Organ donation - 2 questions

That's even more sinister, jeni!

Yes to 1, No to 2. I am happy for any of my organs which still work to be used when I am dead and I have told my family so, and carry a donor card. I must admit, though, to being a bit concerned about the donor register which is being pushed at every possible opportunity. So far I am still using my organs and don't feel happy about putting them on a list to be used. This is silly and irrational, I know, but there it is. Does anyone else feel the same?

They don't do formal testing. It's done by observation!

Yes, I can see the logic, jeni, but given the two people given in granjura's hypothetical example I would imagine they would both have the same will to live! Subjecting them to psychological tests to see who would end up the 'winner' (possibly due to some perceived lack of get-up-and-go on the part of the 'loser') seems inhumane. There would be a brisk business in 'donor-recipient coaching' going on....

Overcome!

If you have two people who are equal, would you chose the one who gives in at the slightest hurdle or the one faces up to challenges and tries to over ome then?

jeni - that really goes against the grain! (to me)

That really does need the wisdom of Solomon. We are asking doctors to decide which people are most valuable, but I know it has to be done. I believe organ donations dropped for a while after seat belts were made compulsory.

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

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

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.

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?

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

1yes
2no

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

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

It's been known JessM.

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

Opt out, in fact I veer towards compulsory harvesting.

Give them to whoever needs most.

Jess

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.