Opt-Out Organ Donation

OldNotWIse

Zillah wrote: »

Crass or just getting to the core question?

On one hand I have people saying they don't like the idea of their organs going to someone after they die. Sympathy level 2/10.

On the other I have people suffering and dying for want of donated organs. Sympathy level 10/10.

That's the heart of it.

What do you mean by precedent? Can you give me an example of something that this could genuinely lead to? Have other countries with opt-out systems encountered these slippery slopes?

Crass - whether a dead person or a living person in need of an organ score higher on your pity scale is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I re-iterate - I do support organ donation, but not implied consent.

You seem intent on categorizing people on the basis of their views on the matter, to the extent that you now appear to have a scoring system out of 10. I find this odd and less than useful.

I use precedent in its colloquial rather than legal meaning. In other words, implied consent is allowed for circumstances surrounding organ donation and then further down the line will be applied in other circumstances which do not involve organ donation.

Would you like me to dream up some hypotheticals for you to dismantle?

OldNotWIse

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why?

There is a phenomenally clear delineation between being alive and being dead. The suggestion that an assumption of choice (and that is what it is, not an over-riding of rights) of a person who is dead could somehow lead to government infringement on the rights of a living person are farcical at best.

You miss the point.

I have not said I am against organ donation. I am against presumed consent and the precedent that it sets for other situations (which might conceivably include living persons) in the future hence a discussion on the merits of organ donation is irrelevant to the argument I have put forward.

OldNotWIse

maudgonner wrote: »

That's fair enough. How do you feel about the current system though? Because as things stand I don't really see how you have any more control over what happens to your organs after you die.

I do see the point that opting out can be a more binding move for one who wishes not to donate and I accept that. I will admit it is news to me that a family can override someone's wishes under the current system, though why anyone would want to do that to their deceased loved one is beyond me). It's just the implied consent in general (not specifically towards donation) that does not sit well with me. Nothing against organ donation personally.

Zillah

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I use precedent in its colloquial rather than legal meaning. In other words, implied consent is allowed for circumstances surrounding organ donation and then further down the line will be applied in other circumstances which do not involve organ donation.

What other circumstances? If you can't actually describe a specific concern then yours is a rarefied notion that I don't think has any value.

maudgonner

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I do see the point that opting out can be a more binding move for one who wishes not to donate and I accept that. I will admit it is news to me that a family can override someone's wishes under the current system, though why anyone would want to do that to their deceased loved one is beyond me). It's just the implied consent in general (not specifically towards donation) that does not sit well with me. Nothing against organ donation personally.

OK, but there already is implied consent in other medical matters. E.g. in lifesaving emergency medical intervention. Do you object to that?

(And I'm not saying it's the same as organ donation, just asking where the limit is)

Podge_irl

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You miss the point.

I have not said I am against organ donation. I am against presumed consent and the precedent that it sets for other situations (which might conceivably include living persons) in the future hence a discussion on the merits of organ donation is irrelevant to the argument I have put forward.

I didn't mention organ donation.

Presumed consent of a dead person (who, a priori, has no rights over their body any more) can not, in any logical way whatsoever, lead to a scenario of a living person being forced to abdicate rights. The yawning chasm between a living and dead person is about as distinct a scenario as you are going to come across.

OldNotWIse

Podge_irl wrote: »

I didn't mention organ donation.

Presumed consent of a dead person (who, a priori, has no rights over their body any more) can not, in any logical way whatsoever, lead to a scenario of a living person being forced to abdicate rights. The yawning chasm between a living and dead person is about as distinct a scenario as you are going to come across.

You don't know this.


If you insist on continuing to miss the point then there is no point having circular arguments.

Organ donation applies to dead people.

Other scenarios where very much not dead people are involved might also be affected by the rationale of presumed consent, if it becomes precedent.

OldNotWIse

maudgonner wrote: »

OK, but there already is implied consent in other medical matters. E.g. in lifesaving emergency medical intervention. Do you object to that?

(And I'm not saying it's the same as organ donation, just asking where the limit is)

This is a compelling argument Of course I don't object to that. Good point though.

OldNotWIse

Zillah wrote: »

What other circumstances? If you can't actually describe a specific concern then yours is a rarefied notion that I don't think has any value.

Are you debating the existence of precedent in it's entirety? Really?

maudgonner

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This is a compelling argument Of course I don't object to that. Good point though.

I suppose the way I see it is that we're currently giving our implied consent to something anyway - to having our organs disposed of after death with no attempt to have them used for better purposes.

As far as I'm concerned it's a no-brainer that I would want to have my organs donated, and I think the majority of people would/should feel likewise, so I have no problem with that being the default position.

If I thought the majority of people felt otherwise (and I don't agree that the low uptake rates of donor cards/driving licence consent indicates that most people are against organ donation), I might change my mind. If the opt-out system was brought in and we saw a majority of people signing up against donation, then I'd be in favour of returning to an opt-in system. Other than that, we could put it to a referendum, but I think we might have a few too many of those coming up anyway :pac:

Zillah

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you debating the existence of precedent in it's entirety? Really?

If I find my neighbours drinking in my garden I will nip that behaviour in the bud, because otherwise it would set a precedent for further encroachments and maybe other people treating my private property as public.

I dislike Ireland's blasphemy law because it sets a precedent for civilised nations having such restrictions on free speech and favouritism for religion. Other nations use this precedent to justify their own restrictions on free speech.

You don't like the precedent of the government assuming consent for organ donation where not otherwise specified because it sets a precedent of ___, leading to ___?

I understand what a precedent is, I'm asking you to articulate the nature of your concern. Please fill in the blanks.

Podge_irl

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You don't know this.


If you insist on continuing to miss the point then there is no point having circular arguments.

Organ donation applies to dead people.

Other scenarios where very much not dead people are involved might also be affected by the rationale of presumed consent, if it becomes precedent.

I do know this, because there is no logical way to connect them. You may as well consider owning pets to be a slippery slope towards slavery. In fact it would be a closer argument seeing as at least pets are alive.

There is a colossal chasm between a living person and a dead one. It is not going to set a precedent. Please give any example were you think this encroachment might happen?

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult, they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

It would no longer be "donation" though, it would be organ harvesting by implied consent.

jackofalltrades

maudgonner wrote: »

I suppose the way I see it is that we're currently giving our implied consent to something anyway - to having our organs disposed of after death with no attempt to have them used for better purposes.

As far as I'm concerned it's a no-brainer that I would want to have my organs donated, and I think the majority of people would/should feel likewise, so I have no problem with that being the default position.

If I thought the majority of people felt otherwise (and I don't agree that the low uptake rates of donor cards/driving licence consent indicates that most people are against organ donation), I might change my mind. If the opt-out system was brought in and we saw a majority of people signing up against donation, then I'd be in favour of returning to an opt-in system. Other than that, we could put it to a referendum, but I think we might have a few too many of those coming up anyway :pac:

Or you could just ask people, face-to-face or on one of the myriad of forms that adults have to fill in.
Make it a Yes/No question that has to be answered.
It respects everyone's wishes, no one has a decision made for them without knowing or that goes against their wishes.
If the support that people say is there for donation then this would dramatically increase numbers.
Everyone should be happy with this kind of solution. (although I await being corrected)

weldoninhio

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Or you could just ask people, face-to-face or on one of the myriad of forms that adults have to fill in.
Make it a Yes/No question that has to be answered.
It respects everyone's wishes, no one has a decision made for them without knowing or that goes against their wishes.
If the support that people say is there for donation then this would dramatically increase numbers.
Everyone should be happy with this kind of solution. (although I await being corrected)

100% agree. Would be easy to make it a mandatory question on any govt form. Passport, driving license, medical card, when you register to vote without making presumptions on people's wishes.

Capt'n Midnight

weldoninhio wrote: »

No, I am willing to save the govt money. €50k to save €450,000 seems a good deal.

it does, but it's not a one in ten thing.

280 people received an organ donation in 2016 out of 4.588 million

That's 3 out of every 50,000.

If you agree to abstain from smoking, drinking, injecting, keep fit and not do any of the things that would stop you donating blood , I might see if I can find €3 down the back of the sofa.

Probably best if you invested that €3 in a healthcare scheme that would cover any organ donation you'd need.

Again, it's the next of kin thing we need to remove. All the rest of the arguments are purely academic, "implied consent" means nothing, same as how donor cards mean nothing right now, because the family are asked.

maudgonner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Or you could just ask people, face-to-face or on one of the myriad of forms that adults have to fill in.
Make it a Yes/No question that has to be answered.
It respects everyone's wishes, no one has a decision made for them without knowing or that goes against their wishes.
If the support that people say is there for donation then this would dramatically increase numbers.
Everyone should be happy with this kind of solution. (although I await being corrected)

I've heard this argument before in debates and the reason given against it was that if this was a mandatory question tacked onto a passport application/voter registration etc people would answer it without properly considering the implications or having the necessary information. 'Do I want to be an organ donor? I haven't thought about it, yes, no, I don't care just give me my bloody passport!' It's not informed consent. (It's one of the reasons ticking the box on your driving licence should not be binding). And of course you still would not cover everyone - not everyone has a passport, driving licence or is registered to vote, so a default position would still be needed.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult, they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

It would no longer be "donation" though, it would be organ harvesting by implied consent.

Anyone who cares enough about the issue to listen to ingest any if the information campaigns would be giving tacit consent. The ones who opt out would have expressed their wish, as is their right. The ones who don't care, don't care.

animaal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably too difficult for some but most would be fine. If it's too difficult,  they could make a card to let people opt out. It could also remind them of which shoe goes on which foot.

Anyone who cares about the issue of organ donation would follow the simple process of opting out.

It would no longer be "donation" though, it would be organ harvesting by implied consent.

Anyone who cares enough about the issue to listen to ingest any if the information campaigns would be giving tacit consent. The ones who opt out would have expressed their wish, as is their right. The ones who don't care, don't care.

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to <worthy cause>. If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

El_Duderino 09

animaal wrote: »

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to . If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

I'll opt out. Thanks.

And this would be with the government with whom I don't have a personal relationship or couldn't possibly be remembered or held against me when I go to work, unlike your scenario which us what I presume you we're alluding to

jackofalltrades

maudgonner wrote: »

I've heard this argument before in debates and the reason given against it was that if this was a mandatory question tacked onto a passport application/voter registration etc people would answer it without properly considering the implications or having the necessary information. 'Do I want to be an organ donor? I haven't thought about it, yes, no, I don't care just give me my bloody passport!' It's not informed consent. (It's one of the reasons ticking the box on your driving licence should not be binding).

Hang on a second, you're happy for the state to make the choice for people, without asking their opinion, assuming they want to be a donor.
But you have a problem with an opt-in system where everyone is asked because they might not have enough time to consider the implications.
You're seem to be applying different standards to the different systems.
Do you think opt-out is informed consent?

The system can be designed so that people have time to think about the choice that they are being given.
You could even go door to door giving people advice and asking them to opt-in.

And of course you still would not cover everyone - not everyone has a passport, driving licence or is registered to vote, so a default position would still be needed.

I'm fairly sure that ever adult will have a PPS number.
Even at that you don't need to cover everyone.
And the default position would still remain as opt-in.

Glenster

animaal wrote: »

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to <worthy cause>. If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

Id send an email like a shot.

Jayop

Good move. Implied consent should open up more potential organs to be used for life saving operations. I do think the opt out list should be easy to sign up to and anyone on the list should not be able to join the waiting list for organs should they need one.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

The problem is that under the proposed opt out system, the next of kin will still be able to veto our decisions. Why don't they develop a national registry that records if we opt in or opt out, and one where the next of kin cannot veto our decisions. There's so much scope to record a yes or no answer to organ donation under the tax, PPS, driving license, electronic patient records, or even the census.

osarusan

Jeffrey Tight Bone wrote: »

The problem is that under the proposed opt out system, the next of kin will still be able to veto our decisions. Why don't they develop a national registry that records if we opt in or opt out, and one where the next of kin cannot veto our decisions. There's so much scope to record a yes or no answer to organ donation under the tax, PPS, driving license, electronic patient records, or even the census.

You'd imagine that virtually everybody will visit a doctor at some point in their life, so it could be done this way too - during a visit, the doc notices/gets an alert from a national database that their patient has never made a decision about organ donation, puts the question to them*, records their answer on the database.

*There's a risk of this being a bit biased, but it could be scripted to be as fair as possible. If so, it would constitute well informed consent too.

Of course some people might say they are not sure, but have a leaflet ready to hand them with info and instructions on how to access the database themselves to opt in or out.

The Welsh system, even though it is opt-out, does have 3 options on the site - you can still 'opt-in' (which is a way of confirming your wishes, even though it's the default anyway), you can 'do nothing' (which means that you have no objection to being a donor) or you can 'opt out'.

rondog

ANYONE  that doesn't donate their organs after death is a SELFISH INCONSIDERATE WASTE OF SPACE as far as im concered.You have absolutely no need for organs when you are lying in the ground.they will be used for feed by worms.You coudlbe saving the life of a father ,a young girl/boy that inherited a disease through no fault of their own.
Ill never understand the retardedness of people wanting to bring their organs to a gravesite with them when they could give untold happiness ,life and hope to so many.

Donnielighto

They should put an option on the form that your organs can't go to an adult who wasn't donating before being on the list.

maudgonner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Hang on a second, you're happy for the state to make the choice for people, without asking their opinion, assuming they want to be a donor.
But you have a problem with an opt-in system where everyone is asked because they might not have enough time to consider the implications.
You're seem to be applying different standards to the different systems.
Do you think opt-out is informed consent?

The system can be designed so that people have time to think about the choice that they are being given.
You could even go door to door giving people advice and asking them to opt-in.
I'm fairly sure that ever adult will have a PPS number.
Even at that you don't need to cover everyone.
And the default position would still remain as opt-in.

I'm more than happy for the state to ask everyone their opinion (or close to everyone - I don't think it's practical to aim to cover everyone). I think that would be a great move. But I think it has to be done in such a way that people understand what they're being asked and can make an informed decision, that wouldn't be a legal minefield (which, it seems tacking a mandatory question onto the census/driving license/passport application would be). And in a way that won't be too costly (which I think your door-to-door-dedicated survey would be). I think Osarusan's suggestion could work, if they can get the IMO etc to agree to implement it :pac:


But no matter what, we still need a default position. I can't see why we wouldn't assume most people would want to donate their organs, if they knew the facts. It's an amazing thing to do. Very few of us would have the opportunity to save a life any other way, I think organ donation is a privilege that all of us should want to contribute to, should we ever be unfortunate enough to be a candidate. Shouldn't that be our national mindset - that unless you have a good reason not to, you will give someone else (or many other people) the gift of life? That it is normal behaviour to want to do so, not exceptional?

LirW

As an Austrian Citizen I'm automatically a donor if I'd be declared brain dead in Austria, I also never opted out. There was exactly not a single case of trouble in that regard in Austria. Opt out if you want to, other than that the laws are pretty clear.
I also own a Donor card in Ireland and would, in the worst case possible, also give green lights to donate the organs of my children. I'm registering with the Bone Marrow registry soon, when I find the time to drop into town.
My partners cousin had Leukemia when she was a little girl, it saved her life.

El_Duderino 09

Jayop wrote: »

Good move. Implied consent should open up more potential organs to be used for life saving operations. I do think the opt out list should be easy to sign up to and anyone on the list should not be able to join the waiting list for organs should they need one.

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

maudgonner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

Totally agree with this. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath and part of that is vowing not to 'play God'. They should treat everyone, without moral judgements, not withhold treatment because they don't like someone's views and want to punish them. That's a slippery slope.

jackofalltrades

maudgonner wrote: »

I'm more than happy for the state to ask everyone their opinion (or close to everyone - I don't think it's practical to aim to cover everyone). I think that would be a great move. But I think it has to be done in such a way that people understand what they're being asked and can make an informed decision, that wouldn't be a legal minefield (which, it seems tacking a mandatory question onto the census/driving license/passport application would be). And in a way that won't be too costly (which I think your door-to-door-dedicated survey would be). I think Osarusan's suggestion could work, if they can get the IMO etc to agree to implement it :pac:

If there are legal concerns(which I'd want to see some kind of proof of) then they can be addressed.
And given the support for organ donation, I can't see why volunteers couldn't be used to keep down the cost of any kind of face-to-face campaign.

But no matter what, we still need a default position. I can't see why we wouldn't assume most people would want to donate their organs, if they knew the facts.

Yes but an opt-out system makes the assumption for everyone, even people that are against organ donation.
The state shouldn't be making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and then putting the onus of them to correct it themselves, that's unethical IMO.

It's an amazing thing to do. Very few of us would have the opportunity to save a life any other way, I think organ donation is a privilege that all of us should want to contribute to, should we ever be unfortunate enough to be a candidate. Shouldn't that be our national mindset - that unless you have a good reason not to, you will give someone else (or many other people) the gift of life? That it is normal behaviour to want to do so, not exceptional?

People shouldn't need a "good" reason to not donate.
If you don't want to then that's it and you don't need to explain further.

El_Duderino 09

maudgonner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

Totally agree with this. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath and part of that is vowing not to 'play God'. They should treat everyone, without moral judgements, not withhold treatment because they don't like someone's views and want to punish them. That's a slippery slope.

Right. I'd disagree with people who op out. But when it's action stations in a medical setting, I wouldn't factor that into the equation st all.

osarusan

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes but an opt-out system makes the assumption for everyone, even people that are against organ donation.
The state shouldn't be making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and then putting the onus of them to correct it themselves, that's unethical IMO.

Doesn't an opt-in do just the same thing in reverse though? Set a default even though you know it doesn't meet everybody's wishes, and ask those whose wishes are not met to take steps to correct it?

I agree with you though that nobody should have to justify their decision not to become a donor, and the notion that those who decide not to become potential donor should be excluded from receiving a donation is laughable.

PandaPoo

I'll be donating whatever is possible at the time. Hopefully they can take a few of my limbs off so my coffin is actually able to be carried

My husband says he doesn't mind either way so I'll be making the decision for him, hopefully they take eyes by then because he has a really cool half blue half brown eye.

I was just thinking the other day, id donate a kidney now if someone needed it. Probably a stupid decision considering I'm 25 and could end up needing it myself down the line.

maudgonner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If there are legal concerns(which I'd want to see some kind of proof of) then they can be addressed.
And given the support for organ donation, I can't see why volunteers couldn't be used to keep down the cost of any kind of face-to-face campaign.
Yes but an opt-out system makes the assumption for everyone, even people that are against organ donation.
The state shouldn't be making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and then putting the onus of them to correct it themselves, that's unethical IMO.
People shouldn't need a "good" reason to not donate.
If you don't want to then that's it and you don't need to explain further.

But the state is currently making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and putting the onus on them to correct it themselves. An opt-in system makes just as many assumptions as an opt-out system.

And yes, I think everyone should need a good reason to decide not to try to save a life. It doesn't mean I have to approve of their reason, or even have to know what it is. It's a personal thing. But I can't see how anyone, in good conscience would decide to let someone die or suffer without having a very good reason for doing so.

jackofalltrades

maudgonner wrote: »

But the state is currently making assumptions for people that they know are wrong and putting the onus on them to correct it themselves. An opt-in system makes just as many assumptions as an opt-out system.

The state isn't making any assumptions at the moment though, it's not even involved.
The opt-in system leaves this choice in the hands of potential donors, which IMO is the way it should be.

maudgonner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The state isn't making any assumptions at the moment though, it's not even involved.
The opt-in system leaves this choice in the hands of potential donors, which IMO is the way it should be.

The state sets the system of organ donation, so yes, by having it currently as an opt-out system they are assuming that people do not want to be organ donors. The state also runs the organ donation system, through the HSE.

The choice will still be left in the hands of potential donors and those who chose not to donate. We all have a choice, either way.

Jayop

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see the point and I'm strongly in favour of the opt out version, but I wouldn't be willing to ration organs to people like that. Everyone has bodily autonomy and I stand by people's right to do what they want with their body even after death. It's related to organ donation but I would treat it completely separately when deciding where organs should go.

They should be allocated on need and medical decisions, not the recipient's willingness to donate

Good call actually. I was a bit over excited with my earlier posts. I do think not donating is selfish and to then expect to be a receiver is hypocrisy in the extreme but you're right that it shouldn't come into it.

jackofalltrades

maudgonner wrote: »

The state sets the system of organ donation, so yes, by having it currently as an opt-out system they are assuming that people do not want to be organ donors. The state also runs the organ donation system, through the HSE.

I'm assuming you ment opt-in?
Under the current system the state makes no assumptions as to people wishes.

The choice will still be left in the hands of potential donors and those who chose not to donate. We all have a choice, either way.

People will only have a choice provided that they are aware of it.
So in this case there will be people who don't want to donate that will be on a list that says they do.

maudgonner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm assuming you ment opt-in?
Under the current system the state makes no assumptions as to people wishes.

People will only have a choice provided that they are aware of it.
So in this case there will be people who don't want to donate that will be on a list that says they do.

Sorry, yes I meant opt-in.

Under the current system we're told that if we wish to be organ donors we should carry a donor card and inform our next of kin of our wishes. We're not told to do the opposite if we don't want to donate organs. There is no such thing as an anti-donor card.

In an opt-in system positive action must be taken if organs are to be donated. The next of kin must grant permission, not deny it. So yes, the default assumption of the state is things stand is that you do not wish to have your organs donated and they will not take them unless expressly given permission.

Capt'n Midnight

animaal wrote: »

"From now on, I (your employer) will be deducting 5% of your monthly salary for donation to <worthy cause>. If you would rather not, you can opt out."

Opt-out/implied consent can be applied to many worthy causes. That doesn't make it right.

That would be illegal.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/25/section/5/enacted/en/html

Simply put there aren't enough organ donors for everyone on the waiting list. If you wait too long you may no longer be able to receive an organ.

If you have a problem with organ donation, opt out or tell your family about it. Otherwise you are part of the problem that's causing needless death, pain and suffering.

At least the delusional anti-vaxers can pretend there's a health risk with vaccines ( people in Europe are dying from preventable diseases ), there isn't much health risk when you are already dead.

wakka12

Soft opt out option will not increase number of organ donations what so ever imo. I assume most organ donations from deceased need to be done so very soon after death. So next of kin suddenly learn their loved one had died, then theyre asked btw can we harvest their organs? Obviously their initial response will be no because theyll be in a state of shock and fear

Cupcake_Crisis

I'd be one of the people who are 100% for donating..... once it's not my eyes. The idea of them taking my eyes just doesn't sit right with me. They can have whatever else is of any use though.

animaal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That would be illegal.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/25/section/5/enacted/en/html

Simply put there aren't enough organ donors for everyone on the waiting list. If you wait too long you may no longer be able to receive an organ.

If you have a problem with organ donation, opt out or tell your family about it. Otherwise you are part of the problem that's causing needless death, pain and suffering.

At least the delusional anti-vaxers can pretend there's a health risk with vaccines ( people in Europe are dying from preventable diseases ), there isn't much health risk when you are already dead.

Yes, "opt-out" of charity donations would be illegal. As is harvesting organs without permission,. My point is that it's possible to alter the law to make any good cause "opt-out". I disagree with the principle.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by being "part of the problem". The language is very black and white. Over simplistic. Would you use this language about people who don't donate to charity? About those who don't volunteer their time at homeless shelters or victim refuges? Those who don't donate bone marrow?

Also, Agreed that there's no health risk to the dead. I'm not aware of anybody claiming that there is.

I'm all for organ donation. What's being discussed is a change so that there will be no more organ donation, it will be replaced by organ appropriation.