Organ donation - 2 questions

Yes

1

2

[h.smile]

Opt-in. Definitely yes.

Priority should be given to those most in need.

opt out. Enough pussy footing already.
I think the second option would be too tricky to administrate. Matching donors to those in need is a difficult thing at the best of times. And what about children?

I agree. Yes to 1. No to 2.

Yes to 1.
I don't think 2 would be viable,but I do get annoyed when people who say their religion/culture won't allow them to be donors are happy to accept organs from other people.

Does that happen? I'd have thought their religion/culture would prevent them from accepting a donor organ.

Yes to first question
No to the second

Ana, it certainly does happen. I saw a documentary where people of various religions were interiewed and explained that they had to be 'complete' for the afterlife (they didn't say if they had to preserve their appendix) but it didn't stop them accepting organs. I think JWs don't as it would involve receiving blood.

Yes to 1; no to 2 for the reasons already given.

No, no. The state doesn't own my body and I deeply resent any further interference in my life (or death) from the state. If it goes for opting out, I shall take my name off the register, inform all my family (while I am still in this country) that I do not want my organs used and opt out – sheer bloody mindedness but they may not make assumptions. Of course, those most in need are the ones who should be treated first - no question.

Thanks, Greatnan - I have heard of that, now I come to think about it. Very odd.

Anyone ever call you a stroppy so-and-so absent ?

Definitely opt out. I think of the people I love and care about. I would be distraught if their lives couldn't be saved because of lack of donors, and we should be prepared to donate ourselves.

No to the second -it shouldn't be who deserves, but who most needs a suitable organ.

Jess

Opt out, in fact I veer towards compulsory harvesting.

Give them to whoever needs most.

Ella, what a creepy phrase! I know what you mean, though.

It's been known JessM.

Has anyone seen the Carey Mulligan film 'Never Let Me Go' ?

1yes
2no

I must declare an interest. My late husband had a second hand kidney. It gave us almost 20 good extra years together.

I've read the book by Kazuo Ishiguro, crimson - very scary! I really didn't want to see the film.

jenni, so glad you had that chance. Many people become donors, organ or blood, after a loved one needed either.

OK, I can see why many of you have problems with number 2. Not easy hey.
And yet, let's imagine - 2 people, same age, same level of fitness and lifestyle, both have young children, same prognosis, same operating risks, perfect match- but they have only ONE kidney to give. One is a donor, the other one is not. Do the Doctors toss for it, or do they give priority to the one who is a Donor?

Well, I suppose the donor would be the better bet (for the doctors hoping for more organs). But having received a life-prolonging organ, the other person may change their mind and become a donor too!
I think it would be extremely unethical to make the choice based on whether one patient was a donor or not.

Yes to 1 No to 2 which should go by need in my view.

They take various psychological factors into account.eg enthusiasm for life, attitude to problems etc