Forum Topic

Organs for the taking

So the Welsh Assembly has voted for an opt-out for organ donations. What do we all think? Should the rest of the UK follow suit? What happens when someone has a card/tag stating they don't want their organs removed - and they are still taken? Law suits at the ready.

David P Archer ● 4659d15 Comments

Yes, and doctors and other healthcare workers often have interests in other businesses.  These business interests should be very publicly declared.Are people openly selling organs in this country?

Philippa Bond ● 4645d

Yes,there is that aspect.As long as no doctor makes a value judgement regarding keeping someone alive or not on the basis of organs needed by someone else.After all,it sounds very much a supply and demand situation,with supply being a real issue.For instance someone without family or advocates might find themsewlves on the end of poor health care as regards keeping them alive if someone on the next ward needs a new kidney.God forbid...

Keith Iddon ● 4645d

You'd want to be sure that people weren't being hurried off unnecessarily because there was a value in their organs.

Philippa Bond ● 4646d

I say again, if anyone could benefit from any of my well worn and used bit'n pieces, they are welcome to have them. They've served me well and there's still some useful mileage remaining.

Gerry Tan ● 4646d

Hard cases do not make good law.

Susan Kelly ● 4646d

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10168712/Dead-woman-wakes-up-on-operating-table-as-organs-about-to-be-removed.html

Andy Horridge ● 4646d

The issue is thorny.On one hand another patient benefits from it.On the other someone profits from it.But it's not the donatee or their estate.It's not so much about money, but maybe someway of marking that donation.Maybe a tree planted for every donation or a contribution towards a public place rather than a third party making a profit.

Michael Brandt ● 4659d

Very sensitive issue indeed.My Sister died suddenly in April, she was kept alive for a day or two whilst her boyfriend came to terms with the events.  Then bits were taken off her, then her body was released to the family.  On the one hand I understand that someone may now have a better quality of life and perhaps medical research has advanced due to donations.  On the other, these organs belonged to my Sister, the surgeon didn't do the job for free and the Hospital would have made a profit somewhere along the line, did they pay for the organs?  No they didn't.  They took what they wanted for free and used them for financial gain.When my time comes? I just don't know!

Bernadette Clover ● 4659d

I don't accept that an opt-out implies a degree of coercion. You might as well say that the present opt-in system coerces people not to donate.We also need to address the problem of relatives who veto donations, despite the deceased's having made his/her wishes clear.

Susan Kelly ● 4659d

A donation is offered  and not taken because someone decides that another has a better right to it. We'd end up with a situation where any or more parts of a dying or vulnerable person is taken because someone decides another has a better right to it. Andy and Susan are closer to some sense. Ofcourse I am not the only one who has an opinion that is acceptable by all. I like the way Gerry put his thoughts across on this issue. Highly sensitive.

Os A Whittle ● 4659d

>>Susan Kelly wrote>>Which is why it mustn't be coercive in any way and it should be easy for people to opt out.>>AH replies>>Understood.  But I would say that 'not coercive in any way' would equate to a default position of 'automatically not being opted in' out the very outset.  To actively have to 'opt out' of any position, to me, suggests a subtle degree of coercion, if only by dint of exploiting  individuals' apathy.  And (although the possibility has not yet been raised) inevitably, an 'opt out administrative fee' could be argued for . . . . .   

Andy Horridge ● 4659d

Which is why it mustn't be coercive in any way and it should be easy for people to opt out.

Susan Kelly ● 4659d

Re. organ donation, and a requirement to 'opt out'.The argument does have significant philosophical and political ramifications.  The NHS is a State funded service, so it could be argued that the State is getting involved in quasi-coercive 'organ farming'.Like all the great questions in life, there is no simple answer.

Andy Horridge ● 4659d

I think it's a positive move, provided that no pressure is put on people who choose to opt out to explain themselves or justify their decision (as was suggested at one point).What reasons do people have for refusing donation, other than religious ones?

Susan Kelly ● 4659d

Interesting quetion David. When I die, I'm finished with my good life and if someone might benefit from any of my well worn and expired 'sell by' date bits, then they are warmly welcome. Life has been generally good - so let some poor soul benefit if pos.

Gerry Tan ● 4659d