Organ Donation [Archive] - weebls-stuff forums

Ozzylator

13-01-2008, 09:08 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has stated his active interest in operating an "opt-out" scheme regarding organ donation. For those of whom this article and research in general is TL;DR this means that anybody who has died will have their organs donated to those in need of transplants unless they or their loved ones object.

Currently thousands every year are in need of transplants, with hundreds dying because they do not get the organs they need. Only a handful of the population is on the organ donor register.

Organ donation is one of the few "noble causes" I actively believe in - the idea that after my death I can save a life is one that is greatly appealing to me. I'd like to know what your views are on Brown's proposed opt-out scheme and on donation in general.

(Finally, if you are in the UK, and thinking of donating but haven't yet done anything about it, I urge you to consider joining the NHS Donor Register (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp).)

Darkscull

13-01-2008, 09:18 PM

I thought this was a bump of the recent thread on organ donation that was moved here.

actually that one had a few people supporting the 'opt-out' idea.

anyway:
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
the only problem with it is that people will misunderstand and think they have no choice (even with the name 'opt-out' thrown in their faces).
headlines like "PM backs automatic organ donation" won't help.

I predict that the only arguments against it will consist of people talking about 'choice', and how their choice (to not donate organs) is made more difficult, and so this proposal is anti-choice, or something.

the way i see it is: if you are against having your organs donated then you can opt out. if you aren't willing to go to the effort of doing that, then you obviously don't care that much about your organs not being taken, and so what's the problem?

lilparp

13-01-2008, 09:29 PM

Splush

13-01-2008, 10:20 PM

As long as it's advertised really well so that everybody knows what position they're in, it sounds like a good plan.

feeshy

13-01-2008, 11:03 PM

It's definately a great idea, the only part that's a bit off is 'if their loved ones object'. So does that mean that even if I've got an organ donor card and want my organs donated, it won't go ahead if my mum said no? I'm not saying it should end up as some horror movie style dragging a corpse off to be harvested with screaming relatives in the background (to be dramatic), but... they're going to be upset, devastated even, and the question of whether they want the organs donated isn't exactly good timing, as it were, so if they said no it would be understandable. But that wouldn't nessecarily be what they actually wanted, and by the time they were together enough to think rationally about it, it would be too late... Poorly explained, but not suprising considering it's based on events in Casualty...

argh

13-01-2008, 11:17 PM

You are not in control of yourself if you are braindead, and then the power of attorney goes to your next of kin (or someone else if previously expressed). This is why you need to tell your loved ones your wishes because ultimately, they decide.

Sorcha

13-01-2008, 11:22 PM

Apart from on religious grounds, I can't think of any reason why people would object to having their organs used to save others after their deaths, so yeah, this sounds like a plan.
I also think, as above, that people will misrepresent the 'automatic' nature of the scheme, but that is, I suppose, to be expected.

A lot of people don't like the idea of their body being taken apart, even if they're not religious. But you can bet your money, most religious people won't want to donate their organs. Sigh :(

Darkscull

13-01-2008, 11:25 PM

I suppose one bad side-effect of the 'opt-out' idea is that since everyone would be on the register (unless they opt out), and so it would no longer serve as an indication of the persons wishes.
so unless a person actually makes sure the family know their wishes, then the family will have no guide and decide based on how they feel at that moment.

but that is outweighed by the good of having an automatic register, because in cases where the next of kin can't be contacted then it's an automatic yes and they can use them for good rather than having to dispose of any useful organs.

But you can bet your money, most religious people won't want to donate their organs.

not most, by far.

religious people may tend to be in the section who wouldn't embrace the idea by signing up and carrying a card, but they aren't going to object either, and will leave it up to their families.
unless of course they're ancient egyptians.

most modern religions deemphasise the physical nature of existence, and in my experiences most religious people are well aware of the fact that things relating to death and the physical remains is an issue for those left behind to deal with.

essentially, the non-religious think that they cease to exist entirely after death, and so the body doesn't matter. (most) religious people think that their soul (or equivalent) will move on somewhere else (whether it be another body, heaven, hell, etc.), and so the old body doesn't matter.

when people object to having their organs used, or care what their burial arrangements are, it is usually independent from religious concerns.

Bald Rick

14-01-2008, 12:34 AM

Scrumpopolis

14-01-2008, 12:41 AM

Ozzylator

14-01-2008, 12:45 AM

cyber_turnip

14-01-2008, 01:41 AM

2-D

14-01-2008, 04:08 AM

A lot of people don't like the idea of their body being taken apart, even if they're not religious. But you can bet your money, most religious people won't want to donate their organs. Sigh :(

Im religious and i put my name on the list before everyone was automatically put on it.

I feel that if i can help people even in my death then i will. And i dont believe that God....well i dont think he will really care if i get buried or not infact i believe he will be pleased if i try and help people even after i die.

Dick Champion

14-01-2008, 04:40 AM

I really think this one's a no-brainer, and I'm surprised that proposals for system of presumed consent haven't already been put forward asnd passed. Then again, it wasn't until the end of 2006 that it was legally possible in the UK to receive live donations of organs from anybody outside of your family and friends. The mind boggles, it really does.

According to a report by UK Transplant - the authority responsible for maintaining and regulating both the national transplant database and the NHS organ donor register - 40% of families who do not know their relative's wishes opt for the default position which is not to donate. We know, based on evidence from various surveys, that the vast majority (90% according to a survey conducted in 2003 by UK Transplant ) of people in this country support organ donation. Yet currently, only 23% of the UK population are registered organ donors. If we're trying to respect the wishes of the deceased, then the best way to make sure that the majority of these wishes are carried out is to adopt a system of presumed consent.

Another point that doesn't seem to have been addressed thus far is that the current system does not have a mechanism for protecting the wishes of those people who, for whatever reason, do not want to become organ donors. An opt-out system is more effective in that it enables people who do object to ensure that their wishes are respected.

I suppose one bad side-effect of the 'opt-out' idea is that since everyone would be on the register (unless they opt out), and so it would no longer serve as an indication of the persons wishes.
so unless a person actually makes sure the family know their wishes, then the family will have no guide and decide based on how they feel at that moment.

Actually, with regards to the family of the deceased, I think that an opt-out system would be far better for two reasons:

Firstly; in the short term, changing to a system of presumed consent will prompt discussion between families and friends about organ donation. Thus, it is more likely that people will be made aware of their wishes of their relatives. As long as it is handled correctly, this might not even be a short-term effect since every child will have to be informed that they have the right to opt-out once they reach the age of 16 - or whenever the legislators decide that people are old enough to come to an informed decision on the matter. With the right educational programmes, children could be encouraged to discuss the issue of organ donation with their parents and friends. In any case, increased awareness of the issues surrounding organ donations can't be a bad thing.

Secondly, and more importantly; instead of asking the family for consent, doctors would be informing them that their relative had not opted out of donation. The families would be relieved of the burden of making the decision in the absence of any evidence of the deceased wishes. Consulting the family would only be to make that the family were not aware of any unregistered objection to organ donation by the deceased, or whether it would cause undue distress to any surviving family member.

One final point I'd like to make is that there are any number of reasons for which an individual might not want be an organ donor. Various religious reasons are amongst them, but are by no means the only grounds for objection. Also, it does not follow that all religious people are likely to be against the idea of organ donation - far from it. To presume otherwise is more than a little bigoted.

Ozzylator

14-01-2008, 07:19 AM

Squeamishness seems to be the number one complaint amongst my friends. They told me that they supported the principle but would have to think about doing it themselves.

Cjw

14-01-2008, 07:32 AM

I'm all for it-although sadly the typical types are already yelling "Brown is trying to steal our organs".

happy-go-lucky

14-01-2008, 09:08 AM

Squeamishness seems to be the number one complaint amongst my friends. They told me that they supported the principle but would have to think about doing it themselves.

I'm pretty squeamish, but that wouldn't make me want to opt out, because I'd be dead. Not really much of me left to be squeamish.

Jimmeh

14-01-2008, 11:20 AM

I would object because my organs would most probably be donated to somebody who'd destroyed their organs by hard drinking or chain smoking, and I'd prefer it if they went to people whose organ damage wasn't the result of their selfish greed, but I doubt I'd be allowed to choose who'd recieve
my organs so I'd definitely opt-out.

The donor recipient list is very carefully constructed. It's not simply a "first come first serve" system and you can be very confident in saying that those who have abused their organs are not at the top of the list. Also they may be recovering alcoholics who have done irreparable damage to their liver but have turned their life around so I do not believe it's as black and white as that.

I do agree with the opt-out system but I also feel that it may put unnecessary pressure on those who wish to opt out not to do so as "opting in" would be the social norm. Although I suppose if you believe very strongly in not having your organs taken this may not make such a difference?

SpunkyBackpack

14-01-2008, 12:08 PM

I whole heartedly agree with the idea of an 'opt out' system.

I would go one step further though, and stipulate that those who do 'opt out' of this system are not elilgible for a transplant should they ever need one. If I was in a car crash tomorrow I would like to know that my organs are going to someone who would do the same for me if our positions were reversed.

gembird

14-01-2008, 12:14 PM

I can sort of see your point, but I think the number of people who are against organ donation to the point where they'll opt out of that scheme will be low enough that it won't really matter. The chance of your organs going to someone who wouldn't have done the same would most likely be very low.

faragher

14-01-2008, 12:22 PM

It was interesting to see the approaches by the different papers to this story this weekend:

Observer : "Lots of facts about how people are dying and stuff. Support for the idea. Genuine debate on the issues it raises."
Daily Mail : "OMG BROWN WILL STEAL YOUR LIVER!"

This is a great idea - 3 people a day die in the UK for lack of available transplants. This would stop that as well as massively improving the quality of life for many others.

Smokey

14-01-2008, 05:16 PM

After a bit of thought about it I say fuck it. Go ahead.

If I was to die tomorrow then my organs would go to the grave with me simply because I haven't said I'd want them donated which I think I would. As long as they don't change the qualification for the transplant list I have no problem with this.

But the question is, considering if the proposal past that there would be an excess of organs for transplantation, would an alcoholic be granted a liver which otherwise would have gone to waste if everyone who made the current criteria already had one? Now that question is more difficult to answer.

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 05:19 PM

But the question is, considering if the proposal past that there would be an excess of organs for transplantation, would an alcoholic be granted a liver which otherwise would have gone to waste if everyone who made the current criteria already had one? Now that question is more difficult to answer.

that isn't too difficult a question to answer, but it also isn't quite the question.

the question is: is they did, would you have a problem with it?

katt

14-01-2008, 05:34 PM

I don't like the idea of automatically being on an organ donor list because it strikes me as the government saying 'we own your body and your life so when you die your organs are automatically available to us to use as we wish'.

What if the government automatically required someone to donate a kidney to save a life if they were a match and there was a need? Not saying the organ-donor-after-death thing is exactly the same thing. Just putting it out there as a question of how much the government owns us.

Also, I am under the impression the quality of life is pretty poor for people who recieve some organ transplants. Maybe it is my belief that there is an afterlife of some kind that prevents me from viewing any quality of life as better than death.

Not saying i am in a hurry to die ...who is?

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 05:46 PM

I don't like the idea of automatically being on an organ donor list because it strikes me as the government saying 'we own your body and your life so when you die your organs are automatically available to us to use as we wish'.

you forgot the last bit: "unless you don't want us to, in which case, say so and we'll leave it"

I think that yours is quite an odd perspective to have on the matter, and it doesn't strike me as one of the natural reactions to this sort of thing. It seems to be the sort of thing people come up with when they've already decided they don't want to be on such a list but don't want to admit to it.

for one thing, it's hardly them 'owning' your body, since you can still decide what happens to it as much as you could before (that is: not at all, since your family decides. even if you tell them what you want they don't have to follow that), it's just that rather than putting the onus on you to decide you want to leave your organs and acting on that, it's up to the people who decide they don't to act on that.
It's a case of efficiency since it appears that not objecting is the majority view, and so it makes sense to make that the default position.

Also, I am under the impression the quality of life is pretty poor for people who recieve some organ transplants. Maybe it is my belief that there is an afterlife of some kind that prevents me from viewing any quality of life as better than death.

however don't you think it's the choice of the recipient as to whether they want to have the chance to live or not? (after all, you can turn down transplants even if it means you die).

PS. the quality of life of organ transplant recipients varies quite a lot. the average quality of life is better than it used to be as techniques improve, but there are always some who never really recover, along with some who end up better than before (especially if the cause of the problems was a congenital disorder active from birth)

katt

14-01-2008, 05:56 PM

you forgot the last bit: "unless you don't want us to, in which case, say so and we'll leave it"

True but it seems like they are assuming a great deal by including everyone on the list.

I think it is great if people sign up for it because they want to do it; but it is another thing to assume everyone wants to give their body parts to the nation :)

I think that yours is quite an odd perspective to have on the matter, and it doesn't strike me as one of the natural reactions to this sort of thing. It seems to be the sort of thing people come up with when they've already decided they don't want to be on such a list but don't want to admit to it.

well i admit i wouldn't want to be on such a list, at least not right now. I am not trying to hide that. I might change my ideas in time but right now I find the idea a bit too icky.

I would probably need to research how people with organ trasplants find their quality of life and if they are glad they had the transplant first.

for one thing, it's hardly them 'owning' your body, since you can still decide what happens to it as much as you could before (that is: not at all, since your family decides. even if you tell them what you want they don't have to follow that), it's just that rather than putting the onus on you to decide you want to leave your organs and acting on that, it's up to the people who decide they don't to act on that.
It's a case of efficiency since it appears that not objecting is the majority view, and so it makes sense to make that the default position.

Well there is a slight difference if the government assumes they get to lay claim to your body parts rather than people volunteering. I don't like the government assuming too much of anything about what they own. I distrust governments in general (although i am not anti-government pro-anarchy) if that makes sense.

however don't you think it's the choice of the recipient as to whether they want to have the chance to live or not? (after all, you can turn down transplants even if it means you die).

Well of course i think people should have a choice; I think it is great if people find the advantages outweight the disadvantages. However, personally speaking, I would hope that i would never be in such a position: i would rather have a quick and relatively painless death than cling on for years suffering horribly.

I think human suffering on earth is far more terrifying than death.

gembird

14-01-2008, 06:03 PM

Daily Mail : "OMG BROWN WILL STEAL YOUR LIVER!"

Funny you should say that; while I was in Subway this afternoon waiting for the rain to stop, I was reading today's Daily Mail. There was a full page of some woman's column where she ranted on about how the opt-out scheme would take away everyone's right to choose what happens to their bodies, even though it said elsewhere in the paper (surprisingly) that the family would still be consulted. She implied that Gordon Brown is only making a big deal of this to make himself look more human, and even went so far as to compare organ transplants with abortion. Apparently both are unnatural, wrong and count as both murder and a breach of human rights. This very uneducated- or willfully ignorant- journalist was seemingly unaware of the fact that if you're declared braindead whilst on a life support machine, you wouldn't survive without that machine. So actually Mrs Daily Mail Ranty Woman, no, that person hooked up to the machines is not technically 'alive' in any real sense of the word right up until they're cut open on the operating table to donate a few organs. Without that machine they would be unable to donate anything to anyone as the organs would have no blood supply and would therefore decompose, because that person is dead.

I seriously cannot believe that there are people this stupid writing for national newspapers. By all means, opinions should be stated, but not in such a scare-mongering, shit-stirring, ignorant way- not by someone who people might take notice of.

feeshy

14-01-2008, 06:03 PM

I think it is great if people sign up for it because they want to do it; but it is another thing to assume everyone wants to give their body parts to the nation :)

They're not, as such- every survey I've seen on the matter says the vast majority of people are perfectly happy to be a donor, which when you compare it to the registered population, doesn't add up. The problem is people are lazy; when it's something optional like this that you'll never know or care about anyway (well, you'll be dead) they're always too busy, forgot, or something. It's likely to be easier to opt out than opt in, so if you feel that strongly on the matter then there's othing stopping you.

i would rather have a quick and relatively painless death than cling on for years suffering horribly.

Not me, I'm a massive coward...

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 06:07 PM

a few more things:

it's not the government taking the organs, it's the government freeing the health services to do part of their job a bit more efficiently and (hopefully) improve things by releasing more organs for transplants.
also, putting it as an 'assumption' that the organs are available is a bit misleading: the family will still be asked, and their decision will still be final, as before, it's just it shifts the balance in favour of organs being donated in cases where there is no clear preference.

also, for some reason i feel compelled to point out that:
the scenario for organ donation will still be the same, that people will be on a waiting list for when an organ becomes available, just it will move faster, and the red tape for deciding the positions on the list will be a bit slacker due to the increased avaliability.
peoples organs aren't going to be harvested and stored in a warehouse somewhere if they haven't opted out. and before anyone says "i wouldn't put it past them", i shall point out that such a program wouldn't be practical in anyway since organs get past the point where they can be transplanted very quickly after death.

Not me, I'm a massive coward...

interestingly, both people who don't want to die, and those who don't want to cling on if they were suffering could say the exact same thing.

it depends whether you're afraid of death (re: the unknown) or not i suppose

katt

14-01-2008, 06:10 PM

Not me, I'm a massive coward...

funny i feel I am a bit of a coward too in that i would rather a quick, painless end than struggle on and on in a great deal of physical pain (not minor pain mind you I am talking vast amounts).

I don't know I possibly have some unusual outlooks about things compared to some people (although i know i am not alone in my feelings that the state should not assume they have your organs).

If a NO card means they cannot harvest doesn't that mean a NO card could easily disappear by 'accident'? If the doctor felt it was for the good of humanity?

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 06:16 PM

If a NO card means they cannot harvest doesn't that mean a NO card could easily disappear by 'accident'? If the doctor felt it was for the good of humanity?

since everyone who has opted out would have to have done so officially, they would be on a list of people who didn't want their organs used.
if the predictions that that list will be relatively small are correct, then it would be fairly simple and quick to look them up and see. (even though time is of critical importance in these cases, it isn't critical to the point of not waiting for a computer search).

you have to remember that the NHS is a lot more integrated than health services in the US, and information is shared quite well in most cases (important information, anyway).
they would probably look for someone's name on the opt-out list before even thinking of going through their wallet to find a card saying so.

Bald Rick

14-01-2008, 06:25 PM

You would rather your organs went to worms than to people who needed organs to live because they might be smokers?

You have some interesting perceptions about the value of human life.

No, i'd rather they went to a person who'd led a healthy life or a child whose
organs had been ravaged by cancer. Why can't a donor make that choice?

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 06:32 PM

No, i'd rather they went to a person who'd led a healthy life or a child whose
organs had been ravaged by cancer. Why can't a donor make that choice?

don't you know how organ donation works?

people who need organs go on a list. the order of that list is decided based on the relative urgency of the cases balanced against whether they are considered 'worthy' (for want of a better word).

drug addicts (incl. alcoholics, and more recently smokers), those with outstanding mental issues that will affect their good usage of the organ etc. are pushed further down the list by those factors.
children, those who have dependents, etc. are pushed further up the list by those factors.

when organs become available, they are given to the person on the top of the list.

people further down the list don't get an organ until there's no one else above them. if someone else gets a condition at a later time that is considered more critical then they will be put above you in the list (or if they are considered more 'worthy' because you drunk your liver to hell and that's why you need a new one).

so, essentially: they most probably will go to someone who's led a healthy life and was just unlucky. that is decided by people who's job it is to decide those things, and they are monitored quite closely to make sure they follow the rules.
their job isn't to make sure that your wishes are upheld, it's to get organs to the people who are going to put them to good use and really really need them. so no, it's not your choice where they go (except to decide whether they go or not), but that means that you will get your particular way, because even if someone wanted their liver to go to an alcoholic, it wouldn't, and would go to someone that you want it to (based on what you said in your post)

feeshy

14-01-2008, 06:43 PM

No, i'd rather they went to a person who'd led a healthy life or a child whose
organs had been ravaged by cancer. Why can't a donor make that choice?

To quote Doctor Who, if you could decide who lives and who dies, you'd be a monster... Yes, I'm sure there are those who 'deserve' a transplant more than others, but it isn't really a case of that. There's only going to be a few matches available anyway, chosen on several grounds. Even if you do save the life of an obese alcoholic, you're still saving another person, which I think more than makes you an incredibly (if dead) person.

Besides, aren't we all killing ourselves slowly anyway? Nobody's perfect.

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 06:50 PM

I don't think i said this clearly enough in my previous post:

the way organ donation works means that it doesn't matter particularly where your organs go, because if you haven't saved the cancer child, it's because someone else has.
except that in a way, you have saved them, because from the organ finding perspective, it's all about numbers.
if the numbers are too low it's more complicated to pick who will or won't get an organ, and it means that even if the person on the top of the list dies anyway, the person who would have gotten it instead of them gets another one anyway, rather than both dying.

I may not have explained that very well, but essentially all organ donors contribute to the great pool of organ resources, and the greater that pool is, the more lives are saved.
I know a few people apart from me get what i'm going on about: i have heard people currently on the organ donor register say that they feel proud whenever they hear about someone getting an organ and getting better, because even though it wasn't their organ that did it, they are part of the whole process that allows that to happen.

maxxy_p

14-01-2008, 07:09 PM

People who are against the opt-out scheme:

What about if there was a point in life where you are given the choice to opt out? Say, for instance, when a child is born, the parents can opt them out of the list. Or when you reach 18 the government sends you a form that you can fill in if you want to opt out. That way you don't even have to get off your backside to find out about the options.

Bald Rick

14-01-2008, 08:05 PM

Or execute paedophiles and yobs, and donate their organs?

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 08:13 PM

Or execute paedophiles and yobs, and donate their organs?

where did that come from?

are you saying that's what should be done, or do you somehow think that's related to what people have been saying?

katt

14-01-2008, 08:14 PM

According to the movie 'body parts' it is not a good idea to use the body parts of murderers because they might come back and haunt you :eng101: :P

Jimmeh

14-01-2008, 09:17 PM

Also, I am under the impression the quality of life is pretty poor for people who recieve some organ transplants. Maybe it is my belief that there is an afterlife of some kind that prevents me from viewing any quality of life as better than death.

This is generally untrue. After watching a heart transplant recently and speaking with one of the donor team I asked about how it affects the quality of life. They have fairly frequent checkups within the first few months to make sure everything is going well and that their medication is working for them. Once an appropriate level of medication is found then the checkups become less frequent and they can go on to live relatively normal lives, including playing sports and so on still. The only thing is that they need to be more aware that when they get a slight fever it may be a lot more serious then it is for most people, however they still have direct support from the hospital so they can verify what is going on.

The life expectancy is around 50% will survive for 12 years and around 20/15% for 20 and above years.

This to me, sounds like an excellent trade off for dying!

bionic sheep

14-01-2008, 09:31 PM

I was just talking about this with my mum, she's a nurse, and although this isn't really relevant I figured you'd like to hear.

She was saying that a lot of religious folk will opt-out of this scheme because it's, y'know, traditional to be buried with all your bits. She then said that seems a bit weird to her, because if you get circumcised, do they bury that bit too?

She was then saying about how apparently your foreskin is really useful if you need a skin graft - the only trouble is that it swells up if you get excited, ha ha ha. I don't know if she's making that last bit up, but man that would be pretty funny I think.

Darkscull

14-01-2008, 09:39 PM

She was saying that a lot of religious folk will opt-out of this scheme because it's, y'know, traditional to be buried with all your bits. She then said that seems a bit weird to her, because if you get circumcised, do they bury that bit too?

interestingly enough, in the traditional jewish circumcision ceremony, they do bury the foreskin.

but yeah, the thing to remember is that it's a tradition more than anything to be buried whole. I don't know of any religious people that believe that the state of their body after death affects their circumstances in the afterlife, just some people feel a bit awkward thinking about their bodies after death, and don't like the idea of being operated on and having things removed.

so it comes down to tradition and squeemishness again.

what would be very odd would be someone who didn't want to have their organs removed after death, yet was planning to be cremated.
I know it's possible that someone would hold those positions, i'm just wondering what their reasoning would be.

katt

14-01-2008, 11:31 PM

don't they already ask people if they want to donate when they get their license? since almost everyone has a driver's license wouldn't it be a bit more polite to ask people if they want to be on the register when they get their license renewed every few years instead of assuming they have claim on your body parts?

prior to that the could ask parents at the hospital if htey want their child to be a donor at birth.

it is always nicer to ask someone first.

Also what happens if there is a really really old donor? older people have poorer quality organs. The idea of a 76 year old's liver in a 20 year old sounds a bit rough

Splush

14-01-2008, 11:52 PM

Spookalooney

14-01-2008, 11:55 PM

What i worry about is the possiblility of a mix up in the system. There are enough flaws to make it probable that someone who has opted out will have their organs removed and used by mistake - not really something which can be undone!

I remember being in my last year at school and some person coming round handing out donor card forms and asking people to fill them in. When I decided not to I was accused by my peers of being immoral and it led to some pretty awkward conversations.

The problem with "opt-out" is that it singles out people within society as having a view which is not of the norm. Some may feel pressurised into not opting out as it will make them appear "bad" or even hypocritical if they were in the position of needing a transplant themselves. Society will force many of these people to comply rather than stick to their beliefs.

what would be very odd would be someone who didn't want to have their organs removed after death, yet was planning to be cremated.
I know it's possible that someone would hold those positions, i'm just wondering what their reasoning would be.

Funny you should mention this as it is actually something which I DO personally believe. It is not a part of religion, just a personal preference due to some deep thinking I did in the past. I believe that when you die, the body should be whole in order for the soul to remain whole on the next life. However, the body should be cremated as to let the body rot would be to damage the soul. Fire has long been seen as a means of purification and cremation of the body allows for purification of the soul.

This is completely personal and I have no idea whether anyone else feels this way. Hope it answers your question though!

katt

15-01-2008, 12:02 AM

Asking for donors with driving licenses might be an American thing, I don't know, I just don't remember it happening when I got my license. Also it would be more meaningful in America because here there's plenty of people who never get a driving license.

I doubt they use old peoples' organs unless it's the only option and it's an emergency.

ah perhaps. Most of us get our licenses right at 16. I think i remember being asked if I wanted to donate and saying no. I also remember a few friends waving around their licenses with "ORGAN DONOR" boldly stickered onto them.

And i remember thinking 'hmmmmm glad i ticked off no'. Of course i was just 16 at the time and what 16 year old wants to think of themselves dying adn being harvested for organs.

If I was 40 or so i would not like it if i knew the doctors operating on me knew that if they did not save me all my bits would go save several teens-early 20s people. I know that is paranoia but the thought still makes me a bit uncomfortable: that the government/surgeons could view your life as the chance to save several lives.

If the government wants to encourage organ donation they should find ways to pop the question (whether its driver's license...going to school...filling out taxes etc) besides assuming they own your body by default. I am sure they could find some opportunity to ask the question

Scrumpopolis

15-01-2008, 12:50 AM

Some may feel pressurised into not opting out as it will make them appear "bad" or even hypocritical if they were in the position of needing a transplant themselves. I would say that not wanting your organs to be donated after death and receiving an organ donation would be the height of hypocrisy. How is it anything but that?

Funny you should mention this as it is actually something which I DO personally believe. It is not a part of religion, just a personal preference due to some deep thinking I did in the past. I believe that when you die, the body should be whole in order for the soul to remain whole on the next life. However, the body should be cremated as to let the body rot would be to damage the soul. Fire has long been seen as a means of purification and cremation of the body allows for purification of the soul. Does this mean that you would not accept an organ transplant as it would be sticking a bit of someone elses soul-meat in your body and contaminating your soul? What would you do if you have appendicitis? Would you let them remove your appenidx or would you rather they let you die "intact"? Out of interest do you cut your hair or fingernails?

By all means you are entitled to your religous beliefs, but if you hold this belief that it is more important that your flesh is turned to ash than to give a person an extension on life or a better quality of life, then you should be sticking to it completely.

Twatybollocks

15-01-2008, 11:54 AM

It's weird that in the previous Organ Donation thread I said there should be such a scheme as this and now it's being implemented. You think the government is looking at these forums for policy ideas lol?

argh

15-01-2008, 01:02 PM

If I was 40 or so i would not like it if i knew the doctors operating on me knew that if they did not save me all my bits would go save several teens-early 20s people. I know that is paranoia but the thought still makes me a bit uncomfortable: that the government/surgeons could view your life as the chance to save several lives.

You usually have to have brain death and then be supported on life support for your organs to be taken. They'll try their best to save you and if they can't, they just keep the body artifically alive so they can get the organs and the family can say goodbye. If they did let you die, that would be against the Hippocratic Oath and they would have their liscence revoked. No doctor would let a person die to possibly save others.

I personally feel that if you wou;dn't donate your organs, you shouldn't get them either. I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't like hypocracy.

edit: If you're down with your organs being taken after you're dead, but afraid the doctors won't try to save you, talk to your family, if you're not an organ donar they ask the family if they'd like the organs to be donated, so tell your family you're okay with your organs being donated, and they can say yes, while you don't have to carry a card.

Darkscull

15-01-2008, 01:21 PM

What i worry about is the possiblility of a mix up in the system. There are enough flaws to make it probable that someone who has opted out will have their organs removed and used by mistake - not really something which can be undone!

what flaws are these? do you mean flaws in the current donation system, or flaws in the concept?
flaws in the current system wouldn't really apply, since it would obviously need an overhaul to adapt to the newer situation if this goes through. there can't be flaws in the new system itself, since it isn't in existence as more than a concept currently.
if you mean flaws in the concept, i would like to here what they are. the only arguments against it i've seen are ideological oppositions rather than practical ones.

The problem with "opt-out" is that it singles out people within society as having a view which is not of the norm. Some may feel pressurised into not opting out as it will make them appear "bad" or even hypocritical if they were in the position of needing a transplant themselves. Society will force many of these people to comply rather than stick to their beliefs.

society doesn't 'force' people to do anything, unless they let it. I am not of the norm in anyway whatsoever (in things that i can change) and i have never suffered except during school (which is not a good approximation of adult society), so there's no reason for me to change anything.
so unless you feel that people should be trying to fit in as much as possible, or that this issue would be a special case that would create such an oppressive atmosphere, then i don't think that this issue is really enough to change the concept in any way.

Funny you should mention this as it is actually something which I DO personally believe. It is not a part of religion, just a personal preference due to some deep thinking I did in the past. I believe that when you die, the body should be whole in order for the soul to remain whole on the next life. However, the body should be cremated as to let the body rot would be to damage the soul. Fire has long been seen as a means of purification and cremation of the body allows for purification of the soul.

um... it may not be part of a specific religion, but those are still what most people would call religious beliefs. It depends on your definition of 'religious' i suppose, and 'spiritual beliefs' might be a better term, but I think you should know that they pretty much fall into the same category as religious reasons.

that doesn't make them any less valid reasons, of course. your beliefs are your beliefs, and in a way they're a more valid reason than those people try and come up with outside of a spiritual context.*

I won't actually go through editing my posts, but my statement of never hearing of a religious/spiritual person being against having their organs taken due to their religious/spiritual beliefs is now void.

@katt:
a lot of your reasons against this seem to be based on extremely cynical/paranoid ideas. I feel it kind of disappointing that you seem to have developed such a negative view of people (or is it just doctors and governments... and muslims, to take from another thread). Previous times we've had polar opinions of things have been you at the positive end and me at the negative.

about the hypocrisy statements:
Although i feel it would be a bit hypocritical to deny others the possibility of your organs while gladly taking theirs, I would never take it to the point of denying them the chance to get donor organs if they would accept them.
it's like with the alcoholics who destroy their livers and need new ones: they may be low on the list, but they're still there.
I don't know whether objection to donation should be a criteria to moving someone down the list, but i'm leaning against that idea. (however all else being equal, or at least too near to decide, someone who opted out should be placed lower - however, that wouldn't matter if this went through because there would probably be organs for both)

*since some people might read this and remember things i've said in other threads and call me a hypocrite, i shall point out that there is a difference because this is a decision about yourself that only affects other in potential, rather than actuality (until such a situation arises), and so you can decide either way based on whatever you want.

bionic sheep

15-01-2008, 08:00 PM

Honestly, I don't think Katt should really have to defend herself if she doesn't want to donate her organs. I personally think it's a good thing, but ultimately it's something personal; that's fine by me.

I'm in favour of an opt-out system, because I think it will make transplants easier to do. I disagree with whoever it was that said you shouldn't receive organs if you won't donate, although I could get on board with a potential opt-out scheme for receiving organs in an emergency. Again, personal choice.

I think attacking Katt and calling her a paranoid cynic just because she doesn't like the idea of donating her own organs - whether that be for squeamish or religious reasons - is a little inflammatory. Ultimately, I think that more people will donate under this system, and it maintains the freedom to choose not to donate as well, for whatever reason that may come up.

Gotta respect other peoples' opinions. That kinda goes both ways, of course, because Katt was the one who originally posted the (arguably) inflammatory statement in the organ donor thread in pap like six million years ago, but splitting hairs over who started it is obscenely petty.

Also: The guy who said paedophiles should be executed and their organs donated is obviously some kind of retard.

Darkscull

15-01-2008, 08:14 PM

I think i may have been misunderstood somewhat:

whatever someones reasons for not wanting to donate, i accept that it's their choice to make. I might discuss those reasons if they're based on something about the process (like, for example someone not wanting to donate cos they think their organs will go to alcoholics), but i won't argue with someone for their beliefs on their choices.

I disagree with katt's assessment of the opt-out system, and that is what i argue against, not her personal choices about donating.
the cynic comment was an observation on the fact that many of katt's arguments against this scheme (and also the community courts scheme) are based on the fact that people could 'quite easily', or will 'probably' abuse the system and that such an abuse would be an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of these schemes and that that is why they should not be done.

ps. the bits in inverted commas weren't quotes, but rather examples of the sort of descriptions i recall her using.

Splush

15-01-2008, 10:10 PM

I sympathise with the idea of the government owning your organs being entirely sinister, but I disagree with the perception that these specific plans are a move by the government to gain more control over people. It's naturally worth being vigilant of any sort of move like that, but I think in this case it is misplaced concern. Rather than being interested in owning peoples organs for the sake of control, I think the government are interested in helping the NHS to be more effective to make a happier, healthier population while bringing Britain's reputation for organ donations up to a high level in line with our neighbours.

I'd still stress that good communication on the part of the government is absolutely essential to this idea; I think they should send letters to every household explaining the situation in clear terms and giving everybody short, convenient opt-out form along with a freepost envelope. As long as this is is done right then I don't think anybody could fairly accuse the government of trying to trick or cajole people into giving up their organs.

I feel like a vast majority of british citizens (at least 80% I'd guess, what does everyone else think?) would be philosophically in favour of donating their organs after death, but simply aren't motivated enough to join the register or informed enough to know how easy it is. That's just a gut feeling and maybe it's worth commissioning some actual research, but I feel pretty confident about my gut feeling and the vastness of that majority is what makes it really easy for me to support this plan. If there is an unavoidable discourtesy involved in making people donors by default then it's a discourtesy which only impacts a small minority, and while any discourtesy is a negative, I feel like the benefits of the increased organ availability would outweigh that negative so enormously as to make the decision to change the system an very easy one.

katt

16-01-2008, 12:19 AM

@katt:
a lot of your reasons against this seem to be based on extremely cynical/paranoid ideas. I feel it kind of disappointing that you seem to have developed such a negative view of people (or is it just doctors and governments... and muslims, to take from another thread). Previous times we've had polar opinions of things have been you at the positive end and me at the negative.

.

If it is cynical/paranoid to think the government owes people the courtesy of asking before assuming they have your organs after death then : yes i am cynical/paranoid.

If it is cynical/paranoid to not want the law in your country overshadowed by sharia law (which is responsible for a great deal of misery in certain places): then yes i am cynical/paranoid

but i might retort that you are overly trusting and unwilling to think that certain social movements might have broader consequences and implications (some of which might be negative).

basically get off my back

Darkscull

16-01-2008, 01:24 PM

If it is cynical/paranoid to think the government owes people the courtesy of asking before assuming they have your organs after death then : yes i am cynical/paranoid.

it is cynical to see it in terms of the government 'owning' your organs after death, when it is in fact no such thing, as i have explained. the fact that you insist on describing it in those sorts of terms shows that you want to hang on to your preconceived objections to the program without actually considering the matter.
especially since they will be asking before they assume a specific person wants to donate, because each time they have someone who is in a position to have their organs used, but has no family to ask, they will see if they've opted-out.

If it is cynical/paranoid to not want the law in your country overshadowed by sharia law (which is responsible for a great deal of misery in certain places): then yes i am cynical/paranoid

it is paranoid to think that the community court scheme would allow the community courts decisions to 'overshadow' the actual laws, several people attempted to explain to you their reasons for thinking that it wouldn't be like that, which were based on practical ideas of how unlikely it would be for people to do what you assumed they would be able to do. The fact that you never listened and just insisted that "it could happen" was being a bit paranoid. anything could happen, doesn't mean that it will, or that it will not be found out.

but i might retort that you are overly trusting and unwilling to think that certain social movements might have broader consequences and implications (some of which might be negative).

I know full well that you can retort that.
however, when i've explained my views, and why i think that it would be unlikely for people to have free-rein to do whatever evil things they wanted, i've described hypothetical situations in the context of the real life systems, and gone through seeing how things might go whichever way.
i haven't necessarily come to the right conclusions, and obviously you're free to disagree with them, but it's still a better argument than "they could do this! and this! there's nothing stopping them, and you will doom us all by opening the door for the evil organ-stealers/muslims!" (exaggeration, obviously), with no qualifiers or reasoning behind it, just the first reaction put as an argument and then never deviated from.

basically get off my back

I shall try, since i realise this is far from constructive. I tend to get more frustrated about pointless things that have nothing to do with me than i should.

King Drax I

16-01-2008, 03:15 PM

Has anyone considered this yet - there was some scandal a couple of years ago where private clinics had used blood donated by people for free, in a profit-making environment. Not sure entirely about the details, but does it not worry people that the Government could *sell* your organs to the private sector?

Not that I'm against organ donation; I myself am on the organ donor register. However I do not trust any Goveenment that makes things like this effectively compulsory. This permission cannot be presumed; I can see the benefits but it is open to abuse. Far better to encourage family discussion about the subject. My family are all aware of my wishes; I am aware of theirs. Where's the difficulty in that?

katt

16-01-2008, 04:36 PM

since they will be asking before they assume a specific person wants to donate, because each time they have someone who is in a position to have their organs used, but has no family to ask, they will see if they've opted-out.

.

assuming everyone wants to donate their organs after death and making the people who dislike the idea have to opt out seems like an awful funny way of 'asking first' to me.

As someone else in this thread (I am not sure who) said: There could be social pressure on the people who want to sign out. I was completely unaware people were so adamant/fervent about organ donations until recently (i always knew they had support but i will admit a government desiring to promote them in this way suprised me a little).

If you paid attention to the aussie internet censorship thread you would have noticed I also said that I disagree with that idea of an implied desired for government censorship. I think its not a good idea for the government to assume people want certain things/obligations when it would be easier for people who do to ask. And as someone in that thread said: it could result in a list of people who don't want their internet censored that the goverment would have at their disposal.

It is not that I think it is a bad idea for the internet to be censored for those who wish it: it is more the disagreement with the government wanting to act as a nanny who 'knows best' without asking'.

I realize their intentions are probably not malicious with the organ donation thing and yet the old saying goes 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

I won't even discuss the islamic court system/etc thing with you. That was incredibly poor taste to bring up the islam thing in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Pie hunter D

16-01-2008, 04:46 PM

The whole point in the "opt out" scheme is that many people support the idea of leaving organs to people who need them, but don't actually sign up. I actually needed a transplant so I know full well how fucked up the situation is right now. I keep in the game to talk to people going through all that etc, and I hear so much about how they're afraid of dying on the list.
This , i have to say, is happening with staggering regularity now btw. Now it's actually up to the coordinators to "play god" because of the shortage!
I wouldn't wish that responsibility on my worst enemy, seriously. How depressing is it to lay there dying knowing that someone somewhere out there with a card has to kick the bucket before you get a second chance? Think about it.

All I can say is, when I die they can eviscerate me and slap what they don't need in a box. It's awesome to see so much support for it here though, it really is. :)

katt

16-01-2008, 04:53 PM

The whole point in the "opt out" scheme is that many people support the idea of leaving organs to people who need them, but don't actually sign up. :)

well if it is true that most people would like to donate their organs, my belief is that the government should find certain points (whether it be a driver's license, going to school, filling out taxes) to ask the question formally on paper rather than assuming everyone will want to donate.

I am certain their are nicer ways to promote organ donation than the one that assumes everyone wants to without even asking first.

Pie hunter D

16-01-2008, 04:56 PM

See thats just it.
The government have done their homework on this, they have the statistics. To implicate a scheme like this without first doing research into the general concensus of the populace would be political suicide!
If so many people weren't in favour there would be a huuuuge media backlash and a lot of discontent, it's not exactly a passive matter.

Think about it.

feeshy

16-01-2008, 05:07 PM

Having a look at the letters from readers in the *coughsuncough* it is really annoying me how many people are in the 'OMG, you're gonna have all ur organs ripped out whether you like it or not! Even if ur nt dead!' category (slightly OTT, but hey). I have a feeling I've said this before, but lets be honest, even if you didn't want your organs donated and they *happened* to be, the end of the world has already happened for you and I'm sure the last thing you care about is what happens to your body. Because you don't live there no more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that doctors should be able to take anyone's organs whether they're registered or not, but still...

katt

16-01-2008, 05:27 PM

Disclaimer: I realize the UK is not anywhere close to this sort of territory and this is not the same issue as harvesting after death from natural causes. I am posting this article to show why it is sometimes a good idea to never put too much faith in the government remaining eternally benevolent without its citizens keeping an eye on it:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901060501-1186533,00.html

Chinese Military Doctor Claims to Have Seen Evidence of over 60,000 “Involuntary” Organ Donations

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/160ymogj.asp

One accountant--called Annie in the Falun Gong literature on the scandal--was aware of the supply mystery, but what concerned her far more was the behavior of her husband, a surgeon at Sujiatun. On the surface, the couple was doing fine. He was bringing home increasingly large amounts of cash, and his job appeared secure. The hospital had even issued him a dedicated cell-phone, which would ring at odd hours and send him back to Sujiatun. Yet when he came home to bed, he had violent nightmares and would wake bathed in sweat. During the day, he was constantly on edge, preoccupied, even fearful of his wife's touch.

It took a year, but eventually he confessed to her: The accounting staff was right. There were extra "patients" in the subterranean depths of the hospital, and some makeshift operating rooms down there, too. When his cell phone rang, it meant that a "patient" had been wheeled in and given a small dose of anesthesia (the hospital had a limited supply). Then he and the other doctors--some hired from the outside, each with a specialty, all constantly on call--would come in and remove the patient's kidneys, skin tissue, corneas, and other organs, seemingly to order. The remains of the "patient" would then be carried down to the old boiler, which doubled as an incinerator. The workers who disposed of the bodies--sometimes still alive--helped themselves to the occasional watch, necklace, or ring as a kind of tip
The "patients"--men and women, old and young--were all Falun Gong practitioners. It was so much easier that way--no arrest warrants, no need for paper work. If a diagnosis had to be stipulated for some reason, the entry read "mentally destroyed," and the cause of death "suicide." The doctors' silence was bought with generous financial rewards, the assurance that they were simply "cleansing" for the party, and the vague threat implicit in the observation that if you had already done some of these operations then what difference would a few more make? Buck up!

.

Darkscull

16-01-2008, 05:45 PM

It depends on the nature of the government in question.

it would be naive to think it impossible that a government would abuse it's position. however in a (approximately) democratic country, the 'government' is not an absolute authority on anything, and it is transient. essentially, even if they manage to keep secrets while they're in charge, it would be quite obvious that they're hiding something, and it would be found out after they're gone.
since most parties that are in power want to get into power again someday, i doubt they'd do something so foolish.

and even if they did try and abuse it, it would have to either be a conspiracy of vast proportions, or a very delicate operation close to being exposed at every step of the way. (for example, if doctors know a patient has opted out, but then all evidence of that opting out disappears, and that happens quite often).

also, despite that being the only real arguing point, it will only apply to a tiny minority of cases: those where a patient is in a position to have their organs transplanted and no next of kin has been found.

the number of people who die without the next of kin having been contacted in time is relatively small.
the number of people who end up brain-dead on life support who are in a position to have their organs transplanted is relatively small.
the probability of both being the case is a whole order of magnitude smaller, and it is only in those cases where their presence on the opt-out list will decide whether their organs are used or not, rather than just advising the family.

Pie hunter D

16-01-2008, 05:46 PM

While it's maybe healthy to retain a modicum of cynisism, the culture is completely different. I'm not saying the far east is full of savages, but the system is deffinately more corrupt. That's common knowlage. We've all heard horror stories of people being kidnapped and left in a bathtub full of ice minus a kidney or w/e.
This isn't the case closer to home, it's as simple as that. I know you stated this wasn't the case here, but I think this kind of thing instills a lot of paranoia in society. The people I know that work in this field are dedicated professionals and I doubt strongly they would even consider this kind of operation.

katt

16-01-2008, 07:10 PM

We've all heard horror stories of people being kidnapped and left in a bathtub full of ice minus a kidney or w/e.
.

I wonder if that has really happened or if it is just an urban legend. It is pretty awful if it has. I know there are urban legend debunk pages but the few times i have gone to one end up seeing more urban legends that i was happily unaware of before. :)

it would be naive to think it impossible that a government would abuse it's position. however in a (approximately) democratic country, the 'government' is not an absolute authority on anything, and it is transient. essentially, even if they manage to keep secrets while they're in charge, it would be quite obvious that they're hiding something, and it would be found out after they're gone.
since most parties that are in power want to get into power again someday, i doubt they'd do something so foolish.

and even if they did try and abuse it, it would have to either be a conspiracy of vast proportions, or a very delicate operation close to being exposed at every step of the way. (for example, if doctors know a patient has opted out, but then all evidence of that opting out disappears, and that happens quite often).

I agree that the british government is unlikely to turn into something sinister overnight. I just believe in keeping the branches of the 'government shrubbery' pruned back when they try and grow across boundaries they should probably leave well enoguh alone on.

also i don't think gordon brown has evil secret basement organ stealing intentions

Pie hunter D

16-01-2008, 08:22 PM

Would you be shocked to find out it's true?
Due to demand for organs some people, organisations or syndicates will go to lengths to harvest them illegally, why? Big big money from people willing to pay for their life.

Sad, but true... :(

maxxy_p

16-01-2008, 09:17 PM

I agree that the british government is unlikely to turn into something sinister overnight. I just believe in keeping the branches of the 'government shrubbery' pruned back when they try and grow across boundaries they should probably leave well enoguh alone on.

also i don't think gordon brown has evil secret basement organ stealing intentionsIf an opt-out scheme is introduced there will be far less urgency in getting organs to people, since there will be a much larger supply pool. Therefore black-market shit like this is far less likely to go on.

Why must you turn everything into a government conspiracy?

Ozzylator

16-01-2008, 09:47 PM

Darkscull

16-01-2008, 09:56 PM

You won't be happy until you're completely dissociated from the government, will you?

katt isn't associated with the british government at all anyway. she's american.

i have no idea what you meant by that anyway, but i'm assuming it was referring to the british government, since america does have the death penalty, and isn't considering this.

Ozzylator

16-01-2008, 09:58 PM

I'm referring to her general mistrust of governments in general.

Splush

16-01-2008, 10:14 PM

I think if we're looking for ways that this legislation could be abused then the issue is more about the organisational culture within the NHS, not the government as such. Obviously the NHS is a government organ (ha) but the medical profession is its own world with its own strict codes of conduct and mutual surveillance, and, I suspect, far too much professional pride to let crooked government enforcers push them around. You clearly do get the occasional black sheep who manages to get away with scurrilous behaviour (Harold Shipman certainly was effective) but I'd say NHS doctors probably do a pretty good job of watching each other, and any sort of systematic abuse of organ donation would presumably need a pretty deep-rooted conspiracy among doctors for it to unreported. And if such a conspiracy was to come about, it would presumably be so powerful that loopholes in organ donation legislation would be rather superfluous. I don't think, on the whole, that people interested in the illicit procurement of organs are bothered about the donor's wishes.

Certainly in that Chinese story it seemed like deep-rooted institutional corruption rather than an opportunistic doctor taking advantage of a loophole in the legislation.

katt

16-01-2008, 10:31 PM

So fucking what? China has an established history of civil rights abuse. We don't even have the death penalty.

You won't be happy until you're completely dissociated from the government, will you?

Swearing in a civilized discussion is uncalled for :eng101:

My point was that assuming that a government of people could not ever be capable of atrocities is false because government atrocities have been, and continue to be, committed all over the world. No one should be too anxious to place too much faith in the government being (or remaining) benevolent.

In other words: where people have control over other people they should be kept watch over (and i might add they can erode freedom by degrees more easily than they can in huge chunks)

I do not want to be completely separate from the government; there are certain things it is necessary for. I am not even a libertarian!

Ozzylator

16-01-2008, 11:53 PM

Swearing in a civilized discussion is uncalled for :eng101:

My point was that assuming that a government of people could not ever be capable of atrocities is false because government atrocities have been, and continue to be, committed all over the world. No one should be too anxious to place too much faith in the government being (or remaining) benevolent.

In other words: where people have control over other people they should be kept watch over (and i might add they can erode freedom by degrees more easily than they can in huge chunks)

I do not want to be completely separate from the government; there are certain things it is necessary for. I am not even a libertarian!

It is even more false to assume that all governments are capable of atrocities because a few government atrocities have and do occur worldwide. The UK has long prided itself on its government being run by a democratically elected Parliament. China, on the other hand, has a history of civil rights abuse and a lack of political freedom.

Pie hunter D

17-01-2008, 12:57 AM

katt

17-01-2008, 03:49 AM

It is even more false to assume that all governments are capable of atrocities because a few government atrocities have and do occur worldwide. The UK has long prided itself on its government being run by a democratically elected Parliament. China, on the other hand, has a history of civil rights abuse and a lack of political freedom.

how many years ago was it that the british were exporting food out of ireland while the irish were starving during the potato famine?

not that modern britain should feel bad for this because it is long in the past. I am not one of those who think that modern nations should feel a great deal of shame for what their long-dead ancestors did.

my point is crazy stuff can happen anywhere :P

if you think i am saying britain, as it stands today, is in danger of doing ill to its citizens you would be misunderstanding me. however freedom is more easily eroded in degrees and over time a degree here and a degree there add up. and give the government more excuses to take away even more freedoms.

and if you think it takes some huge conspiracy mindset to want to keep the meddling branches of the government kept pruned (to possibly prevent them from becoming overgrown via time) then that is amusing to me.

*sigh* i might as well adopt one of the silly slogans like 'gordon brown will steal your liver' (as a joke mind you because that is not what i am trying to say...basically i am saying down with nanny-ism)
************************************************** ****************

anyway: if the british govt really thinks everyone is so keen to be a donor then why not simply ask the population when a new child is born, or when someone gets their license or goes to school? it is easy enough for them to find a way to pop the question. Maybe they are just afraid the answer they would get would mean less organs when compared to the automatic donor thing? who knows.

Pie hunter D

17-01-2008, 12:19 PM

my point is crazy stuff can happen anywhere :P

if you think i am saying britain, as it stands today, is in danger of doing ill to its citizens you would be misunderstanding me

*snip*

anyway: if the british govt really thinks everyone is so keen to be a donor then why not simply ask the population when a new child is born, or when someone gets their license or goes to school? it is easy enough for them to find a way to pop the question. Maybe they are just afraid the answer they would get would mean less organs when compared to the automatic donor thing? who knows.

You're right crazy stuff can happen anywhere. Were any of you aware there was going to be a military coup in britain to overthrow govt when Wilson was in office? Very nearly happened too!

In relation to the second bit; The Government have asked people about it. By gathering a general concensus the can fathom public opinon ;). It would be costly and impractical to ask every sngle soul in britain wether they want to be a donor or not for a number of reasons.
1) By even sending out forms asking "would you like to be a donor, please fill in and return, etc etc.", how many people (honestly) would say "yeah! ok i'll fill that in later!" then promptly forget about it.
2) If this law is passed people are a LOT more likely to act on opting out than signing up as a donor. Human nature is like that "What about me?!" syndrome.
3) The cost of massivly canvasing every single person in the UK could be better spent on the hospitals and staff needed for the transplants.

If you're looking at this objectivly in the purest of logic you'll see where i'm coming from. I'm not saying you're an eejit (I think you're lovely :) ) , but some things are easily overlooked ;)

gembird

17-01-2008, 12:20 PM

anyway: if the british govt really thinks everyone is so keen to be a donor then why not simply ask the population when a new child is born, or when someone gets their license or goes to school? it is easy enough for them to find a way to pop the question. Maybe they are just afraid the answer they would get would mean less organs when compared to the automatic donor thing? who knows.

I think they just don't want the paperwork to be honest. If everyone is automatically on the register then their name will go straight into a database somewhere when their birth is registered, along with all the other information letting the world know they exist. Asking parents at that point would probably freak them out- nobody wants to think about the death of their child, and it's probably worse when it's only just turned up. Later in life could work, however, the forms that would have to be filled out are just something else that somebody somewheere needs to read through and check. I'm pretty sure the government won't want to employ any more people than they have to for all that.

Also, even at the age of 16/17/18 when people are getting their driver's licence, they still might not be ready to make that decision about organ donation. Granted, others will never even consider it a decision that needs to be made and will feel that it's a given (whichever opinion they have on the subject). But some people will take a long time to figure out where they stand. So where do we say "would you like to be on the organ donor register?" You could do it at graduation I suppose, or when you go for a check-up at a certain age, but I'm not sure when they could ask you once you get to an age where almost everyone is mature enough to make the decision based on their own mature reasoning.

Pie hunter D

17-01-2008, 12:26 PM

Sad fact is though Gem, it's not only adults that need donors :(

I can't completely disagree with the paperwork deal though, it does mean more time and money.

katt

17-01-2008, 03:35 PM

Well I think the government should buck up and do the paperwork. And if someone is not ready to become a donor in their teens the government should not assume they want to be rather than not asking the question out of fear of a negative answer.

The governments certainly don't complain about about having to do tax related paperwork lol. Why don't they give people a tax break if they decide to be donors if they really want to encourage it.

i come from a place that has traditionally been (mostly) skeptical of those who seek to rule over men and women since its founding a short time ago. I find it difficult to see the government as anything more than a necessary evil that has to be pruned back from time to time to prevent it from overgrowing its boundaries.

I think a potential law like this could be the first step to mandatory donating after death for all people for 'the good of humanity'.

As i said earlier: freedom is something more easily taken in degrees. I also have frequently mentioned the frog boiling in water analogy in here. That is, a frog that is sitting in a pot of water in which the heat is slowly cranked up to boiling will not leap out because it won't realize the increasing heat. But a frog that is dunked into water that is already boiling will make attempts to jump out.

This is supposed to represent how people exposed to slow political change/crackdown on freedoms will tend not to notice them; or write them off as meaningless.

Pie hunter D

17-01-2008, 04:16 PM

Well I think the government should buck up and do the paperwork. And if someone is not ready to become a donor in their teens the government should not assume they want to be rather than not asking the question out of fear of a negative answer.

This is very true.
Although! There would be the option to opt out of it, so they aren't trapped on a list. They still have that choice ;)

faragher

17-01-2008, 04:42 PM

The problem is katt, is that something has to be done. People are dying for the lack of transplants. They've tried publicity, they've tried encouragement, but it seems that it is in human nature just not to bother unless you have to. In fact, the UK has pretty much the lowest level of donors of anywhere, which is pretty shameful.

In Spain they have opt out (as they are suggesting here) and they have no waiting list for transplants. Distasteful as this may seem to some people, it is a pretty effective way of solving the problem.

And I know the government could do this, and could do that - but its not 3 members of the government who die every day in the UK whilst waiting for a transplant, its us, the ordinary members of the public - and it seems that us, the ordinary members of the public won't sort ourselves out without a push.

I personally think that this is the push we need - and more to the point, less people will die needlessly, which is always a good thing :)

Pie hunter D

17-01-2008, 05:55 PM

gembird

17-01-2008, 06:39 PM

Well I think the government should buck up and do the paperwork. And if someone is not ready to become a donor in their teens the government should not assume they want to be rather than not asking the question out of fear of a negative answer.

I didn't say if people weren't ready to be donors, I said if they weren't ready to make the decision themselves- in which case, it would be down to the parents to decide what to do if the worst happened. That's pretty much what happens now isn't it? If someone (of any age, just want to add that) has no donor card, the family are asked. And if the new system was implemented, it would still be up to the next of kin to make that final decision.

However I don't feel that people should absolutely understand the concept of donation before their organs can be used, because sadly there are children that die and their parents make the decision to donate the child's organs even though they may have been to young to understand much more than the fact that they would be helping someone else, if that. But I think it is necessary that someone who will be part of the decision understands it fully. I wanted to point that out before anyone has a go at me for thinking children should die on the transplant list or something.

To be fair to you though Katt, I do agree with you that the government should get their backsides into gear and not avoid doing paperwork, but it's just more money to pay out to more employees, and I don't think they're always willing to do that.

Darkscull

17-01-2008, 06:54 PM

but it's just more money to pay out to more employees, and I don't think they're always willing to do that.

the government is willing to spend more money on things, but people aren't willing to pay the extra taxes to fund that, and so they either have to raise taxes anyway (and risk losing power), or pull the money out of their arses (and risk losing power 'cos of high deficits)

Those who oppose this idea need to remember that it is above all a practical decision.

obviously the ideal situation would be that more willing people actually signed onto the list (well, the ideal situation would be no one needing transplants), but since they don't, this is a way to make it easier for the willing people to be on the list while still allowing those who don't want to be on it to be taken off.

that is what it's intended to do, of course, and that isn't meant to answer any objections but rather point out that it's not an ideological decision (e.g. that they think everyone should give up their organs for the good of others), but a practical one (that they think this is a possible solution to the lack of donors on the list that still allows the choice of the individual)

Pie hunter D

17-01-2008, 07:56 PM

Alternativily the Government can stop fucking about with public money and spend it wisely, but thats a different debate all together...

Scull is right it is a practical decision, and a lot more economical and productive than the current system. You can't really argue with that, it's a solid fact.
Gem you're right, the parents are given the decision to donate their childs organs to the hospitals. I should imagine the implimented rules would see that to be the case up to the age of 18. It's a fact I completely overlooked...
You're also right about the cost of paperwork etc, the only paper work they would be doing is the stuff to do with people opting out which, again, is a lot more economical.
I can't say I disagree about wantng to see the government do more though. If all this talk is bullshit for winning votes, only to be given up after a win, i'll be extremely pissed off. Governments don't see the people, they see numbers, statistics, thats what they deal with. That's all they care about.

Darkscull

17-01-2008, 08:16 PM

If all this talk is bullshit for winning votes, only to be given up after a win, i'll be extremely pissed off.

well considering that this idea hasn't proved popular with Labour's new target demographic among the population, I doubt it's that sort of thing.

also, it isn't actually a proposal yet, it was just opened up to public debate to see what people think.

the reason i mention that is that an alternative proposal has caught the imagination of the government (apparently), which is to just pump more money into publicity campaigns about the donor register and the shortage of people on it, and also to centralise the planning for it a bit more rather than just leaving it to individual areas of the NHS.

I think that although it may increase numbers a bit, that won't do much long-term good, and will just cost extra money to set up, and extra effort reorganising everything (pretty much every level of the NHS is still reeling from the last lot of reorganisation).
having said that however, I think centralising the coordination of it a bit more might be (for once) a good move. some people dedicated to the job with no other obligations may be useful, rather than being the responsibility of those who are busy managing other aspects of the health services.
having said that however, what i've learned from my mother who has been pretty much running a department in a PCT makes me think that such an organisation would probably develop it's own agenda and make matters a bit more complicated.

overall, I think that such means to try and increase the number of people signing up will be a stop-gap at best, and even if they manage to get the numbers up to the current level needed, if the trend of increasing numbers of transplants being necessary continues, they'll have to think of something else (there's only so far you can push publicity and education to get people to sign up rather than leaving it, and then it will cease to work).