Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.

 

The Prime Minister says that such a facility would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year.

The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.

 

But patients' groups said that they were "totally opposed" to Mr Brown's plan, saying that it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies

Should organs be harvested from a dead person without their explicit consent?

Are these proposals what we need to help the 7,000 people currently waiting for a transplant? Or is it unfair to expect doctors and patients’ relatives to deal with the issue of organ donation while the patient is still alive?

 

Would an opt-out donation scheme unfairly rob an individual of the right to decide what will happen to his or her own body after death?

 

Source: Sunday Telegraph

Opt-out.

 

People make such a big fuss about how they would be taken without conscent, but surely if they care that much they'll make the phone call or fill in the form to opt-out, if not then it's all just chat.

 

If they have the option to say "I don't want you to take my eyeball", then they AREN'T taking without consent.

No I am totally opposed to the idea of compulsary organ donation, people should opt in if they so wish, I came to this earth with everything intact and I want to go to my grave with everything intact and don't want to be sliced up on some slab it is totally undignified

No I am totally opposed to the idea of compulsary organ donation, people should opt in if they so wish

 

It's not compulsorary in any way?

 

Presumably this bothers enough that you'd opt-out? Anyone who doesn't opt-out obviously doesn't have strong feelings on it either way, and therefore they're really in no position to soapbox about it, but not do anything about it! The only thing that is compulsory is that you make a decision one way or the other - something I think anyone should do anyway, considering how this could benefit other peoples lives.

Edited January 21, 200817 yr by Andrewy

My family had a huge debate about this the other night. :lol:

 

Personally, I think it's not right. It's our body and we should be able to do whatever we want with it, but there's no doubt about it that of these rules were implemented people just wouldn't be able to do with the hassel of getting their names taken off the list, and thus saving a lot of lives. I still think it's wrong however as people should the right to choose what they want to do and not be backed into a corner.

 

My Mum's a nurse and she mentioned something that even if you're on the organ doners list at the moment, and your next of kin says they don't want your organs taken then they're not allowed to take them?

My Mum's a nurse and she mentioned something that even if you're on the organ doners list at the moment, and your next of kin says they don't want your organs taken then they're not allowed to take them?

 

I think that's the case, yeah. I wonder how many people actually turn round and ask for them to go against the patients wishes...

 

I understand what you mean about being backed into a corner - it is a bit 'DO IT AND IF NOT IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT'. I just think if people can be bothered to chat about how unfair it is, they'll do something about it, and anyone who doesn't will end up saving lives*.

 

* Just to make it clear, I don't think it's wrong of people NOT to want their organs removed ... I've got a selection of mine that I don't mind them taking, and some I don't want them to. For example, I don't mind them taking a lot of mine (heart and lungs, not that mine will be any use, I have asthma lol), but I can't imagine not having eyes, so don't want them taken. They would also be useless, though. Guess it just doesn't suit some people. I'm just saying, people do have a choice :)

It's your body so it should be your decision. If you said that you do not want your organs to be donated when you were alive, then that decision should stand...and vice versa.

Edited January 21, 200817 yr by Tyler

If people want to donate it's quite easy to tick the donor box on their drivers license for YES.

If people haven't ticked the box it means they don't want to donate.

Or people can put their names on the Donors List.

How clearer can a person intentions to be to donate or not donate??

 

They are hoping to catch the unwary, uneducated, illiterate, ill informed, the homeless, the mentally ill, illegal immigrants and a whole host of

other people who are the vulnerable in our society. Who for various reasons won't/can't be put on a DO NOT REMOVE ORGANS list.

 

I do not believe they want these organs for these 7,000 people either. With this opt out concept or this EVERYONE IS FAIR GAME TO BE EXPLOITED FOR BODY PARTS scheme, there will be surplus organs eventually. You can guarantee that these won't be used for transplants but used for some scientific experiments or some other commercial profiteering scheme that hasn't come to light yet.

 

The blood that we donate for free is sold on in other blood by-products for profit and is a multi million dollar business.

Why should something we give for ultruistic reasons be abused like that.

 

As far as I'm concerned, when they want to start getting manipulative and make loop holes to exploit to catch people out, then its to do with $$$$$

not saving lives IMO

If anyone is so stupid as to care about his/her body after death, then he/she can opt-out. Otherwise organ donation should be assumed. Period.

i wont be needing my organs when i'm dead, so they might aswell go to someone who does need them to stay alive. what use are they to me?

 

i say opt-out.

No I am totally opposed to the idea of compulsary organ donation, people should opt in if they so wish, I came to this earth with everything intact and I want to go to my grave with everything intact and don't want to be sliced up on some slab it is totally undignified

 

agreed. it should be choice wether to do it.

....... also i think it depends upon WHY someone needs another organ. if someone abuses their body (like jr ...larry hagman) and damages themselves then i think thats just tough titty!

If anyone is so stupid as to care about his/her body after death, then he/she can opt-out. Otherwise organ donation should be assumed. Period.

 

Totally agree, dead is dead, how can anything affect you, adversely or otherwise, after you're dead ffs...?

 

And there is one very important point that all the naysayers are missing out on - surely the current deficit of transplant organs is what is leading to the growing, and rather repugnant, illegal trade in harvesting body parts from people, either dead or alive, being carried out by organised criminals.. If there were enough legit body parts going round for everyone who needed one, then I doubt we'd be seeing this despicable trade....

if someone abuses their body (like jr ...larry hagman) and damages themselves then i think thats just tough titty!

 

Rich people like Hagman can always circumvent the law though mate and buy an illegal body part. The illegal trade in human organs and parts is a growing problem, and it's mainly being caused by the fact that there is a deficit of organ donors....