this way is a far better system to cut the waiting time down.
If someone has an strong objection to this then its up to them to opt out of donating , its as simple as that.
All these people who wouldn't donate would expect an organ to be found for them if something happened to them i would presume !!

The point is that compulsory organ harvesting doesn't, in fact, increase the number of organs available - people are, in general, so offended by the idea that they are much, much more likely to opt out.

[NEAKY]

G'kar said:

NEAKY said:

Its obvious that anyone who objects to "presumed consent" has never known anyone who is or has been on the transplant waiting list.
Both my little boys have been on the list waiting for organs to save their lives ( the youngest was 1 and the eldest 4 at the time ) and the wait for organs is terrifying because if you don't get a suitable donor in time you know that your child will die !!
When you finally get the call and they have the transplant that will save their life its the most amazing thing ever.
Most people would donate but don't register or carry a card so this way is a far better system to cut the waiting time down.
If someone has an strong objection to this then its up to them to opt out of donating , its as simple as that.
All these people who wouldn't donate would expect an organ to be found for them if something happened to them i would presume !!

Best wishes to you all. Can't imagine what that must be like.

Have they both received organs now?

Yes both have and are doing well now thanks !! , the waiting is the worst thing though cos at least if they died during the transplant then they at least had a chance whereas many die while waiting on the list !!

[hairykrishna]

Nick_F said:

The point is that compulsory organ harvesting doesn't, in fact, increase the number of organs available - people are, in general, so offended by the idea that they are much, much more likely to opt out.

Any evidence of this?

[scorp]

Nick_F said:

The point is that compulsory organ harvesting doesn't, in fact, increase the number of organs available - people are, in general, so offended by the idea that they are much, much more likely to opt out.

There is also a potential conflict of interest, what happens when the NHS directly or indirectly decides they can meet government organ donor targets by not treating me (say, when im old) ?

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 18th November 10:57

[mark69sheer]

NEAKY said:

Its obvious that anyone who objects to "presumed consent" has never known anyone who is or has been on the transplant waiting list.

A major factor in deciding not to follow the presumed consent route was because people thought the recognition for the charitable act of donating was being removed and that by taking this aspect away people were LESS likely to consent and thus more likely to opt out.

[NEAKY]

scorp said:

Nick_F said:

The point is that compulsory organ harvesting doesn't, in fact, increase the number of organs available - people are, in general, so offended by the idea that they are much, much more likely to opt out.

There is also a potential conflict of interest, what happens when the NHS directly or indirectly decides they can meet government organ donor targets by not treating me (say, when im old) ?

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 18th November 10:57

If you are very old then its highly doubtful that your organs would be suitable for donation anyway !!

[scorp]

NEAKY said:

If you are very old then its highly doubtful that your organs would be suitable for donation anyway !!

Ok, bad example, let's say i'm young and have a nasty expensive to treat disease. What worries me is the governments ability to make decisions these days seems to be based more on reaching targets, and when you add the target of organ donations then it's a recipe for stupid decision making.

[NEAKY]

mark69sheer said:

NEAKY said:

Its obvious that anyone who objects to "presumed consent" has never known anyone who is or has been on the transplant waiting list.

A major factor in deciding not to follow the presumed consent route was because people thought the recognition for the charitable act of donating was being removed and that by taking this aspect away people were LESS likely to consent and thus more likely to opt out.

Have you been close to anyone waiting on the transplant list , i would assume not as your opinion would change if you had !! , my boys would have dies had suitable organs not become available and that is a fact. We were lucky that some did but we saw numerous people in the hospitals that weren't so lucky.

[Smart roadster]

As I stated above presumed consent sometimes works some times it does not. Spain Has presumed consent and it works very well. Were as in some Scandinavian country, can't remember which one, it has been less well received. So you cannot say it definately will or won't work.
Once again as said yesterday it was a proposal that was put forward and rejected so there is no need to get all het up over it. It was one possible answer to a problem but it has been turned down. Whether or not it will be proposed again no one can say, but unless stem cell research is given more funding then the requirment for organs will not go away. So some solution needs to be found. Or we could just say fk it you're ill so you're going to die. That is how it was 40 years ago with renal failure. Why not take a step back in time?

Edited by Smart roadster on Tuesday 18th November 11:14

[scorp]

NEAKY said:

Have you been close to anyone waiting on the transplant list , i would assume not as your opinion would change if you had !! , my boys would have dies had suitable organs not become available and that is a fact. We were lucky that some did but we saw numerous people in the hospitals that weren't so lucky.

I have no problem with donating, i've also been on the recieving end of some blood donations myself so i'm hardly "anti-donation"

My distrust lies squarely with the government, not in organ donations themselves. I still believe like another posted touched on that donating is a charitable act, it should not be presumed.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 18th November 11:14

[NEAKY]

scorp said:

NEAKY said:

If you are very old then its highly doubtful that your organs would be suitable for donation anyway !!

Ok, bad example, let's say i'm young and have a nasty expensive to treat disease. What worries me is the governments ability to make decisions these days seems to be based more on reaching targets, and when you add the target of organ donations then it's a recipe for stupid decision making.

From my personal experience of the NHS this just wouldn't happen , our little boys had massive complications yet the medical teams did everything in their power to get them sorted even though all seemed lost , this probably ran up huge costs but this was never a factor in their treatment.

[NEAKY]

There are pros and cons to any solution to this problem but until a more viable option comes along then i see no other way of shortening the waiting time for donor organs.
If loads of people decided to opt out then i would still imagine that the amount of organs being made available would still be greater than it is now !

[scorp]

NEAKY said:

There are pros and cons to any solution to this problem but until a more viable option comes along then i see no other way of shortening the waiting time for donor organs.
If loads of people decided to opt out then i would still imagine that the amount of organs being made available would still be greater than it is now !

I think from the donations point of view, not many people can argue against it, it's generally a good thing and like you say, makes a difference between life or death.

I think most peoples problem is with the subtle change in relationship between citizen and state. This is compounded by what must be an all time low in trust of the state at the present.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 18th November 11:22