Something of a debate on at the moment (on the telly as I sit here typing). Current system is "opt-in" with people carrying cards. Talk is to change to "Opt-out" with everyone treated as potential donars unless they state otherwise.

I'm currently inclined to be a donar but if the system changes I'm inclined to Opt-out. Something about The Gov and/or Docs taking something that is part of Me that they don't own ? Something about "them" making an assumption of ownership ? I dunno.

I was gonna put this on HLP but then I though "Nah".

I prefer opt-out. Life is too precious to waste just because someone's too lazy to get a donor card - the whole problem with either system is ambivalence (not caring enough one way or the other) and if we're going to have that, we might as well bend it in a positive manner.

Ah, the joy of reading forms that say "In the event of your death.."


DONT WISH TO CONSIDER IT THX

Eh, I know thats the cold facts of life but it's really depressing all the same.

The dead have little use for ownership of anything. Best give it to someone who might.

Heh, I see both sides of the coin, so I'm going with the edge here.

I'm with Aldo here, it's mostly indifference, though there are cultural and ethical issues in some cases as well.

I thought there was already a system where they asked the direct family for permission?

I'm all for opt-out (in fact I've been saying for years we should switch over). The current system actually ignores donar cards if the family wish that. Which is quite frankly ridiculous.

If I've gone to the trouble of getting and registering myself as an organ donar I don't want some family member coming along and overruling my choice simply because they felt like it.


To be honest I'd go further and make it one in one out. i.e if you opt out,of giving organs you opt out of receiving them too. I don't know why anyone could claim a moral objection to giving organs if they're willing to receive them. Of course then you open a whole can of worms with people changing their minds.

karajorma wrote: To be honest I'd go further and make it one in one out. i.e if you opt out,of giving organs you opt out of receiving them too. I don't know why anyone could claim a moral objection to giving organs if they're willing to receive them. Of course then you open a whole can of worms with people changing their minds.

I think that's a bit extreme. It might not be morally justifiable but you're talking about people's lives here. Would you like to be the Doctor who has to tells a patient they're going to die because they were unwilling to donate their organs? Or the person who passes the law which results in deaths which could have been avoided? I know I wouldn't.

The fear, here, from people I've spoken to, is that if you are in a hospital, and dying, but can be saved, the care providers would be less inclined to fight their hardest, if they know your death will give the organs to someone else.

Thats the main reason I know of that people by me dont want to sign up for donor cards...

Kietotheworld wrote:

karajorma wrote: To be honest I'd go further and make it one in one out. i.e if you opt out,of giving organs you opt out of receiving them too. I don't know why anyone could claim a moral objection to giving organs if they're willing to receive them. Of course then you open a whole can of worms with people changing their minds.

I think that's a bit extreme. It might not be morally justifiable but you're talking about people's lives here. Would you like to be the Doctor who has to tells a patient they're going to die because they were unwilling to donate their organs? Or the person who passes the law which results in deaths which could have been avoided? I know I wouldn't.

Well if we've gone over to an opt-out system it becomes much easier. You simply put the warning that signing up to opt-out means you opt-out of receiving transplants too.

As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a dam about anyone who is selfish enough not to want to give their organs up to help others but thinks that everyone should be willing to do it for them.

The big problem I see is what do you do if someone changes their mind? It would be unfair to keep someone from getting a transplant if they opted out and then back in again but if you allow that you'd get people opting back in again as soon as they thought they had a condition which might require a transplant. Like I said it's a can of worms that really isn't worth opening. But morally I have no objection to denying a transplant to someone who wouldn't be willing to do the same for others.

And if you're worried about doctors having to break the news they can let me do it. I'll even do a Nelson Muntz style "Ha Ha" after breaking the news.

Taristin wrote:The fear, here, from people I've spoken to, is that if you are in a hospital, and dying, but can be saved, the care providers would be less inclined to fight their hardest, if they know your death will give the organs to someone else.

Thats the main reason I know of that people by me dont want to sign up for donor cards...

To be honest I tend to feel it's a rather baseless fear but even if it isn't they're still going to do that under the current system plus they're going to have to take time out from saving your life to go ask your next of kin what you want done with your organs.

Not to mention fostering an attitude of not wanting to save the selfish b#stard who wasn't willing to give them up.

karajorma wrote:Well if we've gone over to an opt-out system it becomes much easier. You simply put the warning that signing up to opt-out means you opt-out of receiving transplants too.

As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a dam about anyone who is selfish enough not to want to give their organs up to help others but thinks that everyone should be willing to do it for them.

You're essentially executing someone for not giving up their organs after they die. Telling people either the government are going to take away parts of their body after they die, or there's a risk you'll refuse to treat them for a condition which is going to kill them.

That, for me, is very wrong. I support the opt-out system but killing people for opting out, I cannot support.

Kietotheworld wrote:

karajorma wrote:Well if we've gone over to an opt-out system it becomes much easier. You simply put the warning that signing up to opt-out means you opt-out of receiving transplants too.

As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a dam about anyone who is selfish enough not to want to give their organs up to help others but thinks that everyone should be willing to do it for them.

You're essentially executing someone for not giving up their organs after they die. Telling people either the government are going to take away parts of their body after they die, or there's a risk you'll refuse to treat them for a condition which is going to kill them.

That, for me, is very wrong. I support the opt-out system but killing people for opting out, I cannot support.

I am with Kietotheworld. KJ's proposal is a bit extreme.

By the way, are you an organ donor, KJ? I can't remember if you registered.

I've told everyone in my family that I'm quite happy to donate any organ they want if something should happen to me. I did have a donar card but remember that they aren't exactly legally binding anyway.

Kietotheworld wrote:That, for me, is very wrong. I support the opt-out system but killing people for opting out, I cannot support.

Like I said there are reasons why it wouldn't be workable anyway.

However morally can you give me a moral reason why you can accept organs from other people but not be prepared to donate your own? And I don't mean ones where you say "My heart is fucked, no one would want it anyway" since screening would have ruled it out anyway.


EDIT : At the least what do you say to making whether a person has opted out or not a consideration in what position a person gets on the transplant list? The list already considers age, lifestyle and various other factors. Wouldn't you say that it is fairer if a 40 year old man who is willing to give up his organs for donation had a higher place than a 30 year old who wasn't (all other things being equal)?

Under the current system he probably wouldn't as age is a big consideration.

karajorma wrote:However morally can you give me a moral reason why you can accept organs from other people but not be prepared to donate your own? And I don't mean ones where you say "My heart is fucked, no one would want it anyway" since screening would have ruled it out anyway.

No, I can't. You argument is morally sound but someone's life is more important than morality.

EDIT : At the least what do you say to making whether a person has opted out or not a consideration in what position a person gets on the transplant list? The list already considers age, lifestyle and various other factors. Wouldn't you say that it is fairer if a 40 year old man who is willing to give up his organs for donation had a higher place than a 30 year old who wasn't (all other things being equal)?

Under the current system he probably wouldn't as age is a big consideration.

Prioritisation is fair enough, I'd support that, its a good idea, much less extreme. Obviously it'd have to go in with the other factors, i.e. you wouldn't give a heart to a 90 year old who was willing to donate over a 20 year old who wasn't.

Kietotheworld wrote:

karajorma wrote:However morally can you give me a moral reason why you can accept organs from other people but not be prepared to donate your own? And I don't mean ones where you say "My heart is fucked, no one would want it anyway" since screening would have ruled it out anyway.

No, I can't. You argument is morally sound but someone's life is more important than morality.

I think the problem you're having is that I've skipped ahead a couple of points I thought were fairly well known in my first post. Lets see if I can make it more clear now.

Prioritisation is fair enough, I'd support that, its a good idea, much less extreme. Obviously it'd have to go in with the other factors, i.e. you wouldn't give a heart to a 90 year old who was willing to donate over a 20 year old who wasn't.

There aren't enough organs to go around. Even under an opt-out system. I can't remember off hand whether it is Spain or Holland who has the largest number of transplants per person but even there despite the opt-out system there still aren't enough organs.

So if whether someone has opted out or not becomes a consideration then the simple fact is that the situation comes down to the stark choice I gave in my first post. There will always be a 30 year old on the list who is willing to donate whose claim therefore trumps the claim of the 20 year old who isn't.