Should organ donor cards be compulsory?

swingking

@OP

was this the same guy who was talked about in the Irish times because his son got the liver damage for drinking too much


source= Irish Times

A LONDON hospital says there can be no exceptions to its rule that liver transplants are only provided to patients who are alcohol-free for six months, despite a plea from a Co Down man whose son’s liver failed after a drinking binge.

Edit: just confirmed the story matching that of the OPs.

TPD

Organ donation preference should be kept on record by your doctor/government health database. First time going to the doctor after turning 18, you are asked your preference. You can then change it at any subsequent visit to the doctor. Simple enough really.

Rebelheart

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm fairly sure organ doner cards came through our letter box at home. We all signed up, set the cards aside and never thought about them again. That's why an opt out database is the easiest way to deal with it.

I'd tend to strongly agree with that. The only thing I carry with me is my phone, money and atm/credit cards. Everything else, including my watch, is redundant (there's a clock on my phone).

To expect people to think of bringing their organ donor card every day assumes that people think, even fleetingly, about dying every morning. Unless you're deeply morbid, you probably have other things to think about.

Rebelheart

swingking wrote: »

@OP

was this the same guy who was talked about in the Irish times because his son got the liver damage for drinking too much


source= Irish Times


Edit: just confirmed the story matching that of the OPs.

Yeah, the 19 year-old. He was given 2 weeks to live. Never heard of him until Éamon Keane interviewed his father on Newstalk today at 12.20pm. It was a very moving interview.

jimmy jam jars

should be compulsory

Dave!

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'd tend to strongly agree with that. The only thing I carry with me is my phone, money and atm/credit cards. Everything else, including my watch, is redundant (there's a clock on my phone).

To expect people to think of bringing their organ donor card every day assumes that people think, even fleetingly, about dying every morning. Unless you're deeply morbid, you probably have other things to think about.

Would your donor card not fit in with your ATM card in your wallet...? That's where mine is.... Nothin morbid about it, I put it there once and forgot about it !

The Big Red Button

Rebelheart wrote: »

To expect people to think of bringing their organ donor card every day assumes that people think, even fleetingly, about dying every morning. Unless you're deeply morbid, you probably have other things to think about.

Well to be fair, I signed up for a card when I was about twelve, it's been transferred from wallet to wallet since then along with the rest of my cards without a second thought! So no, I don't even think about bringing it with me every day.

But of course everyone's different, which is why a national database is needed.

ChocolateSauce

That is such a stupid way of going about it....compulsory cards? What they should do it simply operate under the assumption that everyone is a donor, and make it so that you need a card saying you don't want to be donor instead.

ScumLord

Dave! wrote: »

Would your donor card not fit in with your ATM card in your wallet...? That's where mine is.... Nothin morbid about it, I put it there once and forgot about it !

If he's like me he doesn't have a wallet, in my pocket is money, card, keys and phone, no container necessary.

Rebelheart

Dave! wrote: »

Would your donor card not fit in with your ATM card in your wallet...? That's where mine is.... Nothin morbid about it, I put it there once and forgot about it !

It's so long since I got a donor card - about ten years - that I lost it years ago. People lose cards, phones and a load more things regularly. Generally, I try to bring as little in my pocket as possible, which is why I shun 'loyalty cards' etc.


This sort of issue is, I believe, too important to leave it up to somebody's memory on the day he or she has an accident. A national database which emergency services have access to sounds like a much more reliable and comprehensive system than just dishing out cards to us from time to time. The idea of an opt-out system sounds like a solid basis upon which to establish a new organ donation system, I think.

A donor card will notify doctors/family of your desire to donate your organs, however, it is not a legal document and the decision still rests with your next of kin. Someone mentioned having it on your drivers license - it is there - right on the back!!

I think the opt out thing is probably a good idea but I am totally against compulsory. I have been in the position where I had to decide whether or not to donate a family members organs. My husband and I chose against it. We have recently found out that an organ was retained without our knowledge and quite frankly it has kept me awake at night knowing that this person was buried without being 'complete'.

Mr.Obvious

IvySlayer wrote: »

Yes they should be compulsory, if you die, your organs will be used to save other lives.

I like this for 3 reasons, one, my organs are useless underground being eaten by maggots, two, I will help someone live and three, part of me will live on.

not neccessarily. I am getting myself cryogenically frozen at alcor when i die.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

A donor card will notify doctors/family of your desire to donate your organs, however, it is not a legal document and the decision still rests with your next of kin. Someone mentioned having it on your drivers license - it is there - right on the back!!

I think the opt out thing is probably a good idea but I am totally against compulsory. I have been in the position where I had to decide whether or not to donate a family members organs. My husband and I chose against it. We have recently found out that an organ was retained without our knowledge and quite frankly it has kept me awake at night knowing that this person was buried without being 'complete'.

That's pretty low that they did that but I can understand why a doctor would feel the urge too, they may see it as instead of two people dying one would live. It must be hard to watch someone die, even for doctors.

Does it not give you any comfort knowing that another part of him lives on? The other part being the important one that lives on with you.

I'm of the opinion that the body is just a shell, once someone dies the body is just a mechanical machine.

BaconZombie

Necrocard FTW

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

That's pretty low that they did that but I can understand why a doctor would feel the urge too, they may see it as instead of two people dying one would live. It must be hard to watch someone die, even for doctors.

Does it not give you any comfort knowing that another part of him lives on? The other part being the important one that lives on with you.
.

They didn't take the organ for someone else to live! they still have it!

You also have to bear in mind that if you do decide to donate your next of kins organs, they generally have to be kept on life support longer etc which makes a difficult time even more difficult.

I would donate my organs. It wouldn't bother me. But you cannot judge someone for their opinions/feelings on the matter. Some people feel differently to others and that deserves respect.

994

sidneykidney wrote: »

Dont get me wrong it would be great if all adults carried the card but we know thats not going to happen (we dont live in a perfect world,far from it). But i disagree totally that if you dont carry the card you wont recieve the treatment you deserve.....Its ethically wrong for a doctor to refuse to operate on those grounds

This is in response to genericguys last post btw

Is it ethically right to refuse others what you demand for yourself?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In the end its completely against freedom of choice to be compulsory or opt-out.

Its your body and your decision.

Actually, the dead have no legal rights. But does your corpse belong to the State or to your family?

IvySlayer wrote: »

Yes they should be compulsory, if you die, your organs will be used to save other lives.

I like this for 3 reasons, one, my organs are useless underground being eaten by maggots, two, I will help someone live and three, part of me will live on.

Actually you'll be eaten by bacteria and fungi, maggots have no way of getting into the coffin.

Hagar

994 wrote: »

Actually, the dead have no legal rights. But does your corpse belong to the State or to your family?

Why should it belong to the State?
Why should it belong to anyone?
What a strange question, even advocates of slavery never tried to exploit the corpse.

Somnus

Opt out would be the best approach. That way if you felt strongly against it then you would go out of your way to opt out, where if you don't really care then you don't have to go and get a card saying you will donate.

I also kinda agree with the not being able to be a recipient if you're not a donor. You'll take other peoples organs but won't give up your own?

Epic Issue

Charco wrote: »

I won't need it, just keep away from my eyes.

Im all with Charco. everything but the eyes.

994

Hagar wrote: »

Why should it belong to anyone?

It must belong to someone, otherwise who has final say of what to do with it?

What a strange question, even advocates of slavery never tried to exploit the corpse.

They sometimes buried them in fields for fertiliser.

Hal1

no now fukoff! :mad:

Overheal

mehfesto2 wrote: »

An odd angle to take, but I've had this discussion with friends before and one always stood by:

"If everyone gave up their organs, yeah you'd sort out the truly needy, the people born with problems or those who were beset by some disease or whatever, but you'd also have people who'd use up two or three livers through drinking. I'd hate to think my organs were being used as a stop-gap between a hospital and a pub. Imagine that!"

Very unlikely and 'what if-y', but technically it's a fair point if everyone HAD to donate, I suppose.

Thing is, you already have people with that mentality. Oh I can always get another kidney. :rolleyes:

the dead have no legal rights.

Explain these witchcraft things then. A double :rolleyes::rolleyes: for you sir! Rare, it may be the first one I've ever issued. Cherish it.

Dr.Poca wrote: »

Opt out would be the best approach. That way if you felt strongly against it then you would go out of your way to opt out, where if you don't really care then you don't have to go and get a card saying you will donate.

I also kinda agree with the not being able to be a recipient if you're not a donor. You'll take other peoples organs but won't give up your own?

Yeah. While you're at it, have an Opt-Out voting system too. So, if you don't care, Your vote will default to FF.

Rebelheart

Deleted User wrote: »

I have been in the position where I had to decide whether or not to donate a family members organs. My husband and I chose against it.

Mind my asking why you decided against donation?

K-Ren

This debate would be an excellent premise for a porno.


And I'm burning my body when I die, I think making donor cards compulsory would only give the HSE an incentive to kill us quicker.

Also :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

Piste

I'd be totally for an opt-out system once you turn 16 (cos that's when you have medical autonomy) and you must be still on the organ donation list to receive an organ. I also think the wishes of the dead person should be considered before the family, so that the family can't override the person's wish to donate their organs.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

They didn't take the organ for someone else to live! they still have it!

WTF!? That is just wrong. There is something seriously wrong with every part of our government, that that kind of thing could even happen. Sorry that you have to bare the brunt of that corruption.


A family being asked to give up their loved one is just impossible thats why it should be an opt out system, if it's standard people wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. Doctors wouldn't have to interrupt the family's grieving process with questions that they don't want to ever hear.

Ickle Magoo

It should be an opt out system rather than opt in - I think there should be a mandatory donor register that should be signed by every adult to list their own wishes while living so it's not left up to distraught relatives to try to come to terms with making an organ donation as well as the loss of their loved one.

Adyx

Milky Moo wrote: »

I have a card also and I am pretty sure if they ran a more intensive ad campaign other people would be more likely to pick one up.

As it has been said by other posters what good are your organs in the ground when they could be saving somebody.

Exactly and all you have to do is text them. **** all effort required. It shouldn't be compulsory but definitely encouraged.

robbie_998

i think it should be a matter of preference,

i shouldnt have to be forced to give up all my body parts and just bury a nearly empty coffin.

but still i would voluntary give up some organs for donation but out of my own free will

just to clear up the polls here.

the first option is yes they should be compulsory and the other 2 options are no they should be a matter of preference.

i fail to see why we need 3 options

Rebelheart

Rebelheart wrote: »

Mind my asking why you decided against donation?

I can't explain my reasons. But suffice to say the thoughts of them cutting open my 3 year old to take him apart was not something I wanted to happen.

Mal-Adjusted

I agree that Donation should stay voluntary. the idea of it bieng compulsory makes it feel like we're just carrying the HSE's property around for a while.

and the idea of denying someone a transplant because they're not a organ doner? i'm sorry, but you can't get anymore pig-headed and stubborn than this. it's diffirent if it's a person who might abuse the organ, like the guy who went binge drinking.

Rebelheart

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I agree that Donation should stay voluntary. the idea of it bieng compulsory makes it feel like we're just carrying the HSE's property around for a while.

and the idea of denying someone a transplant because they're not a organ doner? i'm sorry, but you can't get anymore pig-headed and stubborn than this. it's diffirent if it's a person who might abuse the organ, like the guy who went binge drinking.

Would people please get over this "HSE" nonsense? So many people have brought it into this discussion. It is becoming an increasingly tiresome bogeyman. We are talking about real changes you or I can make to the lives of real people through such donations. To deny that gift of life because of a negative view of our [relatively enormous] health system is hurting people who need transfers and nobody else. Does anybody really think that the HSE and its army of pen-pushing minnows really care? They don't.

There are people, such as 19-year-old Gareth Anderson, in huge pain at this moment because of their need for a transplant. These transplants are not forthcoming from people who can be kindly described as mé féiners of the highest order, some of whom use the HSE as a scapegoat for their own selfishness.

The more I think of this selfishness the more my reaction to this is, as suggested by posters above, to deny a transplant to anybody who refuses to allow their own organs to be used. That would be justice, in a weirdly vindictive way.

When we die, our bodies simply decompose. Our organs are of no use to us. That they can give life to other people makes it quite immoral, in my view, to deny this gift of life.

for people talking about the opt out sytem

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_090312

Mal-Adjusted

Rebelheart wrote: »

When we die, our bodies simply decompose. Our organs are of no use to us. That they can give life to other people makes it quite immoral, in my view, to deny this gift of life.

no more immoral than denying an available organ to a person out of spite...

Bob_Harris

I have no intention of dying so I don't have a donor card.

If I was automatically on some list which I had to opt out I wouldn't mind, but to be honest I couldn't be bothered seeking out a card.

genericguy

ScumLord wrote: »

Don't agree with that either People just don't think properly about these things until they happen to them. I'd guess that any non-doner that had their life saved by an organ transplant would quickly change their point of view. Everyone deserves a second chance.

an opt out database is the easiest way to deal with it.

not thinking properly is also the reason liver transplants become an issue, as in the case this week. an opt-out system would solve the problem, because you'd have to have given thought before choosing to opt out.

all organs should be made available, or no organs will be given to you. in this case i really think it should be that black and white, and i can't see an argument against it. i would hate to think that my kidney went to somebody who wanted to keep their eyes lest they become 'a blind ghost'.

El Siglo

This might be worth a read.

ottostreet

i know nothing about anatomy really so this may be a thick question.

say i donated my eyeballs or retinas or whatever kidney/heart whatever!

the person i donated to, then donated when they died and so on and so on..

how long could the organ feasibly be used for? would it be down to each persons lifestyle?

Captain Chaos

Has anyone ever looked at donor organ options, eyes are not on it. Jeszz the big deal with eyes here, wtf.

Bonavox

No way, what a stupid idea :eek:

skl6284

pikachucheeks wrote: »

A person's body is theirs, even when they die - it's their choice what they want to do with it.

1) There is legal restrictions on how you can choose to have your cadaver handled. For example, you cannot have your body rot on the ground or dumped into a river no matter how strong your personal/religious convictions are and/or your sense of property rights.
2) Government can tax property (i.e. houses, cars). If your body is your own property, how does that make it exempt?
3) ot true, there is legal precedence in the United States entitling the / govenrnment to use cadavers for some public benefit. Both Florida and Georgia have routine removal laws that authorize coroners to remove corneas from autopsy subjects for transplants. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in this law constitutional in Florida v. Powell (No, 67755, 10/30/1986) as fullfilling the government's obligation to provide sight to its citizens while respecting individual property rights at the same time.
4) Furthermore, in 2001 the US Army Institute Of Pathology started conducting clinical autopsies (which normally require permission from the family of the deceased) on all slain servicemen/women. The knowledge gained from these autopsies have helped improve body armor, vehicle shielding, and combat medical treatment. The mentioned legislation and decrees are examples of using cadavers to help derive significant medical benefit from a tragic situation

skl6284

sidneykidney wrote: »

I really dont think this is viable i was 18 when i took ill at that age the last thing on my mind was carrying a card. I supppose you could say "you only realise these things when your the one in need" and yes in my case thats true,but denying someone a lifesaving transplant because they arent a willing donor card carrier....no not at all viable.

Why not increase the public education to remedy that problem to accompany a policy that reserves organs for organ donors.

skl6284

Charco wrote: »

Yeah, well ghosts don't eat or breathe or anything like that so most of the organs won't be needed. I'd hate to spend forever with my eyes though.

But your eyes are dependent on your blood and other organs to function.

skl6284

sidneykidney wrote: »

Dont get me wrong it would be great if all adults carried the card but we know thats not going to happen (we dont live in a perfect world,far from it). But i disagree totally that if you dont carry the card you wont recieve the treatment you deserve.....Its ethically wrong for a doctor to refuse to operate on those grounds

This is in response to genericguys last post btw

Doctors are already forced to do this due to the organ donor shortage, with many people not being donors based on blatantly irrational reasons.