Joe Brolly and opt-out law for organ donation

LizT

Mod

Another reminder folks, let's keep the personal insults out of this.

StompToWork

iwantmydinner wrote: »

But one of the major benefits of introducing an opt-out system, or even having a national conversation about an opt-out system, is that it makes people think about it and talk about it.

It's not like opt-out would be introduced without a comprehensive and protracted public awareness and education campaign. (For that reason, I loathe to think how long it will be before we'll see one here in Ireland)

To be honest, I find your stance on opt-out at odds with your preparedness to donate your own organs. If you're in favour of donation, how can you be against a system that raises more awareness of donation, gives more power to the donor and increases the rate of donation?

I am not against a system which raises awareness of donation. I am against the idea of the opt-out, if it ever came into play. Talking about it now is a great thing. Having all these people on boards talk about it, all those people who saw the program last night, that is a good thing.

IMO, the idea of opt-out itself is, however, something I find disagreeable. Perhaps it is down to my own personal experiences. I fully admit it may be. However, I firmly believe you cannot implement this idea until every single citizen of this country has been reached and made a decision either way. While that may sound like a somewhat flippant point of view, I do believe it. I think the effort would be better spent on promoting further awareness of organ donation opt-IN.

GarIT

Absoluvely wrote: »

It will still ultimately be up to professionals to decide if organs are worthy of donation. If they get a chance to interview the donor about lifestyle or illnesses before the transplant to help them make their decision, that's great, but an opt-out system wouldn't add responsibilities to the donor; such as having to always wear a diabetes alert wristband or anything like that.

It can't be solely up to the doctor, people do need to take the responsibility of opting out or they could end up killing Simone, that is one of the cons of the opt out system. Although if there was an opt out clause generally it seems to be the case that your doctor can permanently opt you out regardless of your wishes. And opt out system will definately cause a problem eventually, theoretically we shouldn even have blood testing as part of our opt in system. AFAIK there are many more dead than living donors.

Ghost Buster

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

nope. nobody owns your body but you so they've no right to just take anything from it without your consent.

people should be allowed sell their organs as well as donate them. consent, consent, consent. all that matters.

Absolutely. However when 'you' the owner of the body are dead you no longer exist. Making the body ownerless and very very useful. A technicality but also kinda pertinent.

StompToWork

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Absolutely. However when 'you' the owner of the body are dead you no longer exist. Making the body ownerless and very very useful. A technicality but also kinda pertinent.

I believe the Next of Kin have rights in regards to the remains, so the body is by no means 'ownerless'

iwantmydinner

StompToWork wrote: »

I am not against a system which raises awareness of donation. I am against the idea of the opt-out, if it ever came into play. Talking about it now is a great thing. Having all these people on boards talk about it, all those people who saw the program last night, that is a good thing.

IMO, the idea of opt-out itself is, however, something I find disagreeable. Perhaps it is down to my own personal experiences. I fully admit it may be. However, I firmly believe you cannot implement this idea until every single citizen of this country has been reached and made a decision either way. While that may sound like a somewhat flippant point of view, I do believe it. I think the effort would be better spent on promoting further awareness of organ donation opt-IN.

I totally agree with you on the informed population point. But it can be done. For example, every single citizen (who is intellectually capable) knows that you need a passport if you want to leave this country. Every single one. Getting a successful opt-out system up and running, including informing the population, can and has been done.

Promoting awareness of the current system unfortunately doesn't lead to increased rates of donation. It simply doesn't - that's the fact. The effort put into introducing an opt-out system would lead to increased donations.

GarIT

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I totally agree with you on the informed population point. But it can be done. For example, every single citizen (who is intellectually capable) knows that you need a passport if you want to leave this country. Every single one. Getting a successful opt-out system up and running, including informing the population, can and has been done.

Promoting awareness of the current system unfortunately doesn't lead to increased rates of donation. It simply doesn't - that's the fact. The effort put into introducing an opt-out system would lead to increased donations.

So is it your claim if we posted donor cards to everyone in the country not one person would use it?

iwantmydinner

GarIT wrote: »

So is it your claim if we posted donor cards to everyone in the country not one person would use it?

Sorry - can you point to where I made that claim?

Ghost Buster

StompToWork wrote: »

I believe the Next of Kin have rights in regards to the remains, so the body is by no means 'ownerless'

Next of kin were not mentioned in the OP's scenario. I was going by that.

StompToWork

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I totally agree with you on the informed population point. But it can be done. For example, every single citizen (who is intellectually capable) knows that you need a passport if you want to leave this country. Every single one. Getting a successful opt-out system up and running, including informing the population, can and has been done.

Promoting awareness of the current system unfortunately doesn't lead to increased rates of donation. It simply doesn't - that's the fact. The effort put into introducing an opt-out system would lead to increased donations.

We could end up talking in circles here (because we agree on a lot of things), so let me just say this. Organ donation is something I agree with (hence my decision to carry the card, and inform my family). The key things there, however, is that I have exercised my responsibility to a) carry a donor card and b) inform my family. Anyone who decides that organ donation is something they wish to do has a responsibility to the people who will be collecting their remains, arranging the funeral, executing the distribution of the estate and actually grieving for their lost loved one. That responsibility is to inform those people of the decision, so that they are prepared for the process after the time of death. That responsibility to your next of kin supersedes your responsibility to donate organs, IMHO. An opt-out scheme, with the best intentions and execution in the world, will not capture or allow for that responsibility in all cases.

This is a very personal opinion which I hold, and I know that a lot of people won't agree with it.

GarIT

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Sorry - can you point to where I made that claim?

"Promoting awareness of out current system doesn't lead to increased donation"

And then you go on to say how opt out is so much better with no reason or evidence.

iwantmydinner

GarIT wrote: »

"Promoting awareness of out current system doesn't lead to increased donation"

Exactly. That's very different to the claim you claimed I made.

We have to look at what's been proven to work.

Opt-out has been proven to increase rates of donation. Therefore, I am in favour of it.

Simply posting out donor cards to everyone hasn't been proven to increase rates of donation. Therefore, I cannot get behind that as a tool to increase donations.

GarIT wrote: »

And then you go on to say how opt out is so much better with no reason or evidence.

My reason is that it's been proven to work, in several countries. This has been pointed to on several occasions in this thread.

iwantmydinner

StompToWork wrote: »

We could end up talking in circles here (because we agree on a lot of things), so let me just say this. Organ donation is something I agree with (hence my decision to carry the card, and inform my family). The key things there, however, is that I have exercised my responsibility to a) carry a donor card and b) inform my family. Anyone who decides that organ donation is something they wish to do has a responsibility to the people who will be collecting their remains, arranging the funeral, executing the distribution of the estate and actually grieving for their lost loved one. That responsibility is to inform those people of the decision, so that they are prepared for the process after the time of death. That responsibility to your next of kin supersedes your responsibility to donate organs, IMHO. An opt-out scheme, with the best intentions and execution in the world, will not capture or allow for that responsibility in all cases.

This is a very personal opinion which I hold, and I know that a lot of people won't agree with it.

This is the key thing we disagree on (I think). While not at all wishing to be argumentative, or in any way dismissing your experience and the opinion that flows from that, I am keen to tease this out. Would you see any way in which the entire population could be reached? Or are you absolutely of the opinion that reaching every citizen with the relevant information is impossible?

P_1

KKkitty wrote: »

When my mother was dying the doctor did ask did we want to donate her organs . We said yes at the start but considering what she had gone through we changed our minds. We felt she had been through more than enough in life so said no to it. It's a very personal choice and no one should be slated for saying no to it.

That's an interesting call, without prying am I right in assuming that your mother had no say in the matter either way? To be honest that would concern me more than anything about the situation

StompToWork

iwantmydinner wrote: »

This is the key thing we disagree on (I think). While not at all wishing to be argumentative, or in any way dismissing your experience and the opinion that flows from that, I am keen to tease this out. Would you see any way in which the entire population could be reached? Or are you absolutely of the opinion that reaching every citizen with the relevant information is impossible?

Nothing is impossible, given enough resources. However, when I add my concerns over the amount of the state's already over-burdened resources which would be put into this exercise, to my existing concerns over the opt-out scheme itself (given not every individual citizen would act on it, despite being informed and educated, and choose to ignore it), I still think that it is a bad idea.

For those individuals who chose to ignore it, they have obviously also ignored the choice to consider organ donation, and obviously, IMHO, not discussed it with their families. I don't believe the families should then have to go through the the added distress of organ donation after the death of that individual.

The question then becomes, who has the biggest burden upon them - the grieving family who have just lost a loved one, or the distressed family waiting for an organ for their dying loved one? I'm not about to even consider answered that question, as it is too close to call for my liking. My decision then becomes based on the states resource allocation, and in the end, a continuation - or ramping up - of the current opt-in scheme makes more sense to me.

iwantmydinner

P_1 wrote: »

That's an interesting call, without prying am I right in assuming that your mother had no say in the matter either way? To be honest that would concern me more than anything about the situation

Eh, I would assume because she was incapable?!

iwantmydinner

StompToWork wrote: »

Nothing is impossible, given enough resources. However, when I add my concerns over the amount of the state's already over-burdened resources which would be put into this exercise, to my existing concerns over the opt-out scheme itself (given not every individual citizen would act on it, despite being informed and educated, and choose to ignore it), I still think that it is a bad idea.

For those individuals who chose to ignore it, they have obviously also ignored the choice to consider organ donation, and obviously, IMHO, not discussed it with their families. I don't believe the families should then have to go through the the added distress of organ donation after the death of that individual.

The question then becomes, who has the biggest burden upon them - the grieving family who have just lost a loved one, or the distressed family waiting for an organ for their dying loved one? I'm not about to even consider answered that question, as it is too close to call for my liking. My decision then becomes based on the states resource allocation, and in the end, a continuation - or ramping up - of the current opt-in scheme makes more sense to me.

I would be firmly of the opinion that if you are aware of the mechanics of the opt-out system, and have chosen to not act, then it is more than fair to assume that you are choosing to remain in the potential donor pool.

FWIW, I would not be in favour of any system, including an opt-out system, that failed to demonstrably raise the level of discussion of the issue with next of kin.

On the resources issue - successfully increasing the rate of donation would save the State massive, massive amounts of money (I can't provide actual figures, as don't have access to the relevant info) in terms of the spend on dialysis, etc, and in a smaller way in terms of facilitating recovery from serious illness and a return to the workforce (although this doesn't apply to all cases, clearly). This is on top of the intangible rewards in terms of vastly improving quality of life for organ recipients, and easing the related pressure on their families.

A continuation of the current system would mean a continued massive shortfall in the number of available donor organs. It's just not justifiable in my eyes. In terms of ramping up the public awareness of the current system, I'm convinced that directing those resources to introducing a system that has been proven to increase donation rates makes more sense.

I'll leave it at that!

Medusa22

I don't think I can be objective on this topic as I have a disease which means that I will need a transplant at some point in the future, and that I know and hear of people with my illness dying at very young ages while waiting for organs.

I have an organ donor card and they can take whatever is still functioning and my next of kin are fully aware of this. I think an opt-out system would be ideal, too many people die on the organ transplant list and most people just don't consider organ donation, it isn't a case of being against it but rather that it isn't a matter that they have thought about, which is why the opt-out system would improve matters.

Statistically speaking, you are more likely to need an organ than donate one, people should think about that.

walrusgumble

karma_ wrote: »

How can you give consent when your dead?

Opt out is a fantastic idea and only those selfish bastards can take theirs to the grave with them.

How do you opt out when your dead? People can die suddenly

I assume, like thousands of others, you never bothered to physically go and apply for a donor card, you were too selfish to get it

You have no right to comment or determine what another person does.

You should not be forced to take affirmative action to prevent someone from interfering with your body when you die.

If people want to be do gooders, they are prefectly entitled to get a donor card


Consent means express consent. Not implied and not consent based on pressure or bastards like you classing people who don't wish to donate, as bastards


I trust that you are down for donating your eyes and kidney's? Maybe give the brain for research , ya?

walrusgumble

Medusa22 wrote: »

I don't think I can be objective on this topic as I have a disease which means that I will need a transplant at some point in the future, and that I know and hear of people with my illness dying at very young ages while waiting for organs.

I have an organ donor card and they can take whatever is still functioning and my next of kin are fully aware of this. I think an opt-out system would be ideal, too many people die on the organ transplant list and most people just don't consider organ donation, it isn't a case of being against it but rather that it isn't a matter that they have thought about, which is why the opt-out system would improve matters.

Statistically speaking, you are more likely to need an organ than donate one, people should think about that.

And you have asked these people,you have?

If the issue was so important to them, wouldn't they have done something about getting a donor card if it meant something to them?

Why should society be allowed to presume, without evidence that "most people just don't consider organ donation, it isn't a case of being against it but rather that it isn't a matter that they have thought about"

Donor campaigns are on going alot, people still don't come. It might say something more than what you think. A opt out system is a cop out and frankly shows that those well salaried campaign staffers have failed in their job to get more donors

Pushtrak

walrusgumble wrote: »

Consent means express consent. Not implied and not consent based on pressure or bastards like you classing people who don't wish to donate, as bastards

Two people, all else equal, I'll prefer the person willing to donate their organs to the one who doesn't. It's the point at which a person, while being unwilling to donate their organs thinks nothing of needing to go on a waiting list and receive one themselves that I'd take issue. It makes the system inequitable.

walrusgumble

walrusgumble wrote: »

How do you opt out when your dead? People can die suddenly

I assume, like thousands of others, you never bothered to physically go and apply for a donor card, you were too selfish to get it

You have no right to comment or determine what another person does.

You should not be forced to take affirmative action to prevent someone from interfering with your body when you die.

If people want to be do gooders, they are prefectly entitled to get a donor card


Consent means express consent. Not implied and not consent based on pressure or bastards like you classing people who don't wish to donate, as bastards


I trust that you are down for donating your eyes and kidney's? Maybe give the brain for research , ya?

What a horrible comment.

Pushtrak

walrusgumble wrote: »

Why should society be allowed to presume, without evidence that "most people just don't consider organ donation, it isn't a case of being against it but rather that it isn't a matter that they have thought about"

There are all manner of methods to go about introducing the question to the public. It could be put as part of your application for a passport/driving licence. The census would be more problematic, but workable. I'd also think it something that GPs could start to bring up to patients. I'm sure there are many other things that could be done to improve the current approach.

Medusa22

walrusgumble wrote: »

And you have asked these people,you have?

If the issue was so important to them, wouldn't they have done something about getting a donor card if it meant something to them?

Why should society be allowed to presume, without evidence that "most people just don't consider organ donation, it isn't a case of being against it but rather that it isn't a matter that they have thought about"

Donor campaigns are on going alot, people still don't come. It might say something more than what you think. A opt out system is a cop out and frankly shows that those well salaried campaign staffers have failed in their job to get more donors

In my experience, the people that I have spoken to about organ donation had not previously thought about it but were not against it, so yes. I really don't believe that someone could have a valid reason for not donating their organs when they die.

I also cannot fathom how a family could choose not to donate the organs of a family member if they died and had a donor card, it is obvious what those person's wishes are. If someone chose to be cremated but the family found the idea unpleasant, I wonder if it would be refused? People generally adhere to the wishes of their loved ones, and they should definitely do so if it means saving multiple lives.

To be honest I just can't wrap my head around not donating, what are you going to do with your organs after you die? People should consider how they would feel if they were on the organ donor waiting list, and how their families would feel watching them die.

Caliden

I'd like to know why it would be so hard to opt out?

If people feel so strongly about it, then by all means go ahead and opt out but to say that it should be opt in reeks of "I'm too lazy to do anything about it if it were opt out." and I would take from that, that those who are vocal about it don't actually care as much as they say they do.

walrusgumble

iwantmydinner wrote: »

But one of the major benefits of introducing an opt-out system, or even having a national conversation about an opt-out system, is that it makes people think about it and talk about it.

It's not like opt-out would be introduced without a comprehensive and protracted public awareness and education campaign. (For that reason, I loathe to think how long it will be before we'll see one here in Ireland)

To be honest, I find your stance on opt-out at odds with your preparedness to donate your own organs. If you're in favour of donation, how can you be against a system that raises more awareness of donation, gives more power to the donor and increases the rate of donation?

You evidentially have difficulty with the idea of "consent" and the idea of freedom to choose

This system does not protect those concepts, but merely puts pressure on people who affirm their right not to donate (which was the orignal position) and instead face glib comments of "selfishness" bla bla bla (often from people who didn't see it important enough to carry a donor card previously)


It is evident, the pro side have no respect what so ever about the idea that people have issues with not donating. They have the nerve to waffle on about "sure your dead, what does it matter" (clealy oblivious to religious or spirtual beliefs of another), or ****e on about selfishness.... Again, ask them if they currently have a donor card....................



Go on out and get yer donor cards, then there would not be a need for opt outs. Let us then see how many truly will be willing to donate when they die.

All talk and no trousers from many here

banie01

This is a topic that comes up on a regular basis in AH and for some of us here we have all too raw an experience of the circumstances around taking the decision to make a donation.
As it stands, the decision to donate is left to the families and next of kin.
The decision needs to be taken quickly, and making decisions like this during what is already an intensely traumatic and emotional time is never easy.
Personally I am not a fan of the proposed ''opt-out'' system and would rather a more binding opt-in, be it via a legally binding Donor Register or via the Organ Donor box on one's license.
Move the decision away from the family in their time of trauma.
Make it the donor's informed choice, one that they are happy to make rather than the current scramble to remove the choice altogether.
Build an educational campaign around the option to ''opt-in'' and the benefits donation brings to the recipients, rather than having a possible backlash from
families who have been told that..
1. Your loved one is dead. and 2. We have harvested organs because noone said we couldn't.

I was going to write a new post on how and why I feel as I do about organ donation but I already did, So I'll just quote it instead.

banie01 wrote: »

When my wife died at 26, we donated her organs.
Not because I thought or even cared about other peoples suffering(at the time)
But because everytime Kate and I saw a programme or a movie where it was an option, she always made it clear to me that if she was ever in that situation that she would want her organs to be donated....
So when she collapsed and I knew she'd never recover, it was an easy choice to make(it was the only ''easy'' choice left to me during that period)
Because I didn't actually ''make'' the choice, she did and I just did what I was told.
We donated her organs, apart from her corneas because as stupid as it sounds and I know its not in any way a rational or sensible thought....
I never wanted to imagine those eyes, with all they mean to me...
On anyone else.

Now when we donated the organs, I'll be quite honest I didn't care who was helped...
I was losing everything, my future was ripped away and I didn't care if those people she helped died screaming!
I would have given anything for her to be saved, rather than be the one saving.
We received a letter from the transplant coordination team giving a few details of the organs used and people(anonymous) saved....
There were 4 recipients in total...
And we got a card, in with that letter.
From the woman who received Kate's liver, telling us how close to death she was prior to transplant, commiserating with our loss and thanking us for giving her a 2nd chance at life and allowing her to hopefully see her kids grow up.
Reading that card at the time, filled me with a selfish anger!
My wife was gone at 26, never to see our son grow up and this person is getting what I felt we'd been robbed of.....
But now, over 6yrs later its 1 of my most treasured possessions.
It helps me show our son just how great his Mam is....
What a generous and selfless act can mean to people we will never know other than in our imaginations.
Because she saved that woman's family from the loss we experienced, and not just her, 3 other families had their quality of life improved and the pain of loss postponed for hopefully a good while longer.

I think a workable scheme for ensuring donation at a viable level would be a legally binding opt-in scheme.
Rather than opt-out i.e Make the organ donation register a viable option for something other than getting a card.
If a person chooses to register, then legally the choice is made already and the weight of the decision is moved from family(Unlike now)to the donor.
Make the the organ donation box on driving licenses carry the same weight aswell.
Move the decision and the anxiety around it from dealing with next of kin during a tragedy, back to the donor themselves make it the donor's informed and educated choice and roll out education campaigns around this point.
Rather than relying on families to make rational decisions during a traumatic time

Pushtrak

Medusa22 wrote: »

I really don't believe that someone could have a valid reason for not donating their organs when they die.

Depends on what you mean by valid, really. It'd likely be things we wouldn't consider as such, but there you go...

If someone chose to be cremated but the family found the idea unpleasant, I wonder if it would be refused?

I'm open to correction on this, but once you are dead, it's all the say of NOK. So, they don't want you cremated in the above circumstance, and you haven't already made the arrangements then...

To be honest I just can't wrap my head around not donating, what are you going to do with your organs after you die? People should consider how they would feel if they were on the organ donor waiting list, and how their families would feel watching them die.

It isn't always going to be like this, if that's any consolation.

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/biological_sciences/6026#.Uouc_8RzNhc

Guy:Incognito

Tabnabs wrote: »

Well your vision of a socialist/authoritarian utopia where a simple law change makes your very body state property to do with as they wish, is not a view of paradise that I share, comrade.

No it doesn't. By opting out you have control. Your sensationalising it. If it was the way your going on there'd be no opt out.

Presumably if you get sick in the next few months and they say you need an organ but sorry , there's none, you'll just have to die instead, your happy with that? Maybe wait till your actually in the bed counting down for death to arrive before answering. A loved one in the same situation is close enough too.

What are the people opposed to this hanging on to the organs for after death? What need do you think you'll have for them?

StompToWork

walrusgumble wrote: »

You evidentially have difficulty with the idea of "consent" and the idea of freedom to choose

This system does not protect those concepts, but merely puts pressure on people who affirm their right not to donate (which was the orignal position) and instead face glib comments of "selfishness" bla bla bla (often from people who didn't see it important enough to carry a donor card previously)


It is evident, the pro side have no respect what so ever about the idea that people have issues with not donating. They have the nerve to waffle on about "sure your dead, what does it matter" (clealy oblivious to religious or spirtual beliefs of another), or ****e on about selfishness.... Again, ask them if they currently have a donor card....................



Go on out and get yer donor cards, then there would not be a need for opt outs. Let us then see how many truly will be willing to donate when they die.

All talk and no trousers from many here

I'm sorry, but your posts are making no sense, and to me, seem to contradict each other. In one post you are labelling those who take their organs to the grave as selfish bastards, but you then dismiss those who want to get organ donor cards as "do gooders"!! I really don't get where you are coming from.

Perhaps I missed it from earlier on in this thread, but would you be able clarify where you stand on the idea of organ donation (either opt-in or opt-out). I might be being dense here, but I can't understand where you are coming from.

iwantmydinner

walrusgumble wrote: »

Why should society be allowed to presume, without evidence that "most people just don't consider organ donation, it isn't a case of being against it but rather that it isn't a matter that they have thought about"

There is actually evidence to suggest that people just don't think about it in a serious way. Can't link to relevant sources now, but as I mentioned earlier, I did quite a lot of research on organ donation systems in college.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Donor campaigns are on going alot, people still don't come. It might say something more than what you think. A opt out system is a cop out and frankly shows that those well salaried campaign staffers have failed in their job to get more donors

How is an opt-out system a cop-out?

Have you read the evidence from countries that have adopted opt-out systems?

Maximus Alexander

banie01 wrote: »

I was going to write a new post on how and why I feel as I do about organ donation but I already did, So I'll just quote it instead.

Not ashamed to say I was close to tears reading that.

Rubberchikken

I have an organ donor card. Have had one since I turned 18.
Also have signed up to donate my body to medical science.
Don't want a burial, prayers, weeping etc.
So the most practical thing is to see what partas are of any use, and anything that's left over can be cremated and ashes scattered.
So that's everything sorted.

Guy:Incognito

Tabnabs wrote: »

But you can decide if you want to be buried, cremated, your ashes scattered at sea etc. YOU have the choice of what happens to your remains, not a desk bound bureaucrat nor a scalpel welding surgeon.

You still do, by opting out. Do you think you'll notice your organs are missing while your being dumped in to the sea?

walrusgumble

Pushtrak wrote: »

Two people, all else equal, I'll prefer the person willing to donate their organs to the one who doesn't. It's the point at which a person, while being unwilling to donate their organs thinks nothing of needing to go on a waiting list and receive one themselves that I'd take issue. It makes the system inequitable.

I see your avoiding a few things

1. You have no problem forcing your view on anothers by enforcing a presumed consent

2. Confirm whether or not you, and your family carry donor cards RIGHT NOW.


Go and educate your self on the term "inequitable" and "equitable" . Stop using words that are way beyond your capability

Consent should be , and always be expressed, and informed and free from undue pressure. You should not have to affirm something that you have a right to (ie bodily integrity at all times, subject to exceptions)

Your attitude is precisely why it is not safe to allow "presumed consent".

It has failed to encourage people to carry donor cards or sign up to donating, why should it now be allowed to prevent people from opting out?

iwantmydinner

walrusgumble wrote: »

You evidentially have difficulty with the idea of "consent" and the idea of freedom to choose

This system does not protect those concepts, but merely puts pressure on people who affirm their right not to donate (which was the orignal position) and instead face glib comments of "selfishness" bla bla bla (often from people who didn't see it important enough to carry a donor card previously)


It is evident, the pro side have no respect what so ever about the idea that people have issues with not donating. They have the nerve to waffle on about "sure your dead, what does it matter" (clealy oblivious to religious or spirtual beliefs of another), or ****e on about selfishness.... Again, ask them if they currently have a donor card....................



Go on out and get yer donor cards, then there would not be a need for opt outs. Let us then see how many truly will be willing to donate when they die.

All talk and no trousers from many here

Why the hell are you being so aggressive?!

I can assure you I have no difficulty with the concept of consent, and I have two honours degrees to back that up. Stop making stupid assumptions.

I, for one, have never described anyone who chooses not to donate as selfish. I have the fullest respect for the right of anyone to make that decision, as I have demonstrated in the this thread and IRL.

Finally, I'm going to repeat my point about stupid assumptions.

Pushtrak

walrusgumble wrote: »

1. You have no problem forcing your view on anothers by enforcing a presumed consent

Nope. People can make that choice not to be a donor. I'd think it equitable for them to not be put on a waiting list if they were to make such a choice, but that isn't workable, so I'd take them being put back on the waiting list.

2. Confirm whether or not you, and your family carry donor cards RIGHT NOW.

I ordered one, and didn't receive one in the months I was living at my previous place. That was quite some time ago, and have moved a few times since. I could have ordered a new one since moving to where I am now, but instead I've made it perfectly clear to my next of kin about my wishes. After all, if you follow this thread, you will realise it isn't the card that matters, it is next of kin knowing.

Now, do you carry one? Do your next of kin know?

Go and educate your self on the term "inequitable" and "equitable" . Stop using words that are way beyond your capability

Be a scholar and let me know my misuse yourself.

Vito Corleone

Terrible idea.

walrusgumble

StompToWork wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your posts are making no sense, and to me, seem to contradict each other. In one post you are labelling those who take their organs to the grave as selfish bastards, but you then dismiss those who want to get organ donor cards as "do gooders"!! I really don't get where you are coming from.

Perhaps I missed it from earlier on in this thread, but would you be able clarify where you stand on the idea of organ donation (either opt-in or opt-out). I might be being dense here, but I can't understand where you are coming from.

Here is a huge tip, read what is before you and not what you want it to state.

The post makes no sense to you because you do not understand the concept of "consent". You are ignorant as to what the concept means.


Now, perhaps you will now point out My Actual Statements where I made a statement "labelling those who take their organs to the grave as selfish bastards" . If you read the post properly, another poster clearly made that comment, referring to them as "bastards". I don't consider people who refuse to donate as "selfish". When you pick up the ability to read, then , maybe , you will see the correct position.


Do gooders? What is wrong, sorry, those campaigning here but have not and do not hold donor cards are hypocrities who should worry about themselves. You evidently take no issue with the idea of posters referring to the other group as bastards.

StompToWork

walrusgumble wrote: »

Here is a huge tip, read what is before you and not what you want it to state.

The post makes no sense to you because you do not understand the concept of "consent". You are ignorant as to what the concept means.

Honestly, I stopped reading after that. Whatever you said after that really means nothing to me what so ever. You want to be that aggressive, then this poster no longer gives a steaming bucket of piss what you have to say.

Toodles.

walrusgumble

Pushtrak wrote: »

Nope. People can make that choice not to be a donor.

Or, people can make the choice to donate.

The Status Quo is fine the way it is. You should not have to affirmatively express something that you have a right to - ie right to bodily integrity. It is a cop out for the medics , people and donation organisation's ability to attract more donors despite the great efforts in campaigning.

On a slightly different , and admittingly odd example (ie bodily integrity) in rape cases, silence does not equate to consent. Why should one's silence to consent (ie doing nothing) constitue a presumed consent to donate organs?

Is it that difficult to sign up for a donor card or express consent to donate during operation or near time of death or suitable period? (granted family will have a say)

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'd think it equitable for them to not be put on a waiting list if they were to make such a choice, but that isn't workable, so I'd take them being put back on the waiting list.

That is all fine and well, I assume that your admirable belief has been put into practice now ie you carry a donor's card.

A person should not be forced, pressured into doing something they don't want to do. They should expressly consent to any action.(in this context donating organs)

Pushtrak wrote: »

I ordered one, and didn't receive one in the months I was living at my previous place

Well, on that basis, you at least have full right to hold that view as it is completely free from hypocrisy. We will agree to disagree on the issue of "consent"

Pushtrak wrote: »

That was quite some time ago, and have moved a few times since. I could have ordered a new one since moving to where I am now,

That might be a pain, to always have to change details, but it is still no excuse to dispense with expressed consent, which you have provided.

Why isn't there a central registration where one merely provides an express intention to sign on for donating and that would be that?

Of course, in Ireland, nothing works, despite people being well paid for do their jobs

Either way, this is expressed consent. You have taken affirmative action to agree to do something that you are not obligated to do. My argument is that one should not be presumed to consent to doing something by taking an affirmative action to allow something that they are not obligated to do (of course, presumed consent occurs in things like contact sport etc, it is not an alien concept)

Pushtrak wrote: »

but instead I've made it perfectly clear to my next of kin about my wishes. After all, if you follow this thread, you will realise it isn't the card that matters, it is next of kin knowing.

That is still expressed consent. It is a far cry from failing to getting a card and / or not expressing one's wishes to next of kin.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Now, do you carry one? Do your next of kin know?

Rather childish, and evident that you miss the point.

I do not carry one. I personally , at this time, unless subject to change, don't intend to donate any organs (bar blood, which I have, twice) This attitude might change, but until I expressly consent to the idea, I don't believe that there should be (a) a presumption that I will consent and (b) I should have to do anything about it (ie rebutt the presumption)

There are certainly alot of other posters championing this cause who are not as active as you, but, will yet decree and waffle on about "selfishness" and being a "bastard". To them, let them practice what they preach and sign up now. There might not be a need for this concept of presumed consent then.

walrusgumble

StompToWork wrote: »

Honestly, I stopped reading after that. Whatever you said after that really means nothing to me what so ever. You want to be that aggressive, then this poster no longer gives a steaming bucket of piss what you have to say.

Toodles.

Didn't read, that is very evident from your first post.

Why reply then?

Why open your gob and expose your stupidity when you had no interest in reading what that poster actually said in the FIRST place? Trying to bump up the post count?

Next time, read what a poster said as oppose to putting words in their mouth, there would be no need for such other posts.

Guy:Incognito

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Opt in suits me better. As I don't have to do anything. If it becomes Opt out I have to go actually opt out. I don't like extra effort...

Which is why people die waiting on organs......

LizT

Mod

walrusgumble, don't post in this thread again.


I understand this is an emotive discussion for everyone but please, keep it civil, report any posts that cross the line and keep the personals out of it.

Pushtrak

walrusgumble wrote: »

The Status Quo is fine the way it is. You should not have to affirmatively express something that you have a right to - ie right to bodily integrity. It is a cop out for the medics , people and donation organisation's ability to attract more donors despite the great efforts in campaigning.

That is an interesting interpretation. I don't think the people who are posting fall in to any of the above categories. They just feel the current system needs an overhaul. There is much that can be said about the form that such an overhaul could take and the benefits from any given overhaul.

On a slightly different , and admittingly odd example (ie bodily integrity) in rape cases, silence does not equate to consent. Why should one's silence to consent (ie doing nothing) constitue a presumed consent to donate organs?

The presumed opt in isn't favourable to me. I don't think a presumed opt out works either though. A balance could be found whereby everyone gets presented the option of opting in or opting out.

Is it that difficult to sign up for a donor card or express consent to donate during operation or near time of death or suitable period? (granted family will have a say)

Having a donor card is trivial. It means nothing. It does not have a voice of its own. You need next of kin to know. I'd suggest instead of asking people if they had a donor card, ask if their next of kin knows. Whenever I hear people talk about having a donor card I let them know that it isn't worth a thing.

You like your analogies, so here is one. It's like a person having a bank card and thinks their rich. But they have no money.

I do not carry one. I personally , at this time, unless subject to change, don't intend to donate any organs (bar blood, which I have, twice) This attitude might change, but until I expressly consent to the idea, I don't believe that there should be (a) a presumption that I will consent and (b) I should have to do anything about it (ie rebutt the presumption)

Would you be willing to accept a system whereby you would be lower on a waiting list if you needed an organ? Can you see why such a system would be fair?

There are certainly alot of other posters championing this cause who are not as active as you.

I'm not as active as I should be. I'm just talking when it's in the real world, or typing as is the case here.

wexie

hmmmm......the idea of this makes me feel really rather uncomfortable.

I currently do carry a donor card and my family are aware of this.

But....(and I'm sure this won't be a particularly popular opinion) if this came to pass I think I'd have to seriously consider opting out.

I'd be all for a big campaign to get more people to carry donor cards and to make it easier to get them. But an 'implied consent'......I don't think I'd be up for that.

wexie

Pushtrak wrote: »

Having a donor card is trivial. It means nothing. It does not have a voice of its own. You need next of kin to know. I'd suggest instead of asking people if they had a donor card, ask if their next of kin knows.

even then your next of kin can refuse consent to harvest any organs

Guy:Incognito

mikom wrote: »

I think Micheal O'Leary should get a heart before me as he has paid more taxes.........

In the Opt out system there wont be a need to choose. There should be plenty of hearts for everyone.

Pushtrak

wexie wrote: »

even then your next of kin can refuse consent to harvest any organs

I'm going to be dead, so there isn't much I could do. I don't think haunting people will be on the agenda, I'm afraid.

wexie

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm going to be dead, so there isn't much I could do. I don't think haunting people will be on the agenda, I'm afraid.

you could threaten at least