Now Gordon wants your organs
Discussion
scorp said:
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.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 most peoples problem is with the subtle change in relationship between citizen and state.
NEAKY said:
It would still be up to the individual whether or not they want to donate or not , it depends on whether or not they feel strongly enough to take the time to opt out !!
It's a strange question morally speaking, emotive anecdotes aside, to me, if i took some organs off a dead guy, i would feel like a was stealing them if i didn't get permission. scorp said:
NEAKY said:
It would still be up to the individual whether or not they want to donate or not , it depends on whether or not they feel strongly enough to take the time to opt out !!
It's a strange question morally speaking, emotive anecdotes aside, to me, if i took some organs off a dead guy, i would feel like a was stealing them if i didn't get permission. NEAKY said:
Believe me you wouldn't care less where they come from if you were in that situation
This thread in a nutshell. People too close to it to see anything but self interest. Or, for the government, statistical targets.Nice looking car you have there, NEAKY. I presume you won't mind if I borrow it?
scorp said:
NEAKY said:
Believe me you wouldn't care less where they come from if you were in that situation
If my children were starving i wouldn't think twice about shoplifting, i was looking at this from a moral standpoint, not from a what-would-i-do if i was in a need situation.hairykrishna 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.
Any evidence of this?BBC News and the Today Programme said:
Elisabeth Buggins, chair of the taskforce, said the issue raised "really strong emotions."
But she said the task force, which had gathered over 400 pages of evidence from across the world, had found little evidence that presumed consent would increase the number of organs available for transplant.
She said although a system of presumed consent in Spain had been followed by a rise in organ donation, that rise was not thought to be down to the switch.
Ms Buggins said: "We found from recipient families and donor families that the concept of gift was very important to them and presumed consent would undermine that concept.
"We also found that it has the potential to erode trust in doctors, and we know that is very important to the levels of donation."
Instead, Ms Buggins said a rise in organ donations was more likely to be achieved by increasing in the number of donor coordinators who work with bereaved families, and the number of specialists who retrieve organs, and by launching public information campaigns.
"There is lots of fear out there that organs are taken from patients before they are dead - that is absolutely not true."
Medical split
The medical profession is divided on the issue of presumed consent.
In September, intensive care doctors told the BBC they were deeply concerned about any radical changes to the law on organ donation.
Research by the Intensive Care Society suggests many specialists are worried that such a move would damage the trust between patients and doctors.
But Dr Vivienne Nathanson, chair of ethics at the British Medical Association, said she was disappointed by the task force's findings.
She said presumed consent was not a panacea, but was likely to result in a 10-15% increase in donated organs - if sufficient surgeons, intensive care beds and transplant coordinators were put in place.
She said it would also encourage families to discuss their views, and make their position clear.
The BMA supports a 'soft' system of presumed consent, where individuals who do not want to donate their organs have a formal mechanism for registering that objection and where families are consulted to identify any unregistered objection.
Dr Nathanson said: "We know that the majority of the population want to be organ donors, but only 25% are on the register.
"Turning it round the other way, so that you take organs from everyone unless they have either put their name on a register to opt out, or their family say they wanted to, but haven't got round to it, means you could quite significantly increase the numbers of donors."
Lack of capacity
But Tim Statham of the National Kidney Federation said organs were being wasted because of a lack of capacity in the NHS - a situation which presumed consent would not solve.
And Professor John Fabre, a former president of the British Transplantation Society, said presumed consent was a "simplistic" way to try to boost organ donation rates, which would be a "waste of time".
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, said: 'We can only hope that Gordon Brown does not follow the example of the Welsh Health minister Edwina Hart, who rejected the all-party Welsh Assembly report when they decided against presumed consent after weeks of evidence and is still pressing ahead."
A report recommending a radical overhaul of the UK organ donor network in a bid to double the number of organs available for transplant, has already been published by the Organ Donor Taskforce, and is being implemented.
The latest recommendations on presumed consent are not binding and the government could decide to press ahead with changes to the legislation.
Any change to the system would involve amending the Human Tissue Act of 2004.
Personally, I suspect that campaigns to encourage donor cards under the current system would be far more effective - and cost effective - than switching to compulsion. Under a compulsory system we'd be inundated with horror stories about havested organs going to waste, mistakes around opt-outs etc etc.But she said the task force, which had gathered over 400 pages of evidence from across the world, had found little evidence that presumed consent would increase the number of organs available for transplant.
She said although a system of presumed consent in Spain had been followed by a rise in organ donation, that rise was not thought to be down to the switch.
Ms Buggins said: "We found from recipient families and donor families that the concept of gift was very important to them and presumed consent would undermine that concept.
"We also found that it has the potential to erode trust in doctors, and we know that is very important to the levels of donation."
Instead, Ms Buggins said a rise in organ donations was more likely to be achieved by increasing in the number of donor coordinators who work with bereaved families, and the number of specialists who retrieve organs, and by launching public information campaigns.
"There is lots of fear out there that organs are taken from patients before they are dead - that is absolutely not true."
Medical split
The medical profession is divided on the issue of presumed consent.
In September, intensive care doctors told the BBC they were deeply concerned about any radical changes to the law on organ donation.
Research by the Intensive Care Society suggests many specialists are worried that such a move would damage the trust between patients and doctors.
But Dr Vivienne Nathanson, chair of ethics at the British Medical Association, said she was disappointed by the task force's findings.
She said presumed consent was not a panacea, but was likely to result in a 10-15% increase in donated organs - if sufficient surgeons, intensive care beds and transplant coordinators were put in place.
She said it would also encourage families to discuss their views, and make their position clear.
The BMA supports a 'soft' system of presumed consent, where individuals who do not want to donate their organs have a formal mechanism for registering that objection and where families are consulted to identify any unregistered objection.
Dr Nathanson said: "We know that the majority of the population want to be organ donors, but only 25% are on the register.
"Turning it round the other way, so that you take organs from everyone unless they have either put their name on a register to opt out, or their family say they wanted to, but haven't got round to it, means you could quite significantly increase the numbers of donors."
Lack of capacity
But Tim Statham of the National Kidney Federation said organs were being wasted because of a lack of capacity in the NHS - a situation which presumed consent would not solve.
And Professor John Fabre, a former president of the British Transplantation Society, said presumed consent was a "simplistic" way to try to boost organ donation rates, which would be a "waste of time".
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, said: 'We can only hope that Gordon Brown does not follow the example of the Welsh Health minister Edwina Hart, who rejected the all-party Welsh Assembly report when they decided against presumed consent after weeks of evidence and is still pressing ahead."
A report recommending a radical overhaul of the UK organ donor network in a bid to double the number of organs available for transplant, has already been published by the Organ Donor Taskforce, and is being implemented.
The latest recommendations on presumed consent are not binding and the government could decide to press ahead with changes to the legislation.
Any change to the system would involve amending the Human Tissue Act of 2004.
Nick_F said:
Personally, I suspect that campaigns to encourage donor cards under the current system would be far more effective - and cost effective - than switching to compulsion. Under a compulsory system we'd be inundated with horror stories about havested organs going to waste, mistakes around opt-outs etc etc.
A compulsory system would also need a very expensive IT setup to contain the data for those who opt out. The current system of a donor card seems much more sensible, it's not like there is hardly any take up already, just lots of people needing new organs really.Considering the number of obese people, smokers, heavy drinkers etc, it makes you wonder if we should also aim to improve general health more, to reduce the demand on organ donations...
Dave
scorp said:
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.
That pretty much sums up my opinion.That people presume to allege those against these proposals are against donors is offensive. Mind you, it is typical Labour debating style of the recent past, the same tactics were used with Terror legislation.
"What? You don't support 42 days detention?! You must support terrorism then"
"
"Edited by 10 Pence Short on Tuesday 18th November 12:27
NEAKY said:
scorp said:
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.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 most peoples problem is with the subtle change in relationship between citizen and state.
I feel for your plight but think a better way to increase donors would be to highlight the shortage through public information films and doctors leaflets. Or even there are many opportunities when the public meet the health service. In the case of most people needing donors anyway relatives are asked first to try to get a good type match. In those cases even relatives don't always comply.
Even if everyone becomes a donor it doesn't always follow that organs will be available. They are only vital for a short while and have to be transplanted within a short timescale before necrosis begins.
There are 18 million donors allready I believe thats about a third of the population. They expect presumed consent will bring in another 7 million but that is just a guess. That an improvement of 35% so we could assume then that we would still have 650 deaths instead of 1000 due to unsuitable donors.
I think if a third are donors that is probably about what you would expect.
one third too young to consent. The rest of the two thirds split between those who agree and those who don't. I don't think changing the system will change peoples minds , as we can see from the experience of Spain.
Nick_ said:
The point is that compulsory organ harvesting doesn't, in fact, increase the number of organs available
Only because there isn't the infrastructure in place to do it. It would involve massive expansion of NHS Blood & Transplant that simply isn't funded for and would take time to do, probably years.As said many potential donors who do have cards don't get their potentially suitable and possibly life saving organs harvested simply becuase there is no one there to do the harvesting. You have to remember a lot goes into the process, donor must have blood tested for dieseases & HLA typed (Matched), have any bits (I'm not sure about whole organs, probably much shorter time spans allowed) collected within 24 hours if not refridgerated on death or 48 hours if they were refridgerated within 6 hours of death, some ones got to get to where they are to do it. Donor maybe in cornwall, potential recipient Glasgow so transport sorted all round. Big process basically that will require loads more people involved than currently.
I guess its all a balance of £ and effectiveness at current. The Accountants won't allow a technician to be in every hospital if only a handful of donors are coming through the door, however if plenty are then it maybe deemed worthwhile. You need the donors to justify the collectors, but you can't have the collectors without the donors.
some cultures/religions believe that you must be buried whole
thats why
however, if your blown up or horribly mangled, thats going to be a bit diffcult.
also there is still a lot of fear that a doctor wont do 110% to try to bring you back if your DOA/comatose etc if they know your a donor. seriosuly, I've heard people say that. My dad always warned me about carrying donor cards, citing that reason
personally I think it's a good idea
thats why
however, if your blown up or horribly mangled, thats going to be a bit diffcult.
also there is still a lot of fear that a doctor wont do 110% to try to bring you back if your DOA/comatose etc if they know your a donor. seriosuly, I've heard people say that. My dad always warned me about carrying donor cards, citing that reason
sleep envy said:
Bing o said:
Practically State ownership of your organs now - when will we say enough is enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7729009.stm
why, what are you going to do with yours when you're dead?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7729009.stm
personally I think it's a good idea
comes in with a trolley, "thanks very much, we'll just be wheeling him off to be chopped up, cheers."mark69sheer said:
What you have stated there is the goverments real aim. Consent by apathy not by choice. Many people will find their relatives organs taken simply because they were confused or unaware. May people who would not ordinarily have opted to be donors for whatever reasons wether thats religious like Witnesses or purely principle will have organs taken they would normally not have offered.
I feel for your plight but think a better way to increase donors would be to highlight the shortage through public information films and doctors leaflets. Or even there are many opportunities when the public meet the health service. In the case of most people needing donors anyway relatives are asked first to try to get a good type match. In those cases even relatives don't always comply.
Even if everyone becomes a donor it doesn't always follow that organs will be available. They are only vital for a short while and have to be transplanted within a short timescale before necrosis begins.
There are 18 million donors allready I believe thats about a third of the population. They expect presumed consent will bring in another 7 million but that is just a guess. That an improvement of 35% so we could assume then that we would still have 650 deaths instead of 1000 due to unsuitable donors.
I think if a third are donors that is probably about what you would expect.
one third too young to consent. The rest of the two thirds split between those who agree and those who don't. I don't think changing the system will change peoples minds , as we can see from the experience of Spain.
Firstly most people can't be bothered to sign up to the donor register even if they have no objection to donating their organs.I feel for your plight but think a better way to increase donors would be to highlight the shortage through public information films and doctors leaflets. Or even there are many opportunities when the public meet the health service. In the case of most people needing donors anyway relatives are asked first to try to get a good type match. In those cases even relatives don't always comply.
Even if everyone becomes a donor it doesn't always follow that organs will be available. They are only vital for a short while and have to be transplanted within a short timescale before necrosis begins.
There are 18 million donors allready I believe thats about a third of the population. They expect presumed consent will bring in another 7 million but that is just a guess. That an improvement of 35% so we could assume then that we would still have 650 deaths instead of 1000 due to unsuitable donors.
I think if a third are donors that is probably about what you would expect.
one third too young to consent. The rest of the two thirds split between those who agree and those who don't. I don't think changing the system will change peoples minds , as we can see from the experience of Spain.
Secondly if you have a religious or other reason why you wouldn't want to donate then you should feel strongly enough to opt out, if that is the case then should in the future a person who opts out of donating their organs require a transplant of some kind to save their life , i feel that they should not be put on the list and be allowed by their own principles to be left to die !!
Thirdly public information films and medical leaflets , etc are in use and do not appear to persuade people to sign up to the donor register , your misguided view that relatives are asked first about donating is laughable as this is not something that is commonly done ( living donor transplants) , it is done with kidney transplants but how would you suggest that they do a heart transplant from a living relative !!
Lastly simple maths tells us that more donor organs means more transplants , another point you raised about the time an organ has to be transplanted being short before necrosis is misguided too , the organs are only taken from patients who are still technically alive yet brain dead so no necrosis would occur !!
Its nice to discuss such points with someone who has absolutely no experience of the current system.
Hardly state ownership at all, in fact a very good idea.
At the moment if you are willing to give your organs, you have to fill out forms which you may not get around to. With presumed donation if you strongly object then you will make the effort to say so. Simple really.
If however you think this is rubbish think of this example- which are you more likely to do; write up to complain about something at the supermarket, or write up to say thank you/congratulate them on good service?
At the moment if you are willing to give your organs, you have to fill out forms which you may not get around to. With presumed donation if you strongly object then you will make the effort to say so. Simple really.
If however you think this is rubbish think of this example- which are you more likely to do; write up to complain about something at the supermarket, or write up to say thank you/congratulate them on good service?
People amaze me on this subject because most people don't sign up to the donor register but would expect a replacement organ should something happen to theirs.
Also most people don't spare the time to donate blood but again would expect blood to be there should they need it in an emergency situation.
I find it highly arrogant of these people that they expect to receive what they aren't willing to give !!!
Also most people don't spare the time to donate blood but again would expect blood to be there should they need it in an emergency situation.
I find it highly arrogant of these people that they expect to receive what they aren't willing to give !!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff