Donor Consent Change in Law

Depends how you define dead, river. Being kept ticking over (blood and oxygen flowing) by a machine so that one's organs do not deteriorate is not the same as being alive in my understanding. Quite a long time ago I saw a TV programme about the 'dangers' of organ donation, which did rather put me off. I think detection of brain deadness is more advanced now.

Question? If you opt out (not for any medical reason but just because you can) are you then still entitled to receive a transplanted organ should you ever need it?

?

Or ha this been duscussed bfore too?

No idea if it's been discussed before Anja but we are all entitled to whatever is available, as far as I know, as it should be.

Otherwise we get into the realm of who's paid in more to the system, who smokes, who is obese, who is undeserving, etc.

I put the point about opting out and therefore not being entitled to a donation upthread.FWIW its clearly not a runner but I do think it’s a very interesting moral point and I think different from smoking, obesity etc. If you’re having a transplant I’m sure they take into account your chances of surviving the complex surgery and then living with the transplant afterwards so I would guess smoking, obesity etc might mean you’re not fit for surgery.

Baggs
Does anyone know which other countries, if any, have opt out laws in place rather than depending on opting in as we do at present?
Opt-out started in Wales a few years ago, since when there has been no significant increase in donation rates.
In Spain, donation rates didn’t increase when opt-out started. But after about 10 years, when facilities and infrastructure improved, the rate did increase.
The suggestion was that it wasn’t the change in law that had improved donation rates, but better training for staff on how to discuss the subject with very recently bereaved relatives, and better facilities.
Having made my views clear on jane10’s thread, on which several links were posted, I’m just going to leave it at that.

Fine janea take your bat home with the other Jane . Nice - I thought you were kinder than that

Thanks for the info, janea. Interesting. I don't quite understand what is meant by donation rates didn't increase. Does that mean that most people opted out?

I didn't see the other thread.

When one becomes an organ donor one is advised to tell one's family so that the idea doesn't come as a shock to them should any of your organs be deemed useful for someone in need. I wonder if expecting a fuss from one's relatives is one of the things that holds people back from becoming donors?

Anja, yes, those who opt out can still become recipient.

Riverwalk- re the above- I do not think an organ should go to waste, if a prospective donor is not able to receive.
However, let's imagine you have 2 possible recipients, with more or less the same survival chances, and both with similar social/familial profile- for the sake of this post, let's say all fathers of young children - the transplant teams will have to make a choice- who will receive and who will not. Virtually life and death decisions. They could draw straws - or they could say a) has opted out- so b) will be recipient- all other things being equal- and to my mind, totally ethical.

I do wonder what the % of opt out is for those who have experienced watching a loved one, especially a child- slowly dying in front of their eyes, for want of a donor organ.

My question was not phrased very well. It was a moral one.

I believe it would be morally wrong to accept an organ when you weren't prepared to give one.I also think the folk who wont give organs they wont need are very selfish and probably the sort who would expect to get a transplant id THEY needed it .We all know someone like that,the I'm all right jack brigade

I'm really glad to hear this news. I've always thought it should be "opt out". I used to work with a girl whose job it was to go around talking to relatives of dying/ deceased people, asking if they'd consider donating their relative's organs. She said that most of them refused, because it was such a shock to them and they couldn't process the information. If it was "opt out" , everyone would know that this was going to happen and there would be less red tape. I'm happy for my "bits" to go somewhere useful.

Thanks for the info, janea. Interesting. I don't quite understand what is meant by donation rates didn't increase. Does that mean that most people opted out?
Baggs From memory, the year before opt -out was introduced in Wales, there were something like 100 donations. In the first year after opt-out, there were 103. The increase was regarded as not statistically significant.
The point was made that with opt-in, everyone was a potential donor - those who had opted in, and everyone else whose relatives could be approached.
After opt-out, this pool was actually reduced, because some people had specifically withdrawn consent for their organs to be donated.
maryeliza I wasn’t wielding a bat or anything else. In the previous thread, I argued my point at some length, most people vehemently disagreed with me, and it was obvious no one bothered to read the links I posted.
So I wasn’t going to go through all that again. That’s all.
Kindness or lack of it is nothing to do with it.
I’m out of here.

Stella that STILL had to happen with opt out you know!

And it wont be any less of a shock now.

My problem is its all in or all out. When it was down to the family particular personal requests could be honored.

E.g. I dont want my uterus used for some grotesque fankinstein like experiment where some baby is used as a guinee pig in a male body. There is more to gestation than "spare parts" IMO.

With opt in my family could consent for certain organs.

With opt out, if its a no for one organ it has to be a no for all. So More people have to opt out now.

There are lots of reasons why people might say be willing to donate say kidneys and skin, but not eyes or hearts for example. Cultural/superstition etc.

Luckily Im pre menopausal so I might get around it that way

(And yes, DH and I decided very early on that neither of us where comfortable with science meddling in conception and reproduction, and decided that we would not accept fertility treatment beyond a certain point. So I would not be opting out of something I would accept by saying "except uterus".

However I would accept, and happily give, kidneys.

Cant do both though.

Only option now is to opt out.

With Opt in relatives can put in more conditions (e.g. some request "gesture" pain killers during the op etc)

yooohoooo Jane you are a scream, such fun and highly sprited, like me

The chances of anyone wanting your uterus is minimal notanan whereas kidneys, corneas, etc are great demand.

If it saves, or extends a life they can take what they want. No bloody stupid conditions, .

The chances of anyone wanting your uterus is minimal notanan whereas kidneys, corneas, etc are great demand.

Doesnt matter I believe the donor should be respected. Like in opt in, the family can insist on full sedation out of respect for the body during organ harvest.

You might deem that "silly". But I think the donor and the family should be able to have their wishes observed. I think it will decrease uptake to make it an all in or all out stipulation.

There are also some cultures and superstitions where certain organs are more connected to the idea of the "soul" than others. So now those people who might otherwise have donated most other organs will feel they have to opt out completely.

Just read a horrific UN report of forced harvesting of human organs in Chinese internment camps for ethnic Muslims. 60,000-100,000 such transplants have already taken place. Rumours now reported of sales of these organs to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Orwellian times.
That's presumed consent.