The need for opt-out organ donation in England

[Udayana]

So, you think that a person's will should not be respected? I don't see the difference. One is an asset and the other is organs. It is what the person wanted. I have made a will but didn't consult my relatives (other than my wife and the custodians for the children - it is a joint will). Have I done wrong? Should it be able to be simply rejected by relatives because they don't like it (other than if they suspect fraud of some sort)?

The only other consideration I would give is that (IMO) you should need to be above an age of consent before the question is asked. I would suggest 16-18, but after that be able to opt-out at any point. Like most things there is no hard and fast line but I think you should be able to consider a position before you agree to it, wherever possible.

.

Surely if you take the logical path that follows on in that direction then you must question the whole concept of wills, inheritance and control over assets after death. But I'm not advocating any such path.

In any case, it seems that under the opt-out system family consent is still required as it has been under the opt-in system.

I am simply trying to understand why there are insufficient organs available under the opt-in system, It seems to me that it is best to understand the failures of the existing system and to try and fix those first rather than put in a system that relies on peoples inaction or attention deficit.

[Udayana]

Shaker

Please keep up the good work of pointing out the terminal unpleasantness of the views of Hope and Udayana on this subject, their willingness to deny life where it can be given as a gift when, in Hope's case, it is being taken away by ther will of his shit-head of a God (if we are to believe what he says of his God)  - you are well aware of the volatility of my temper when faced with this kind shit and if I try typing what I think about their views I will be banned permanently in a instant.

Go Shaker!

What "terminal unpleasantness" ?  Is the problem just that people are unable to discuss death? Please explain why you think God or religion have anything to do with it. Even Hope only mentioned it as an aside.

Shaker just went off on a pointless unrelated rant!

 

[Owlswing]

What "terminal unpleasantness" ?  Is the problem just that people are unable to discuss death? Please explain why you think God or religion have anything to do with it. Even Hope only mentioned it as an aside.

Shaker just went off on a pointless unrelated rant!

According to Hope's religion life is a gift given bu God and taken away by the same God.

If, as Hope keeps telling us, everything that happens is by his God's will, then the decision to take organs for donation in order to extend life is by Hope's God's will also!

As to your arguments against the use of organs of someone already deceased at the behest of the surviving relatives effectively, to my mind, makes said relatives culpable in the death of the patient. Effectively they are saying "Our relative has died so why should someone elses's relative live?"

The only objections that have ever, to my recollection, been raised against organs being taken for transplant from opted-in donors have been on religious grounds.

I find both these arguments against opt-out "terminal unpleasantness"!

The deceased has no further use for the organs - give them to some who does have a use for them.

If God doesn't like the idea he will, in his supreme omnipotence no doubt, ensure the death of the recipient as soon as possible after surgery.

Unless of course Hope and his Church pray for mercy.

[Udayana]

Well .. The current system seems to be that the relatives are asked for consent in both opt-in and opt-out systems. I don't necessarily support this approach but it seems to be acceptable to everyone concerned - staff, patients and relatives at present.

I don't believe that where relatives do not give consent, they are acting on their religious beliefs. a) Most people are not religious b) No mainstream religion prohibits or discourages organ donation. If relatives were objecting on religious grounds then they would object similarly in either system - in fact they might be more inclined to give consent in the opt-in system as they would know for sure that the deceased (when registered as a donor) did want to donate whatever their own religious view.

They must have other reasons for not giving consent - presumably reasons no-one is willing to talk about (?).

It could be that, due to the cultural inability of staff and relatives to discuss or face up to the death of the potential donor, that in the opt-in system staff don't even ask the relatives unless they know that there was a prior opt-in. They may feel more confidant about asking in the opt-out system.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

What is it, specifically, about an opt-out system (i.e. don't like it = say no thanks) that you think interferes with anybody's rights?

It's my body. Don't presume that I want it cut up without my consent.

[floo]

It's my body. Don't presume that I want it cut up without my consent.

But when you are dead it is of no use to you, and will either rot or be incinerated. It is mean of people not to donate their organs in order to help others.

[Owlswing]

It's my body. Don't presume that I want it cut up without my consent.

Fine so you opt-out! END OF!

Just don't deny others whose view is different

[floo]

Why is it some Christians don't like the idea of  having their organs removed after death? Over the years I have come across quite a number. I was on another the forum the other day, where this topic is being discussed, and one 'born again' was adamant her body was not going to be cut up after death. I suspect some think they wouldn't be resurrected at the mythical 'second coming if not intact. That is also why some Christians prefer a burial to cremation.

[Brownie]

I used to feel as you do, floo.  After all, once we're dead our body is of no use to us.  However I am less blase about it now, having spoken to people who feel quite strongly, if not about themselves, about their loved ones.  So I think it is fair enough for people to opt out of organ donation if they want to, there won't be that many.  For myself, I don't care what happens to my body but I doubt medical science will want it, they generally want younger stuff  , but they can have it if they want it!  I used to carry a donor card but lost it and wouldn't bother now.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Surely if you take the logical path that follows on in that direction then you must question the whole concept of wills, inheritance and control over assets after death. But I'm not advocating any such path.

I don't see why. Maybe we have misunderstood each other?

[Udayana]

You were (I think) suggesting that organs and assets were alike and so, presumably, treated alike. Obviously the actual distribution of any assets or organs is not of any concern to the deceased (as they are dead), but people make wills and so on out of concern for the welfare and feelings of their families or others left after their death. 

When someone dies without having made a will, the state does not just appropriate their assets - normally we try to distribute them as fairly as possible between the surviving relatives. In the UK there is a formal system of division and allocation and also compulsory taxes.

In the case of organs, the least the state can do (and as is the practice) is to ask the relations for consent to use them. If we need more organs we should ask why consent is not requested or not given and address those points.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You were (I think) suggesting that organs and assets were alike and so, presumably, treated alike. Obviously the actual distribution of any assets or organs is not of any concern to the deceased (as they are dead), but people make wills and so on out of concern for the welfare and feelings of their families or others left after their death. 

Exactly. It was a concern to them when they were alive. We should respect that concern. It was their asset/organ.

When someone dies without having made a will, the state does not just appropriate their assets - normally we try to distribute them as fairly as possible between the surviving relatives. In the UK there is a formal system of division and allocation and also compulsory taxes.

But an organ donor has made a will, well their wishes at least clear.

In the case of organs, the least the state can do (and as is the practice) is to ask the relations for consent to use them.

No. Why is it up to them to give consent. If the person concerned has already given it, then that is it. End of.

[Brownie]

If the person concerned has already given it (consent), then that is it. End of.

I agree with that.  There will also be many people who have not expressed any wish one way or the other, whose relatives give consent.  Most people are happy to donate organs, why do we worry about those who aren't?  There are plenty of donated organs that are unused because of surplus, also some because they are not up to scratch.

[Udayana]

Yes, I agree that if the person is already registered that should be sufficient.

However that is not how the current system operates. Neither will the proposed opt-out system. Of-course it would be useful to understand exactly why that is, but there must be good reasons, even if only to maintain the trust of the public in medical staff and procedures. It would also be useful to understand why, actually, consent is not given - I think this is in around 50 - 60% of the cases (from previous links)- at the lower end in the opt-out system.

It is true that there are plenty of potentially donated organs that are unused, but this is not because there is an excess of donors, but because most organs cannot be used - depending on the circumstances of the death,  matches, age of the donor, medical history and so on.

In fact, very few available organs can be used, so there is a desperate shortage. Imo, that is why the issues need to be addressed openly and transparently.