Should brain dead patients be kept alive for organ donation?

It seems a logical thing to do, but, of course, emotions are not logical. Both Mr absent an I are quite happy for any bits of our bodies that might possibly be useful to someone else to be used for their benefit. However, I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable with Mr absent put, not so much on the back burner as in the freezer, until required. I'm pretty sure Mr absent wouldn't feel all that comfortable about me in the same situation. When someone you love dies, it's quite hard to get to grips with your own feelings which race away in all sorts of uncontrollable and often unexpected directions, from devastating grief to furious anger at the person who has died. The rituals of death, such as a funeral, help us through this hugely painful time. I'm not sure how good I would be if it were all put on hold. A day or two, perhaps – longer and I think I would fall apart.

I carry a card and I'm on the organ donation register. I don't feel it would be ethical to keep a body going in order to harvest its organs. As you say getmehrt tremendous sensitivity would need to be shown to relatives. However, if one of my own family were in desperate need of an organ from such a donor, then maybe I would feel very different.

Yes, I carry a card too, and would go with this suggestion if it is done sensitively, and there is a time limit for harvesting body parts, so the family of the deceased aren't left in limbo and are able to grieve without undue distress.

'Harvest' is such an emotional term. I would be very happy for my brain- dead body to be kept ticking over until anything usable could be taken. If you had a child or partner that was dying for lack of a heart or liver, I am sure you would welcome this initiative.
If one of my family died, I think I would find it a comfort if part(s) of them could be used to help others.
I am sure the tabloids will whip up some hysteria by talking about bodies being kept in warehouses, like that horror film.
And perhaps people who refuse to be donors should not be willing to accept donations.

There is a desperate need for more organs to help people whose lives would benefit, and the organs of brain dead people are no use to them (I presume). In theory, therefore, I don't have a problem with the idea of keeping the organs healthy until they are required. Tricky emotionally for relatives of the dead person though. I guess it's important to let your relatives know beforehand how you feel about your own organs being used in such a way. I've told my DH and my grown up daughters that any part of me that would be of use to anyone else can be used. In short, my consent is already given to such a process.

I think the 'opt out' idea is fine too.

Sorry if this is a stupid or insensitive question, but is a 'brain dead' person definately devoid of any consciousness?

crimson If truly "brain dead" – yes. But there have been mistaken diagnoses. Bit worrying.

Many years ago that worried me too, but I think ways of determining brain deadness have become much more sophisticated so I'm much less worried about that aspect now.

I know someone who studies 'consciousness' and have always been afeared of asking them any questions.

Oh bags don't care much about me, but I worry about those close to me. How can I guarantee that they don't get it wrong with any of mines? I know, it's all thriller and movie territory but, of course, we are informed by popular culture.

Yes to organ donation.

Yes to an opt out system.

Not sure about ventilating corpses to harvest organs. (In this suspended state is the body a corpse?) I think it would need to be time specific, for example 24 or 48 hours, before I could contemplate it. Don't think I could cope emotionally with Mr hp being ventilated for longer.

Good point, HP. Is there mention of a time limit, does anyone know?

I`ve carried a donor card for many years, and am also on the donor register, but I think there`s something very cold and calculating about the idea of keeping people alive specifically for organs.

Yes, yes, yes,yes, yes,yes,yes,yes..
I don't think we are talking about "Keeping people alive" specifically for organs. Once a person has been pronounced dead there ia a relatively short "window" for the harvesting of organs/skin/retinas etc. So once a family have said their goodbyes, the life supprt system can be turned off and the first steps taken to saving 4 or more lives and vastly improving the quality of life of others. Why is this "spooky"?
Of course the patient is not conscious and at least 2 doctors have to certify the patient brain dead. Organ donors and recipients cannot be in the same hospital so there is absolutely no possibility of "dodgy" dealing. People leave their material goods to their loved ones when they die - is there no greater gift than to save other lives by organ donation? Forgive me for sounding so emphatic, but I would not have had my dear husband for the last 15 years of someone somewhere had not signed their donor card. I have also spoken with the parents of a young woman who died of a brain haemmorrhage and who, when they met my daughters and me (in the relatives' room of that same ITU I refer to below) who said that having seen the "other side" of organ donation, were more certain than ever that it was what their daughter wanted.
Despite the lack of consciousness, the patient is treated with the utmost care and respect - I have seen this, I have seen a patient being washed and dried, have her hair combed, be spoken to in loving and caring terms by the ITU staff.

Thank you, Gracesmum, for such a touching post.

I agree. It will help the people organising transplants if they have a few more hours to contact suitable recipient, transport them nearer to donor etc etc
Once the donor dies the organs are going to start to deteriorate and the transplant less likely to be a success. Anything that can be done to improve the chances of the transplant succeeding. Yes.

Am I right in thinking that although the person is brain dead, the heart is still beating and alive and has to be for the organs to be fit for transplant? I'm trying to clarify this as I recently read an emotive argument against transplant on the grounds that the person was in one respect alive. I like the idea of donating my organs, but in the event that they are not much use to anyone, I would like a natural burial with a tree planted over me. Not too soon hopefully!

My husband too was the recipient of an organ donation. The kidney gave him an extra 14years of active healthy life that otherwise we would not have been able to share.
The gift of an organ is a gift not just to the recipient, but to their whole family.
In my husbands case this included 2 young children.
It made an enormous difference to all our lives!
So yes I do support this idea!

Brain cells die very very quickly once oxygen deprived. (in the case of a brain dead person then many of these are dead anyway)
Other cells die much more slowly. And they do, I think, put kidneys in cool boxes and drive them from one hospital to another. But obviously the longer they are unhooked from a supply of oxygenated blood the less good the condition is going to be. Does that sound right jeni ?

Quite correct. The longer the perfusion time the better.
I remember when Peter was waiting for a match, they flew a kidney down from Glasgow to Bristol. Unfortunately it did not match with any of the three potential recipients.
The story went round the ward that the only possible match would have been a bottle of whisky!
It was St Andrews night after all!
This is absolutely true. Medics have a strange soh!

I think somewhere along the line with this there tends to be a polarisation of views.
Would it be possible, for those who find it difficult to address the concept of maintaining organ health, for however long (although I would support a time-limit, and quite what that might be I'm not sure), to be able to have a ceremony of their choice in which the family are able to say their goodbyes.

I think the sticking point is not whether organs can be used in the here and now or at a later date, but in the family being able to honour the death of a loved one with compassion and togetherness. Maybe a contentious view, but why not a funeral, an act of saying goodbye, be possible before actual organs are available for use.

I would presume that in fact we are only talking about a matter of hours, perhaps a couple of days at most?

This is a difficult one. I could not possibly say goodbye to ANYBODY who is still breathing. Life support machine, or not.

Would there be a limit to how much of a person could be used, though? I'm thinking of an era where we have things like hand and face transplants. If a body can be kept alive for a considerable time, then it would be possible to find matches for so much of it, and that I find quite disturbing. Even a funeral of some kind would not bring any peace to the people mourning a loved one; I would imagine that, even though no one ever totally gets over losing someone a funeral is at least a time to move on in whichever way one can. Has anyone seen the rather beautiful but terribly disturbing film 'Never let Me Go'?