Legislation to make organ donations automatic

weldoninhio

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm going by the Welsh one whichis 3 clicks, maybe the Irish one will be 4 or 5 clicks and they may be too strenuous for some of you?

For the ones against organ donation (not that many if any will admit this) would you still be against this option if it was your child/mother/father/sibling who required an organ?

We are talking about Ireland buddy. :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Candamir wrote: »

It’s not that simple. Lots of suitable donors are lost every year, even though they may have wanted to donate.
It’s a very difficult time for families, and often the hospital staff don’t want yo compound their grief (as they see it) by having to bring up the subject of organ donation. In the bigger transplant centres its less of a problem as they will have transplant coordinators on site who are used to dealing with the situation.
The idea of opt out is to make asking the question a normal part of dying and removing the stigma that’s there.
People who have strong feelings against organ donation can opt out, and next of kin can still refuse. There’s nothing compulsory about it. But in time we may have a society that sees organ donation as the norm, and the hundreds of patients waiting to die on donor lists can have a reasonable expectation of a chance at living.

They still have to ask the question of the family. If they wanted to donate they'd carry a card. As I said it's simple to get. I even seen them on the counter in my local shop about 20 minutes ago. No need to go online or register/unregister from a database. Simple.

Candamir

weldoninhio wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland buddy. :rolleyes:

The legislation hasn’t been enacted here - there’s hardly going to be a website up and running! But you know that already.

Timberrrrrrrr

weldoninhio wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland buddy. :rolleyes:

Well look at you getting a gold star for effort :rolleyes:

Do you think that because its going to be an Irish site that it will be a 4 hour process to opt out?

weldoninhio

Candamir wrote: »

The legislation hasn’t been enacted here - there’s hardly going to be a website up and running! But you know that already.

I know the website isn't set up yet, hence my questioning of the poster who claimed it only too 3 clicks to opt out. :rolleyes:

Candamir

weldoninhio wrote: »

They still have to ask the question of the family. If they wanted to donate they'd carry a card. As I said it's simple to get. I even seen them on the counter in my local shop about 20 minutes ago. No need to go online or register/unregister from a database. Simple.

Yes they do, but the culture will change.
We’ve been trying the opt in system for decades with limited success. The opt out system has worked in other countries, so I think it’s worth giving it a go here, rather than doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

weldoninhio

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well look at you getting a gold star for effort :rolleyes:

Do you think that because its going to be an Irish site that it will be a 4 hour process to opt out?

No one has any idea what the Irish site will look like, will work like, will be needed to opt out.

weldoninhio

Candamir wrote: »

Yes they do, but the culture will change.
We’ve been trying the opt in system for decades with limited success. The opt out system has worked in other countries, so I think it’s worth giving it a go here, rather than doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Ah well if you think its worth it, lets do it.

Timberrrrrrrr

weldoninhio wrote: »

No one has any idea what the Irish site will look like, will work like, will be needed to opt out.

Fvckwittery of the lowest order :rolleyes:

stefanovich

You'll all be sorry when Simon Harris is nibbling on your liver

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Hal3000 wrote: »

Sorry I prefer my politican's to lead by example. Sorry about that.

If your politicians stick a gram of coke up their arses every day, would you follow suit? In other words, do you follow everything your politicians do? That's not very sensible.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Consent cannot be presumed. It's pathetic the govt talking about consent and colleges giving classes on consent, but then deciding consent about something so personal for the masses. Reeks of do as I say, not as I do.

This isn't a sexual assault case so please leave that consent crap at the door.

Hal3000 wrote: »

When our Health Minister shows proof that he's also choosing to donate his organs on passing then I'll do it. Until then, I'm out !

You will only opt in if one very specific person does it? Do you have some sort of organ donation pact with the minister? That's really odd, how did that conversation come about? Would love to hear your story.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yeah it something similar happened in the 1950's in childrens homes with Alpha/Beta trials for medicines and Vaccines. I am sure there were one or two negative reactions and the organs were taken for examination. The Government were compensated for the trials. I see no difference to how they treat animals on a farm, rear 'em, fatten 'em and flog them to death.

So you think all these organ are given like when you hand in stuff to the Charity shop?

There's some really mental shít being spouted in this thread. I think overexposure to the internet and media is certainly a modern day problem we are overlooking.

In your worst case scenario, in your head, what do you think is going to happen with the organs? What is the worst thing that could happen and why would that matter to a dead person?

Comments like "Your organs are now only on loan from the government." are just so cynical and immature. Senseless really.

Former Observer

I will be opting out of this. Could be that one organ or another has an undetected function for transmission of spirit to extra dimensions. But sure they'll be swimming in organs by that stage so no matter.

stefanovich

I find it unsettling and extremely creepy that someone would use my organs after my death.

Former Observer

stefanovich wrote: »

I find it unsettling and extremely creepy that someone would use my organs after my death.

It would be creepier if they were using their organ after you were dead.

Akrasia

Former Observer wrote: »

I will be opting out of this. Could be that one organ or another has an undetected function for transmission of spirit to extra dimensions. But sure they'll be swimming in organs by that stage so no matter.

Are you serious?

So what if you burn to death and that organ gets destroyed. You don't get to go to the afterlife?

If you believe in an afterlife, surely it would count as a negative mark against your soul that you refused to allow your organs to be used to save another persons life, or restore sight to a blind person....

This pascals wager thing always assumes there are only two options, what if the true way to transmit your spirit to an extra dimension is to be as generous and loving during your life as possible?

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

I find it unsettling and extremely creepy that someone would use my organs after my death.

And yet if you were told tomorrow that you or a loved one needed an organ you would soon change your tune.

stefanovich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And yet if you were told tomorrow that you or a loved one needed an organ you would soon change your tune.

Probably true. I'm just being honest.

Akrasia

stefanovich wrote: »

I find it unsettling and extremely creepy that someone would use my organs after my death.

I find it unsettling and creepy that I'll be eaten by insects after I die.

I find it reassuring and uplifting that after i die, when my organs are no longer of any use to me, that they might save the life of someone else

Stark

Yeah the thought of someone getting to come off long term dialysis or someone who would have died from heart/lung failure getting another 10 years of life. So unsettling and creepy :rolleyes:

stefanovich

Akrasia wrote: »

I find it unsettling and creepy that I'll be eaten by insects after I die.

I find it reassuring and uplifting that after i die, when my organs are no longer of any use to me, that they might save the life of someone else

So for once my procrastination and an inaction may be a good thing!

Guy:Incognito

Hal3000 wrote: »

When our Health Minister shows proof that he's also choosing to donate his organs on passing then I'll do it. Until then, I'm out !

Why does he not get the same private choice as you?

weldoninhio

Emerie Rapid Sailing wrote: »

This isn't a sexual assault case so please leave that consent crap at the door.

Ah so you only need consent to put something in, not take something out?? :rolleyes:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

stefanovich wrote: »

I find it unsettling and extremely creepy that someone would use my organs after my death.

Why? What's the thought process behind this? What's "unsettling" about giving the gift of life to somebody in need?

I think this sort of attitude belongs in a fantasy novel and has no place in our society. If your "spirit" can't make it to "heaven" because you donated a kidney, then that's not somewhere I would want to be.

Is St Peter. physically checking spirits for organs? Holdup Stefan, our records show that you are missing a lung. Sorry, but that's absolutely unacceptable. Off to hell with you... Nonsensical rubbish.

Guy:Incognito

Hal3000 wrote: »

Suggesting our leaders lead by example is frowned upon in this thread. So is questioning any of their motives. Im still waiting for a tinfoil hat comment.

Presumably you want this for everything?

By the time every politician demonstrates they are willing to participate in everything covered by laws so they are deemed worthy to be elected, itll be long past time to retire.

Guy:Incognito

Bob Harris wrote: »

.

The government initally will pretend to be appalled but it is a great way to save money on health and pensions.

.

How much do you reckon is there to be saved?

The vast majority of people looking to end their own lives are ones suffering from the end stages of terminal illness.

I highly doubt the government is banking on the money saved from a few weeks or months of someones pension to build the countries infrastructure.

Plus. Euthanasia isnt free to carry out.

Former Observer

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you serious?

So what if you burn to death and that organ gets destroyed. You don't get to go to the afterlife?

If you believe in an afterlife, surely it would count as a negative mark against your soul that you refused to allow your organs to be used to save another persons life, or restore sight to a blind person....

This pascals wager thing always assumes there are only two options, what if the true way to transmit your spirit to an extra dimension is to be as generous and loving during your life as possible?

Unsurprising I don't have all the answers. I am not religious and am open to all possibilities. I personally do not wish to donate organs after I die. There will be many many more that are happy to do so.

Candamir

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you serious?

So what if you burn to death and that organ gets destroyed. You don't get to go to the afterlife?

If you believe in an afterlife, surely it would count as a negative mark against your soul that you refused to allow your organs to be used to save another persons life, or restore sight to a blind person....

This pascals wager thing always assumes there are only two options, what if the true way to transmit your spirit to an extra dimension is to be as generous and loving during your life as possible?

I had a patient once who needed his leg amputated. He wanted to have the body part after surgery because he believed his body had to be whole so that he could rise from the dead on the last day (there was an appropriate bible quote). He had his grave bought and was planning to bury the leg there, and join it later when he died.
Each to their own. If people have a good reason not to be a donor (even a religious one that you might not agree with) well then let them off. It’s the nonsensical government conspiracy crap that I have no time for.

kippy

gozunda wrote: »

Well the state effectively has a significant share in everything you own, earn or inherit. Now they own your corpse as well or at least the bits they want.

Sorry but I just have to post this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp-pU8TFsg0

What use is your corpse to you after you die?

Some people are very cynical.
This is a great initiative and should be supported.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ah so you only need consent to put something in, not take something out?? :rolleyes:

Good job on over simplifying it... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You have the option to opt out, what's the problem?

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

I would be more inclined to yes. If I see a minister bring in a policy and then not bother to do it himself, I might have reservations as to why he would be so keen for eveyone else to donate, but he himself abstains from the practice ? Again I apologise that I don't always follow what our loving and caring leaders tells us what is the best thing to do.

Apology accepted again.

That's fine but wouldn't you prefer to think for yourself about whether you support organ donation or not rather than following whatever Harris does?

You say you're not going to follow the leader but I think you're putting way too much weight on what the leader (Harris in this case) does.

Exactly how much more inclined would you be to support it if Harris does it?

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

Anyone who cares enough to carry an "organ donation opt in" card will be opted in. Those who don't care enough to do that, obviously don't care one way or the other.

Fixed that for you.

Sure. It's the same both ways so no difference either way. So no problem, right?

Candamir

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ah well if you think its worth it, lets do it.

So you rather the other option - doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results?

There’s a name for what that is you know.

MOH

Hal3000 wrote: »

Sorry I prefer my politican's to lead by example. Sorry about that.

By your logic you'd be against introducing a law jailing people for murder, unless the politician proposing it first murdered someone and went to jail. :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

You've seen the site?? Could you give us a link?? Or are you talking shite?? :rolleyes:

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. It's the Welsh example because obviously the system isn't running in Ireland yet.

Google "Wales organ donation register"
Follow the fourth link on google search called "organ donation register your decision GOV.Wales.
Click register your decision

From there you click opt out
Confirm opt out and ender your details. Simple.

It's not half as sinister as some people seem to think.

The Gubbermint isn't after your organs. The government health service is the way we link up people who want to donate with people who need donations. It's very civilised really and anyone who doesn't want to take part is free to say so and have their wish honoured.

Bob Harris

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How much do you reckon is there to be saved?

The vast majority of people looking to end their own lives are ones suffering from the end stages of terminal illness.

I highly doubt the government is banking on the money saved from a few weeks or months of someones pension to build the countries infrastructure.

Plus. Euthanasia isnt free to carry out.

Many will only be advancing the inevitable a few weeks, others months and some years. Less pensions, less hospital care and medication etc etc
Euthanasia while authorised by the government wouldn't necessarily be carried out on the public system. More likely to be approved private clinics that will create jobs and pay taxes.

Timberrrrrrrr

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Apology accepted again.

That's fine but wouldn't you prefer to think for yourself about whether you support organ donation or not rather than following whatever Harris does?

You say you're not going to follow the leader but I think you're putting way too much weight on what the leader (Harris in this case) does.

Exactly how much more inclined would you be to support it if Harris does it?

What if Harris says he is willing to donate, then in a few years the next minister chooses to opt out, will they flip/flop their decision based on who is minister at the time?

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. It's the same both ways so no difference either way. So no problem, right?

One way is someone giving express consent by carrying a card.

The other way is the government presuming consent.


Big difference.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. It's the same both ways so no difference either way. So no problem, right?

One way is someone giving express consent by carrying a card.

The other way is the government presuming consent.


Big difference.

El_Duderino 09

Emerie Rapid Sailing wrote: »

Why? What's the thought process behind this? What's "unsettling" about giving the gift of life to somebody in need?

I think this sort of attitude belongs in a fantasy novel and has no place in our society. If your "spirit" can't make it to "heaven" because you donated a kidney, then that's not somewhere I would want to be.

Is St Peter. physically checking spirits for organs? Holdup Stefan, our records show that you are missing a lung. Sorry, but that's absolutely unacceptable. Off to hell with you... Nonsensical rubbish.

I'd have the same kind of attitude to you. But I also think it's essential to take people's wishes onto account when it comes to their own body. Even wishes that I find ridiculous.

I think the government is absolutely correct to make it easy to opt out.

kowloon

Hal3000 wrote: »

The people who donate organs are fantastic individuals. It's the politican's who tell us to and may not even do it themselves that I'm concerned with.

The 'I'm not going to stop being a **** until they stop being a ****' defence is just an excuse for being a ****. If you don't have an issue with your organs being donated allow them to be donated. If you want to opt out fair enough, but waiting for a politician to do the right thing shouldn't stop you from doing so.

weldoninhio

Candamir wrote: »

So you rather the other option - doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results?

There’s a name for what that is you know.

Who said I am expecting different results?? If you can't make an argument without putting words into someone elses mouth then I'm not gonna bother debating with you.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

One way is someone giving express consent by carrying a card.

The other way is the government presuming consent.


Big difference.

But the argument was that those who care would simply register their choice. If people care they will opt out and if they don't care they will do nothing - but they don't care one way or the other so no problem, right?

El_Duderino 09

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What if Harris says he is willing to donate, then in a few years the next minister chooses to opt out, will they flip/flop their decision based on who is minister at the time?

Maybe. But they will almost certainly claim they are not following the leader even while doing exactly that.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But the argument was that those who care would simply register their choice. If people care they will opt out and if they don't care they will do nothing - but they don't care one way or the other so no problem, right?

People should not have a decision made for them and have to opt out.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

People should not have a decision made for them and have to opt out.

As long as they're free to opt out and opting out is made simple, then its absolutely no big deal. But it gives the ones who are terrified of D'gubbermint something to get their knickers in a twist about.

The reality is that it comes down to personal preference. My Mrs wants to donate organs but her mother is very squeamish about it. We chatted it through and she agreed she would be ok with her daughter donating internal organs but not the eyes (arbitrary distinction to me but that's her feeling). So if it ever comes to it I will have the ultimate decision as her next of kin but I won't go against her mother's wishes either because my Mrs is important to us all.

That discussion would be so difficult to have after a sudden death of a relatively young person. so it's very important to have the discussion in advance.

TheChizler

weldoninhio wrote: »

People should not have a decision made for them and have to opt out.

What exactly is the decision that you think is being made and its consequence?

I think it was on boards that I read someone talking about their kid being killed and at the funeral they had been told the organs had gone to 3 different people. Organs generally get donated after something unexpected happens, so while idiots go on with "Hur hur my body" just think of the kids who can't go to school, the people watching a clock waiting for a heart or some poor ****er getting dialysis 3 times a week that can be missing out because of your "principle". It's your choice but I'm pretty sure it's everyone's freedom to feel that you're a piece of ****.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd have the same kind of attitude to you. But I also think it's essential to take people's wishes onto account when it comes to their own body. Even wishes that I find ridiculous.

I think the government is absolutely correct to make it easy to opt out.

Absolutely, but it doesn't make the wishes any less ridiculous. Those ideas need to be torn apart.

weldoninhio wrote: »

People should not have a decision made for them and have to opt out.

Not much of an argument there really. There's plenty of decisions made for the public on a daily basis. Why is this one such a problem? Why is this positive viewed as a negative???

Candamir

weldoninhio wrote: »

Who said I am expecting different results?? If you can't make an argument without putting words into someone elses mouth then I'm not gonna bother debating with you.

So you’re happy with current situation then. Fair enough.



Personally I’d like to see less people dying on the donor waiting list, and less people’s lives severely curtailed by having to be on dialysis for a very significant part of it, and all the discomforts and complications that come with that. Less people living blind when a simple operation will make them sighted. Less people being confined to their homes because they don’t have the lung capacity to get to their front door. I could go on.
But that’s just my opinion. Yours is equally valid.

Hal3000

kowloon wrote: »

The 'I'm not going to stop being a **** until they stop being a ****' defence is just an excuse for being a ****. If you don't have an issue with your organs being donated allow them to be donated. If you want to opt out fair enough, but waiting for a politician to do the right thing shouldn't stop you from doing so.

So their thoughts on Abortion ref were totally public, but Organ donation is all of a sudden a very private matter ??? Hmmmm.... I think people who donate are fantastic, but I have the right to ask is this something that our leaders are supporting and partaking in themselves? If not then I have every right to be suspicious and not be considered an a***.....