Now Gordon wants your organs

[grumbledoak]

NEAKY said:

I find it highly arrogant of these people that they expect to receive what they aren't willing to give !!!

Maybe they should make that the deal - sign up at whatever age-of-consent applies, or don't qualify. But, frankly, they could do much better than they are currently just by having a poster and some forms at every GP's surgery. Not totalitarian enough, seemingly.

I would not knowingly accept an organ/blood from someone who had not consented. Presumed consent is without consent.

[scorp]

grumbledoak said:

Presumed consent is without consent.

Like some others have noticed, this is quite a sinister phrase when looked at closely, Orwellian, infact.

[NEAKY]

grumbledoak said:

NEAKY said:

I find it highly arrogant of these people that they expect to receive what they aren't willing to give !!!

Maybe they should make that the deal - sign up at whatever age-of-consent applies, or don't qualify. But, frankly, they could do much better than they are currently just by having a poster and some forms at every GP's surgery. Not totalitarian enough, seemingly.

I would not knowingly accept an organ/blood from someone who had not consented. Presumed consent is without consent.

Just wait until you are in that situation then see what you think !!
Imagine this situation , your child has 24 hours to live without a donor heart so they are on the super urgent list , a donor organ becomes available but is from a non consenting person.
Do you a) take the organ to save your childs life or b) wait for a consenting persons organ that will probably not come in time so your child will die.
The choice is yours !!!

Edited by NEAKY on Tuesday 18th November 16:35

[NEAKY]

How many people who have posted on this thread have actually had someone close to them wait on the transplant list ??

[Herman Toothrot]

scorp said:

grumbledoak said:

Presumed consent is without consent.

Like some others have noticed, this is quite a sinister phrase when looked at closely, Orwellian, infact.

Only if opting out is not straight forward and perfectly acceptable.

[Airbag]

Nick_F said:

I give blood.

I have a donor card.

I give to charity.

But I do all of these things because I choose to.

Replace the £x that I give to charity with y% on my income tax to save me the trouble of actively donating and I'd be very cross.

That's a pretty poor analogy, unless you planned to leave your son you liver.

[scorp]

Herman Toothrot said:

Only if opting out is not straight forward and perfectly acceptable.

I think you missed my point.

[Nick_F]

Airbag said:

Nick_F said:

I give blood.

I have a donor card.

I give to charity.

But I do all of these things because I choose to.

Replace the £x that I give to charity with y% on my income tax to save me the trouble of actively donating and I'd be very cross.

That's a pretty poor analogy, unless you planned to leave your son you liver.

Eh?

I don't doubt for a moment that my views would be very different if my son needed a new liver, indeed I'd probably contemplate arranging a suitable donor, and a whole host of other things which would disqualify me from making rational judgements about the subject.

[Chrispy Porker]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
To save a life or let someone die.
I would have thought it was a no-brainer.

[Airbag]

Nick_F said:

Airbag said:

Nick_F said:

I give blood.

I have a donor card.

I give to charity.

But I do all of these things because I choose to.

Replace the £x that I give to charity with y% on my income tax to save me the trouble of actively donating and I'd be very cross.

That's a pretty poor analogy, unless you planned to leave your son you liver.

Eh?

I don't doubt for a moment that my views would be very different if my son needed a new liver, indeed I'd probably contemplate arranging a suitable donor, and a whole host of other things which would disqualify me from making rational judgements about the subject.

Whooooooosh

[grumbledoak]

swerni said:

Paul, please don't take this the wrong way but IMHO you are talking b0ll0cks.

Hard to take that the wrong way, really!


On behalf of my child I might make a different decision but, for me, I believe I'd stand by that. I genuinely find the concept horrific, and would 'opt out' if they were to change the law.

Obviously, I'd rather we had a bit of a campaign to get more people to carry cards, and I'll have a look when I'm in the surgery tomorrow. Not that anyone will want my liver (hic).

[thinfourth2]

NEAKY said:

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 !!!

Because it will never happen to me will it

As to the organ card i haven't signed up as i'm not planning on dying anytime soon

[Skyrat]

claypigeon60 said:

10 Pence Short said:

It isn't for the state to assume ownership of bits of me. It's for me to make the proactive choice.

+1

It's MY body, not the Government's. They spend every minute of every day dreaming up new ways of categorizing, tracking and taxing us.

I currently carry the card because I do basically believe in and support organ donation but if they bring in "presumed consent" I will opt out (even though I wouldn't trust the bureaucratic bunglers to even do that right)

I'm another one who feels like this. Who the hell gives the Government the right to presume what they can do with my body when I die? The whole idea gets me really wound up. It's MY body and I'LL decide whether to opt in to the organ donor system.

If this is allowed to go through in Scotland I will be the first one in the queue to opt out and I will be carrying a card to that effect too. What winds me up is that I should not need to demonstrate this. It is my right to remain in tact after I'm dead, not to have someone rummaging about inside of me like an old car trying to salvage bits and pieces. To presume that you can simply do what you like with someone's body after they're dead is outrageous.

This should always be an opt in decision. If you feel so strongly about it then opt in and carry a donor card, but don't presume that you can have my organs when I die. Fking country is taking things too far.

[hairykrishna]

Skyrat said:

I'm another one who feels like this. Who the hell gives the Government the right to presume what they can do with my body when I die? The whole idea gets me really wound up. It's MY body and I'LL decide whether to opt in to the organ donor system.

If this is allowed to go through in Scotland I will be the first one in the queue to opt out and I will be carrying a card to that effect too. What winds me up is that I should not need to demonstrate this. It is my right to remain in tact after I'm dead, not to have someone rummaging about inside of me like an old car trying to salvage bits and pieces. To presume that you can simply do what you like with someone's body after they're dead is outrageous.

This should always be an opt in decision. If you feel so strongly about it then opt in and carry a donor card, but don't presume that you can have my organs when I die. Fking country is taking things too far.

On the other hand though you're dead; what does it matter what they do with your body? I'm pretty sure you'll be past caring.

[Skyrat]

hairykrishna said:

Skyrat said:

I'm another one who feels like this. Who the hell gives the Government the right to presume what they can do with my body when I die? The whole idea gets me really wound up. It's MY body and I'LL decide whether to opt in to the organ donor system.

If this is allowed to go through in Scotland I will be the first one in the queue to opt out and I will be carrying a card to that effect too. What winds me up is that I should not need to demonstrate this. It is my right to remain in tact after I'm dead, not to have someone rummaging about inside of me like an old car trying to salvage bits and pieces. To presume that you can simply do what you like with someone's body after they're dead is outrageous.

This should always be an opt in decision. If you feel so strongly about it then opt in and carry a donor card, but don't presume that you can have my organs when I die. Fking country is taking things too far.

On the other hand though you're dead; what does it matter what they do with your body? I'm pretty sure you'll be past caring.

That's not really the point is it? In any case, I do not believe in God or an afterlife. When I'm dead that's it. All that is left is my body, and I want it to be buried in tact, not to be harvested for its organs and then disposed of as a useless shell of what it once was.

I have no problem with people who want to donate their organs. I do not, however, I give blood when I can, but that is my choice. The Government have NO right to presume that I consent to them taking my organs.

ETA: If it makes no odds what happens to your body when you die, why bother arranging a funeral, be it cremation or buriel? If it makes no odds then why don't they just chuck your body in a ditch somewhere. As you point out, I'm pretty sure you'll be past caring.

Edited by Skyrat on Tuesday 18th November 20:07

[hairykrishna]

Skyrat said:

That's not really the point is it? In any case, I do not believe in God or an afterlife. When I'm dead that's it. All that is left is my body, and I want it to be buried in tact, not to be harvested for its organs and then disposed of as a useless shell of what it once was.

I have no problem with people who want to donate their organs. I do not, however, I give blood when I can, but that is my choice. The Government have NO right to presume that I consent to them taking my organs.

ETA: If it makes no odds what happens to your body when you die, why bother arranging a funeral, be it cremation or buriel? If it makes no odds then why don't they just chuck your body in a ditch somewhere. As you point out, I'm pretty sure you'll be past caring.

Why do you want to be buried intact? I just honestly don't get it. Your body's already a 'useless shell' when you're dead, why does it matter if they chop a few bits out before they bury you?

As for your last comment; it's illegal just to be thrown in a ditch. I wouldn't care though on account of being dead! I really don't mind what happens to my corpse.

[DucatiGary]

and there was me thinking "at least gordo couldnt take my bontempi"

[NWTony]

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 !!

I don't mean to upset you but I'm going to I'm afraid. Your two boys needed a (kidney?) transplant which they were lucky enough to receive and I'm genuinely pleased they have, even though I don't know you from Adam. However those kidneys came from the body of a small child who has died, whose parents, in a time of great grief and hardship, took the decision to give there dying child's organs so that others may live. It appears from what you are saying is that you now presume you have a right to those organs, that there is something fundemental that means that your had a right to receive the organs from that other dead child.

The act of donating organs (and I carry a card myself) should always be a truly voluntary one, take away that choice, presume consent and you reduce the value of the act of donation. If you aren't given the choice of a right or wrong thing to do, there can be no merit in doing the right thing.

Again, this isn't meant to be offensive to you and I can understand your strong feelings, given your situation.

[Chrispy Porker]

hairykrishna said:

Skyrat said:

That's not really the point is it? In any case, I do not believe in God or an afterlife. When I'm dead that's it. All that is left is my body, and I want it to be buried in tact, not to be harvested for its organs and then disposed of as a useless shell of what it once was.

I have no problem with people who want to donate their organs. I do not, however, I give blood when I can, but that is my choice. The Government have NO right to presume that I consent to them taking my organs.

ETA: If it makes no odds what happens to your body when you die, why bother arranging a funeral, be it cremation or buriel? If it makes no odds then why don't they just chuck your body in a ditch somewhere. As you point out, I'm pretty sure you'll be past caring.

Why do you want to be buried intact? I just honestly don't get it. Your body's already a 'useless shell' when you're dead, why does it matter if they chop a few bits out before they bury you?

As for your last comment; it's illegal just to be thrown in a ditch. I wouldn't care though on account of being dead! I really don't mind what happens to my corpse.

+1
If you die suddenly there will be a PM after which you will hardly be 'intact'!

[meandmeandme]

I think this is a really good idea, your 4 times more likely to need an organ than to donate one! Once you get to a certain age things naturally don't work as well and depending on your lifestyle you may not be suitable for organ donation anyway!