Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

6538

Organ Donation

Recommended Posts

Link

According to this article there are now three choices as to whether you want to be a donor; "yes", "I don't want to answer now" & "I'm already on the register".

Okay so why is there not a "no" option. Whether you think that organ donation is a good thing or not is beside the point but surely those who do not wish to donate should be able to say no. Presumably they are will be constantly harrassed to answer the question?

The real answer seems simple. Simply do what many countries do and include everyone as automatically consented unless they decide to opt-out? This just seems like another case of government creating jobs where no jobs are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey we've got to solve the national debt somehow and ths must resort to hawking organs online.

Except for one problem. Asian tissue types can't accept British organs. :D

Also the Chinese have very very cheap organs too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey we've got to solve the national debt somehow and ths must resort to hawking organs online.

Except for one problem. Asian tissue types can't accept British organs. :D

Also the Chinese have very very cheap organs too.

Why don't the organs match? We're all the same species aren't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the organs match? We're all the same species aren't we?

Yes we are, and it's quite surprising who might be the ideal donor!

However out East, blood group B is quite common, and in Europe it's more A or O!

I'm not a Doctor! So perhaps somebody more qualified could comment!

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Blood type story today has changed and mixed. ABO Blood types have survived for hundreds of millions of years without being lost, or further diluted or mutated, generally speaking. From the sampled distribution of Blood types around the world today, we see adaptation by migration, environment, habitat and region. Following is an overview of of Blood types, generally considering present-day geography.

Blood Type O - Type O Blood, which is known as the standard form of Blood types is widely distributed over the whole world uniformly, where populations have mixed.

Blood Type A - Blood type A is seen widely Europe, especially prevalent in the heavily forested and mountain zones.

Blood Type B - Blood type B is seen in prairie and desert zones.

Blood Type AB - AB Blood type exists only rarely globally, and is the Blood type generated for the first time with the background where A type and B type interchange.

http://www.aboblood.com/#Aborigines

Ooooooooooooo

Or should that be OAB?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

According to this article there are now three choices as to whether you want to be a donor; "yes", "I don't want to answer now" & "I'm already on the register".

Okay so why is there not a "no" option. Whether you think that organ donation is a good thing or not is beside the point but surely those who do not wish to donate should be able to say no. Presumably they are will be constantly harrassed to answer the question?

The real answer seems simple. Simply do what many countries do and include everyone as automatically consented unless they decide to opt-out? This just seems like another case of government creating jobs where no jobs are needed.

Automatic presumption of consent has been around for a few years over here. The stumbling block is that in the event of death then the next of kin has to give consent, if they can be reached in time. A 'No' is still a 'No' and is the end of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only go on it if i could ensure the recipients

1) have no criminal record

2) are not landlords

3) have mortgage debt not exceeding 3.5 their salary.

If theyre not those, they can bite the dust for all i care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic presumption of consent has been around for a few years over here. The stumbling block is that in the event of death then the next of kin has to give consent, if they can be reached in time. A 'No' is still a 'No' and is the end of the matter.

My personal view is that it should be taken out of the hands of next of kin - with the exception of children under 16. It is no ones business what another person does with their body. The law should start from the position that the person concerned has consented. If you don't want to consent then you can opt-out by ticking a box as easily as you can opt-in today. It can take the stance of a rebuttable presumption whereby next of kin would only be able to override consent of they could show that the person concerned had actually changed their mind and not simply because the relatives don't like it.

In addition, I would employ the rule that if you have withdrawn your consent then you automatically never get on an NHS transplant list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal view is that it should be taken out of the hands of next of kin - with the exception of children under 16.

In addition, I would employ the rule that if you have withdrawn your consent then you automatically never get on an NHS transplant list.

No exception for kids!

Where do you think they get livers for babies from? Other babies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal view is that it should be taken out of the hands of next of kin - with the exception of children under 16. It is no ones business what another person does with their body. The law should start from the position that the person concerned has consented. If you don't want to consent then you can opt-out by ticking a box as easily as you can opt-in today. It can take the stance of a rebuttable presumption whereby next of kin would only be able to override consent of they could show that the person concerned had actually changed their mind and not simply because the relatives don't like it.

In addition, I would employ the rule that if you have withdrawn your consent then you automatically never get on an NHS transplant list.

Rebuttable presumption? You don't need that when the person has clearly consented. And how can it be rebutted when the person is dead and organ removal is a matter of urgency?

If the law starts from the position that the person has consented, that's effectively the implication of consent by silence. Thomas Cromwell tried that against Thomas Moore because he refused the oath of allegiance - the bullies won that day, but after that the common law made it pretty clear that liberty is the first concern in our daily dealings with each other.

If a person refused, he'd still have been paying for the NHS, so how can you deny treatment?

You're looking for easy solutions to difficult problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No exception for kids!

Where do you think they get livers for babies from? Other babies!

Point. Although I'm only applying the 16 age limit for some sort of legal and practical simplicity as the younger you get the more complicated the issues could become.

But, yes, in principle I don't think there are too many problems with applying it to people of any age. I think that there would have to be a lower age limit somewhere as the whole thing rests on the individual making a decision as to whether to opt-out so the person has to be at least old enough to comprehend the decision they are making. An older person is in the more advantageous position in that he can take an informed decision whereas a baby cannot so there has to be some some way of taking account of the rights of people not old enough to make the decision personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuttable presumption? You don't need that when the person has clearly consented. And how can it be rebutted when the person is dead and organ removal is a matter of urgency?

In some cases it couldn't be rebbutted due to time constraints. However, medial Court procedures often move very, very quickly indeed. You can get a judge on the phone 24 hours a day and the time between a decision being handed down and an appeal being leoged is often a mater of hours or even minutes. Also, it is quite often the case that brain dead people can be kept on ventilators indefinitely.

If the law starts from the position that the person has consented, that's effectively the implication of consent by silence.

Yes, and you could simply leave it at that and not have the rebuttable presumption thing. I'm just trying to make things as reasonable as possible in order to take account of the fact that people somtimes change their minds. If a person has made it clear that they had changed their minds but didn't get round to correcting the official record (or the official record was wrong) then a relative could adduce evidence to that effect. For instance, if the dead person had stated in a Will that he had changed his mind even if he had not got round to changing his decision officially this may be sufficiant evidence to rebutt it.

If a person refused, he'd still have been paying for the NHS, so how can you deny treatment?

It's only a suggestion. He's not "paying " in the form that everyone else is so why should be get the liver/heart/lung of someone who is prepared to "pay" through their donation? If you don't donate then the NHS will still do the op but you have to buy the organ elsewhere, perhaps?

You're looking for easy solutions to difficult problems.

We all look for easy solutions but there are usually few about. This really is an easy one though. We'll drop the rebuttal thing under all cirumstances then. If you aren't on the opt-out list then you get your organs yanked out of they're needed when you snuff it, regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal view is that it should be taken out of the hands of next of kin - with the exception of children under 16. It is no ones business what another person does with their body. The law should start from the position that the person concerned has consented. If you don't want to consent then you can opt-out by ticking a box as easily as you can opt-in today. It can take the stance of a rebuttable presumption whereby next of kin would only be able to override consent of they could show that the person concerned had actually changed their mind and not simply because the relatives don't like it.

In addition, I would employ the rule that if you have withdrawn your consent then you automatically never get on an NHS transplant list.

Thankfully you have nothing to do with the decision. My view is that the assumption should be that consent is not given unless the person is carrying a donor card or a registered donor. It should be easier to register, may be with the dvla so that it is on your driving license.

Removing the possibility of a transplant for those that dare to withdraw consent sounds ridiculous. Why not just work on a points system and forcibly remove organs from the peasants for the important people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully you have nothing to do with the decision. My view is that the assumption should be that consent is not given unless the person is carrying a donor card or a registered donor. It should be easier to register, may be with the dvla so that it is on your driving license.

No problem but it's just a difference of opinion. The question only arises because we have a shortage of donors, if we didn't then we wouldn't be discussing it.

I still don't think there's a problem with having a legal default position of consent as long as it's easy to opt-out. If you don't want to consent then register the fact. It's not difficult to do and this is the way many countries operate it. If it were the case then it would besome accpeted very rapidly and no one would have a problem with it. Every official form could have a ticky box on it so no one could claim they had no chance to opt-out. Perhaps @rseholes like Injin who claim to not participate in such things might object but I'm not losing too much sleep over idiots.

At present we have a system which assumes non-consent. What's the problem with reversing that, especially if 90% of the population would agree to be donors anyway? This method means that the vast majority are getting what they want and those who feel strongly the other way have every opportunity to opt-out.

Removing the possibility of a transplant for those that dare to withdraw consent sounds ridiculous.

Why? Why should someone who doesn't want to contribute reap the benefits of other people's generousity?

If some animal rights nutter who had spent their life harassing animal research scientists in an effort to stop testing vital drugs on animals got cancer would it be unreasonable (ethically speaking) to take the position that they should not have access ot the drugs they tried to stop evryone else having access to? I don't think so.

I never said they shouldn't have a transplant. I said they shouldn't get on NHS transplant lists. They have every opportunity to pay for it them selves. Why should I allow my organs to go to someone who is not prepared to do the same for me?

Why not just work on a points system and forcibly remove organs from the peasants for the important people?

You are playing games with what I have said. Everyone should be on an even standing. If you aren't prepared to donate then why should you recieve? The only objection people have is the moral one. If you think it's immoal to donate organs then surely it's immoral to recieve and vice-versa? If you are not morally able to donate then how can you morally recieve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N Perhaps @rseholes like Injin who claim to not participate in such things might object but I'm not losing too much sleep over idiots.

This statement reminds me of that warmist advert where they press the red button and explode non-believers.

At present we have a system which assumes non-consent. What's the problem with reversing that, especially if 90% of the population would agree to be donors anyway? This method means that the vast majority are getting what they want and those who feel strongly the other way have every opportunity to opt-out.

If 90% of the population were in favour then they would have registered as such. I believe that the vast majority are getting what they want under the current system.

It does not matter what the presumption is as the next of kin will always have the final say, which suits me fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This depends on how you look at the case. The dead can not own anything, including their own ex-body. As part of their estate, it would be the property of their next of kin. These may dispose of it as they see fit. Burial, cremation, scientific research etc. Of course the will of the ex-owner of the body will be taken into consideration too. If he wanted a burial at sea, the relatives can always hire a boat.

The problem with 'assumed consent' is that it stealing the relatives property. They, and they alone have the final say. Need is no defence for theft. If they really want those organs, let them buy them from the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 90% of the population were in favour then they would have registered as such. I believe that the vast majority are getting what they want under the current system.

Perhaps they just never got round to it?

It does not matter what the presumption is as the next of kin will always have the final say, which suits me fine.

So the family should be able to override the wished of someone who deeply believes in organ donation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This depends on how you look at the case. The dead can not own anything, including their own ex-body.

This is true but they can't own their own ex-property such as their house but they can still dictate how it is dealt with after their death in their will.

As part of their estate, it would be the property of their next of kin.

Actually it wouldn't, there is no property in a dead body or any part of it. No one owns it. However, I see no reason why the law could not allow the dead person to specify what happens to it by his will.

These may dispose of it as they see fit.

They can't. Not even the dead person can currently specify how it is dealt with.

The problem with 'assumed consent' is that it stealing the relatives property. They, and they alone have the final say. Need is no defence for theft. If they really want those organs, let them buy them from the family.

As I say, there is no property in a dead body so the theft issue dos not arise. Besides, even if there were, if the law was changed to one of automatci consent or so that the dead person to dictate what happend to his body then the issue would not arise.

The position I'm putting forward is very simple. Everyone gives consent by default but it can be withdrawn if they want. I fail to see a problem here. It's actually a very good system to operate because it means that doctors do not need to ask the relatives antything which saves them the stress of having to consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.