Organ donation and presumed consent.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23136965

AMs to vote on 'presumed consent' organ donation plans

Wales could become the only UK country with an opt-out organ donation system if politicians vote to change the law.
The Welsh government wants to introduce a system where individuals will be presumed to have consented for their organs to be donated after death unless they have specifically objected.
But opponents want families to be able to stop a donation if their relative did not express an opinion either way.
Ministers want to increase the number of donors for transplant by a quarter.
There has been opposition to the changes from Christian churches and from within the Muslim and Jewish communities.
It would mean a change from the current opt-in system, where would-be donors have to sign a register.

A statement from faith leaders and health professionals - signed by the Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan and others - calls for a so-called "soft opt-out scheme" in the Human Transplantation Bill.
They say it would give deceased patients' families a say on donation if their relative had neither opted in or out.
A joint statement says that failure to make changes to the bill would be "inhuman, unfeeling before the suffering of relatives, and a danger to the public trust and support which are necessary for the practice of organ donation to flourish".

If passed by assembly members on Tuesday, the presumed consent system could come into force by 2015.
The Welsh government hopes legislation will lead to a rise in the numbers of donors.
As currently happens, organs could go to recipients anywhere in the UK, not just in Wales, although evidence from other countries with an opt-out system indicates that the rise is small with around 15 additional donors provided each year and approximately 45 extra organs.
According to the NHS Blood and Transplant service, fewer than 5,000 people die every year in the UK in circumstances that would allow them to donate successfully.
Added to that, when compatibility, organ suitability, location, time scales and consent are taken into account it means that not everyone who wants to donate actually does.
It is estimated there are around 250 people on a waiting list for a transplant at any one time - 33 people in Wales died in 2012/13 whilst waiting.
Health Minister Mark Drakeford told BBC Wales: "The legislation makes it absolutely clear that if you are uncomfortable with being an organ donor you have an absolute right in the simplest way possible to opt out of the system.

More on this via the link.

I heard this story on the news today and it made me think.  Presumed consent seems like a good idea when there are so many people waiting for organs.  Yes, initially it would seem a bit grim to know that your dear departed family member's body is being pulled apart, but I guess that if presumed consent becomes commonplace then maybe the 'ewww' factor will recede and the benefits will seem to become a reasonable outcome.  

Seems like a positive move to me.

Thoughts?   :-k

There has been opposition to the changes from Christian churches and from within the Muslim and Jewish communities.

^^^ no surprises here, then....  :roll:

[Solitary]

I have never thought a dead human body is a person, not even my loved ones that have died. So does one worry about the feelings of loved ones left, or worry about the feelings of loved ones and the ones they love that need transplants? To me it is a no brainer, help those that need a transplant.  8-)  Solitary

[stromboli]

Daresay that loved ones would want control over the remains. I know I would. However, I do see the point. An opt out or just let it happen view could generate a lot of useful organs for needful people. I'd say overall, probably a good idea.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

In the US, not sure about UK many organs and other body parts are sold outright by nefarious people within the medical community so as it stands now I am on NO organ donation list. If it were guaranteed my parts weren't sold to the highest bidder it might be another story, but as it stands it's still my body and till the law changes I'm not taking the risk an ER might let me die for profit..  

Note: With HepC I'm already off the lists so it's rather mute..

[DunkleSeele]

There has been opposition to the changes from Christian churches and from within the Muslim and Jewish communities.

^^^ no surprises here, then....  :roll:

This surprises me, actually. Religions insist on the "soul" (whatever the fuck it may be) being the only thing that matters and our body being only a worthless, transitional vehicle for our soul during our short time here on Earth; so why should they give a rodent's rear end if a body is torn apart to get a few organs?

As for the main topic: I'm all in favor of re-using as much as possible of a dead body. It would rot anyway, so better to use it to save some other lives.

[DunkleSeele]

Never mind, double post... :oops:

[Plu]

I thought Belgium also had been doing for quite a while? Perhaps I'm mistaken though.


Also I heard before that many people wouldn't mind being donors, but just didn't really bother with the register. Pretty much what this kind of law is going to do is move all the "eh, whatever" people to the "yes" category instead of the "no" category they are in right now.
That seems good to me.

I mean; it's still just a quick message to opt out. It's just that if you don't care either way, you now still get to save lives.

[PapaSmurf34]

There has been opposition to the changes from Christian churches and from within the Muslim and Jewish communities.

^^^ no surprises here, then....  :roll:

This surprises me, actually. Religions insist on the "soul" (whatever the fuck it may be) being the only thing that matters and our body being only a worthless, transitional vehicle for our soul during our short time here on Earth; so why should they give a rodent's rear end if a body is torn apart to get a few organs?

As for the main topic: I'm all in favor of re-using as much as possible of a dead body. It would rot anyway, so better to use it to save some other lives.

Actually many people of the Abrahamic religions believe in an actual resurrection in which the physical body will rise from the ground and ascend to heaven during the rapture. This makes things like cremation and organ donation an issue for them. Just another example of silly religious beliefs having a negative impact on society.

[Plu]

Because a rotten old corpse is far preferable to a pile of dust.

If they had three brain cells, they'd all try to get themselves mummified.

...

Ah, who am I kidding. If they had that many braincells, they wouldn't be religious.

[aitm]

tis okay except I ain't giving parts to no jew, wop, kik, chink, greaser, beaner, homie, negroid or sandy....so there!

[jenluvsjere]

While I think it may definitely help the shortage of organs, this is so unethical. I don't think it is ever right to assume you have consent. While it may seem foolish to respect someone's wishes after death, I think medical professionals have a responsibility to ultimately respect the beliefs of their patients. On a personal level, you don't have to agree but on a professional level I feel like this is going too far.

In terms of lessening the amount of suffering overall, it is a good idea in theory. I just feel uncomfortable with politicians making laws like this.

[Solitary]

Hospitals make these kinds of decisions---deciding who gets a transplant or not---every day, how is that more ethical when people have to die and they make the decision because there isn't enough donors? Solitary

[jenluvsjere]

Well, there is no perfect solution. A lot of these kinds of decisions are made based on who is worse off than the next person. But, as a health care professional you have an equal obligation to each patient. You can't favor one over another. When you treat a patient, you have to leave your personal bias at home. It's about that person, not about you. So sometimes it can be difficult to mesh making a moral decision based on the general good while at the same time respecting the beliefs of an individual patient. I personally strongly respect informed consent just like freedom of speech. The applications of this principle may not always produce ideals results, but it's a principle that I don't want to see disregarded at a convenient opportunity.

I feel mixed about a lot of these situations. On the one hand I believe it's perfectly fine to force all insurance companies to go non-profit, but at the same time I respect a patient's rights. I guess I see the latter issue as potentially bringing harm to a patient or the family of a patient. That I guess, is just a different situation to me. Maybe if you have a different way to see it, then express it. I'm pretty open minded and I know there are always flaws in my interpretations and thinking.

[Plu]

They're not really assuming they have consent. They are assuming they have consent if you didn't care enough either way to spent 5 minutes to send a "please don't harvest my organs" notice. If you care that little, do you really think that person has a very strong opinion about what should be done with his body after his death? It seems more likely that they don't really care. Which means we could use them to do good to other people.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think this very much a good thing.

Death rates in the UK of people waiting for an organ to become avaliable are pretty high, so anything to reduce that would be welcomed from me for certain. I don't think I would like to be on dialysis for years on end because nobody was willing to donate a Kidney after they died and had no further use for it.