Legislation to make organ donations automatic

Hoboo

Rhyme wrote: »

I've been reading that Singapore have taken this a step further. Theirs is an opt-out society and if you do opt-out and in the future, need an organ donation, you'll be further down the list than someone who did not opt out.

Rightly so, was about to suggest similar. I think you should never go ahead of someone who had opted in, to never even get on the list.

professore

They should change it so that people who opt out can't get organs themselves.

professore

Another example. You don't opt in to be an Irish citizen. You have to actively revoke your citizenship. Also GDPR doesn't apply to dead people, and is only concerned with personal data. So it's only the opt out list that would store personal data. There is no opt in list.

Vic_08

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ireland truly is a nanny state. Even when you die you still owe the government something. I'd be willing to be a donor for a payment of E50,000. This is massively below what it costs to keep someone on dialysis for a year. Otherwise, my body, my organs.

FFS, the organs don't go to "de gubbermint" they go to people who need them.

I would have no problem with your stance if for one second I believed you would be willing to pay €50,000 or outright refuse a donated organ if you ever needed one.

I wish to donate if possible, my only regret is that I can't exclude my organs from going to selfish cunts.

Bob24

manonboard wrote: »

Thats not true. You are expressing your consent by not opting out.
It's a very sensible solution since most people are happy to donate.

Not quite that simple.

You can get consent in two ways: implicit consent (the weakest) or explicit consent (the strongest).

Explicit consent would be someone saying that they want to be added to the donor list - and is clearly not what is being proposed here.

But even if we are talking implicit consent (“if you don’t thick this box you agree” type of thing), to get that type of consent you need to at least at some point put the question in front of every person and tell them that if they say nothing they agree. For exemple that could be sending a registered letter to each citizen telling them that if they don’t reply to the letter to express disagreement, their implicit consent will be assumed to be a donor.

Opting-in everyone without ever *personally* telling them they are being opted-in and giving them an easy chance to op-out as part of that communication is not obtaining their consent.

weldoninhio

Ipso wrote: »

But many people don’t bother opting in. As stated above if someone has strong feelings then they ipt out.
Anyway shouldn’t the government be stealing organs the way it is now, they don’t need the opt out pretense to do it.

But if they are so happy to do it, they’ll do it. Only takes a second to sign up.

professore

Rhyme wrote: »

I've been reading that Singapore have taken this a step further. Theirs is an opt-out society and if you do opt-out and in the future, need an organ donation, you'll be further down the list than someone who did not opt out.

Proper order.

professore

Bob24 wrote: »

Not quite that simple.

You can get get consent in two ways: implicit consent (the weakest) or explicit consent (the strongest).

Explicit consent would be someone saying that they want to be added to the donor list - and is clearly not what is being proposed here.

But even if we are talking implicit consent (“if you don’t thick this box you agree” type of thing), to get that type of consent you need to at least at some point to put the question in front of every person and tell them that if they say nothing they agree. For exemple that could be sending a registered letter to each citizen telling them that if they don’t reply to the letter to express disagreement, their implicit consent will be assumed to be a donor.

Opting-in everyone without ever *personally* telling them they are being opted-in and giving them an easy chance to op-out ias part of that communication is not obtaining their consent.

You can't opt out of a law. Except in this case where provision is made in law for you to opt out.

weldoninhio

Vic_08 wrote: »

FFS, the organs don't go to "de gubbermint" they go to people who need them.

I would have no problem with your stance if for one second I believed you would be willing to pay €50,000 or outright refuse a donated organ if you ever needed one.

I wish to donate if possible, my only regret is that I can't exclude my organs from going to selfish cunts.

Maybe calm down a minute and have a re read of what I posted. I wouldn’t pay anything for a transplant. I’m of the belief that my body is my body, when it gives up the ghost it’s my time to go. I wouldn’t want to be like Frankenstein’s monster with various other peoples bits and pieces in me.

I’d said that if the govt want my organs, there is a price of €50k on them. It costs €500k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so 10% of that for all my organs seems like a decent negotiating point.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ipso wrote: »

The assumption is no consent on lack of consent is consent

Aye, try that argument in a rape or robbery case. Well your honour, i took their silence as the assumption is no consent on lack of consent is consent

If that was the law then if would be fine, but it ain't.

You didn't give consent to obey the laws of the country. Your consent is implied and there isn't really a way to opt out while still living in the country. It's called tacit approval and it's perfectly normal and reasonable.

Tacit approval will also be applied to organ donation and there will be the freedom to opt out. It's reasonable, fair and about time.

Those who feel strongly opposed to it can simply say so and their wishes will be respected. It's absolutely no big deal but it will probably save and improve countless people's lives.

Bob24

dudara wrote: »

The whole topic of consent in relation to GDPR is a bit of a red herring. There are multiple legal bases on which personal data processing can rely. Consent is just one of these legal bases. The government can legislate to process personal data , as they do say for your motor tax. I’m assuming that would be the legal basis on which they would rely here.

Of course, it is not a GDPR issue. But as I was saying before and related to GDPR, what is interesting to note is that if this goes through we will live in a society whereby explicit consent is required for boards.ie to retain my IP address for an extended period after I access this post (GDPR), but no consent whatsoever will by required for someone to be allowed to take my heart of my dead body if I die.

To me this is greatly inconsistent.

professore

weldoninhio wrote: »

I wouldn’t pay anything for a transplant. I’m of the belief that my body is my body, when it gives up the ghost it’s my time to go. I wouldn’t want to be like Frankenstein’s monster with various other peoples bits and pieces in me.

You might suddenly have a different "belief" if you were dying of liver failure.

Bob24

professore wrote: »

You can't opt out of a law. Except in this case where provision is made in law for you to opt out.

All I’m saying is that there will be no consent whatsoever and people saying there will be are incorrect.

But of course the law is not optional and no consent is required for it to apply. The issue is to pretend that consent has been given.

weldoninhio

professore wrote: »

You might have a different view if you were dying of liver failure.

I don't think i would, if i was dying of something like that I'd end it myself, on my own terms.

UrbanFret

There'll be plenty of good livers around rural Ireland with the blanket drink ban that's been imposed on us.

professore

Bob24 wrote: »

Of course, it is not a GDPR issue. But as I was saying before and related to GDPR, what is interesting to note is that if this goes through we will live in a society whereby explicitent consent is required for boards.ie to retain my IP address for an extended period after I access this post (GDPR), but no consent whatsoever will by required for someone to be allowed to take my heard of my dead body if I die.

To me this is greatly inconsistent.

Well take it up with the EU. The GDPR is simultaneously too strict and not strict enough IMO. Another debate entirely.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

Rhyme wrote: »

I've been reading that Singapore have taken this a step further. Theirs is an opt-out society and if you do opt-out and in the future, need an organ donation, you'll be further down the list than someone who did not opt out.

Proper order.

Seems fair and I'd be tempted to support that system but I would still want people treated according to their need for treatment as opposed to anything else.

Organ donation is like lots of other things where it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. Unless there was an emergency then I'd just treat people according to need even if I might like to punish people who opt out or reward people who were willing to do the morally praiseworthy thing.

professore

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don't think i would, if i was dying of something like that I'd end it myself, on my own terms.

Perhaps.. But you won't know until faced with your imminent death how you would react. I certainly don't know.

biko

It doesn't mention if the organs will be used exclusively for other people or if the organs can be used for other things like medical studies etc.

If anything is reusable when I am dead, then I am ok with someone else taking it.

Bob24

professore wrote: »

Well take it up with the EU. The GDPR is simultaneously too strict and not strict enough IMO. Another debate entirely.

Why would I take it to the EU? I just said it is not a GDPR issue, and it is purely national legislation.

My point related to this debate is that IMO a society which requires explicit consent to record an IP address and no consent whatsoever to remove an organ from a body is not functioning well.

TheChizler

It would be an odd society that treats the dead the same as the living...

El_Duderino 09

biko wrote: »

It doesn't mention if the organs will be used exclusively for other people or if the organs can be used for other things like medical studies etc.

If anything is reusable when I am dead, then I am ok with someone else taking it.

That's a fair point. Your bits and bobs could be used to train people like doctors. Or research cures of whatever. I'd still be fine with that tbh.

jackofalltrades

It's an incredibly lazy and authoritarian solution to the issue of not enough people donating.
The government should not be creating more opt-out situations for it's citizens.
The solution to this is easy, just ask people if they want to be organ donors or not.

manonboard wrote: »

Thats not true. You are expressing your consent by not opting out.

This only holds true if everyone is aware that they are being opted in.
If people are added to a list and they're not aware of it, then consent hasn't been given.

Bob24

TheChizler wrote: »

It would be an odd society that treats the dead the same as the living...

What do you see as treating the dead the same as the living in the above posts? Consent while you’re alive to be a donor once you’re dead has been the norm for a while, and I don’t think anyone would argue this means the dead are being treated the same as the living?

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Bob24 wrote: »

Why would I take it to the EU? I just said it is not a GDPR issue, and it is purely national legislation.

My point related to this debate is that IMO a society which requires explicit consent to record an IP address and no consent whatsoever to remove an organ from a body is not functioning well.

GDPR doesn't require explicit consent for anything other than sensitive data, which an IP address isn't.

AudreyHepburn

Excellent news and long overdue. Perhaps I’m missing something here but I can’t honestly see why anyone would in good conscience object to the use of their body once they’re gone to save another’s life.

As far as I am concerned once I am gone my body and it’s parts are of no further use to me and if they can be used save another’s life, be that by direct donation or as part of scientific research, then I am only too happy to allow it.

Ipso

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Seems fair and I'd be tempted to support that system but I would still want people treated according to their need for treatment as opposed to anything else.

Organ donation is like lots of other things where it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. Unless there was an emergency then I'd just treat people according to need even if I might like to punish people who opt out or reward people who were willing to do the morally praiseworthy thing.

F*** them. Amongst other things, there will be a lot of time wasting that will having to deal with some of them to clarify things on this.
They made their sick bed, die in it.

Bob24

Amaya Sweet Kiln wrote: »

GDPR doesn't require explicit consent for anything other than sensitive data, which an IP address isn't.

Not only “sensitive data” requires consent, there are also circumstances whereby “private data” does (and it is clear that in a number of situations an IP address is considered private data under GDPR).

But anyway this is a side topic and I guess anyone who is interested can document themselves.

batgoat

weldoninhio wrote: »

Maybe calm down a minute and have a re read of what I posted. I wouldn’t pay anything for a transplant. I’m of the belief that my body is my body, when it gives up the ghost it’s my time to go. I wouldn’t want to be like Frankenstein’s monster with various other peoples bits and pieces in me.

I’d said that if the govt want my organs, there is a price of €50k on them. It costs €500k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so 10% of that for all my organs seems like a decent negotiating point.

You can opt out. That's as simple as it is. Applying your logic can have children dying of survivable illnesses. Wouldn't want to be Frankenstein.

biko wrote: »

It doesn't mention if the organs will be used exclusively for other people or if the organs can be used for other things like medical studies etc.

If anything is reusable when I am dead, then I am ok with someone else taking it.

Donating your body for medical research is an entirely separate process. You contact one of five medical institutes in the country to establish such a situation.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Abortion, organ donations. Hey Simon... can we have a referendum and legislation on euthanasia first?? FFS.

Kurtosis

weldoninhio wrote: »

Aye, try that argument in a rape or robbery case. Well your honour, i took their silence as the assumption is no consent on lack of consent is consent

That's a ridiculous argument, any such interpretation would be completely rejected by most of society. This is completely different, where the societally desirable choice (ie opting in to organ donation) is being made the easiest/default option. Similar to the proposed introduction of pension auto-enrolment.

TheChizler

Bob24 wrote: »

What do you see as treating the dead the same as the living in the above posts? Consent while you’re alive to be a donor once you’re dead has been the norm for a while, and I don’t think anyone would argue this means the dead are being treated the same as the living?

The decision on what to do with your organs is ultimately made by your family once you're dead with or without the proposed changes. Consent when you're alive only streamlines the process really.

The point about IP addresses being protected is only correct so long as you're alive, data protection doesn't apply to dead people. Your consent regarding donation while you're alive legally has no impact on what happens once you're dead either, it's a flawed argument to compare your wishes regarding data while you're alive to your wishes regarding your body once you're dead.

Guy:Incognito

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's a fair point. Your bits and bobs could be used to train people like doctors. Or research cures of whatever. I'd still be fine with that tbh.

I hope after they take what they need they donate my body to someone who intends to do weekend at Bernie's.

Doc07

brendanwalsh wrote: »

The NOK always have to give consent for organ harvesting so this plan is a waste of time.

Correct, unless this is modified, then I’m not sure how anything changes based on the few details I’ve read on the proposed legislation.

Perhaps it’s not widely known but even if you carry a donor card, next of kin consent is still required to proceed,although it can make the difficult conversation a little easier.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Achilles Panicky Magazine wrote: »

Abortion, organ donations. Hey Simon... can we have a referendum and legislation on euthanasia first?? FFS.

Don’t see why that relates. Euthanasia will happen but not for a generation.

Bob24

TheChizler wrote: »

The decision on what to do with your organs is ultimately made by your family once you're dead with or without the proposed changes. Consent when you're alive only streamlines the process really.

The point about IP addresses being protected is only correct so long as you're alive, data protection doesn't apply to dead people. Your consent regarding donation while you're alive legally has no impact on what happens once you're dead either, it's a flawed argument to compare your wishes regarding data while you're alive to your wishes regarding your body once you're dead.

What I get from your argument is that to you asking for someone’s consent while they are alive with regards to what will be done with their dead body would equate to treating the dead and the living alike? If yes we, simply disagree there.

weldoninhio

Kurtosis wrote: »

That's a ridiculous argument, any such interpretation would be completely rejected by most of society. This is completely different, where the societally desirable choice (ie opting in to organ donation) is being made the easiest/default option. Similar to the proposed introduction of pension auto-enrolment.

Societally desirable choice? I must have missed that vote.

El_Duderino 09

Ipso wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Seems fair and I'd be tempted to support that system but I would still want people treated according to their need for treatment as opposed to anything else.

Organ donation is like lots of other things where it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. Unless there was an emergency then I'd just treat people according to need even if I might like to punish people who opt out or reward people who were willing to do the morally praiseworthy thing.

F*** them. Amongst other things, there will be a lot of time wasting that will having to deal with some of them to clarify things on this.
They made their sick bed, die in it.

Yeah I can see the appeal of taking that approach. But I think it's right to treat patients according to their medical needs.

Sometimes there isn't a reward for going the morally praiseworthy thing and there isn't a punishment for not doing the morally praiseworthy thing.

TheChizler

Bob24 wrote: »

What I get from your argument is that to you asking for someone’s consent while they are alive with regards to what will be done with their dead body would equate to treating the dead and the living alike? If yes we, simply disagree there.

As far as I can see you're saying society is messed up if we treat the privacy of the living more importantly than the previous wishes of the dead. I think it would be more messed up to treat them equally.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Priorities matter.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Don’t see why that relates. Euthanasia will happen but not for a generation.

angel eyes 2012

weldoninhio wrote: »

Maybe calm down a minute and have a re read of what I posted. I wouldn’t pay anything for a transplant. I’m of the belief that my body is my body, when it gives up the ghost it’s my time to go. I wouldn’t want to be like Frankenstein’s monster with various other peoples bits and pieces in me.

I’d said that if the govt want my organs, there is a price of €50k on them. It costs €500k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so 10% of that for all my organs seems like a decent negotiating point.

As one of these "Frankenstein's monsters" you have alluded to (actually smiling at this description!), us monsters don't actually get to choose when any of our organs start to decline in their functionality, unless of course you partake in heavy drug or alcohol intake. For some of us it can slowly occur when you are 16 as it did in my case or even younger in some cases. In the case of kidney failure we are fortunate enough to have dialysis which can act as a temporary measure until you have a successful transplant. I studied, worked and travelled while on dialysis.

I never once gave up the ghost and many of the older people around me fought to stay healthy so they could get a chance to survive. Maybe you wouldn't have that fight in you but I would be appalled if the health system started to offer financial inducements for donated organs. By the way, you could easily get €50k for a kidney today in the black market but thankfully not in this country.

Kurtosis

weldoninhio wrote: »

Societally desirable choice? I must have missed that vote.

Are you really trying to suggest that we as a society would not want more organ donations to occur?

Pintman Paddy Losty

GDPR really is a topic that brings out the autistic geeks.

Dufflecoat Fanny

Victor Frankenstein approves this thread

Bob24

TheChizler wrote: »

As far as I can see you're saying society is messed up if we treat the privacy of the living more importantly than the previous wishes of the dead. I think it would be more messed up to treat them equally.

To be clear I did not say the wish of the dead should always be treated equally to the privacy of the living.

It is a matter of different situations and what I am saying is more that it is wrong to - as a matter of principle - say that the wish of the deceased are always irrelevant. To me it is fine to consider that a dead body is not just like an abandoned car available for parts and that it is a fairly important matter (probably a lot more more that IP address logging to many people) on which it is ok to expect consent from people while they are still alive about what will happen with their dead body.

wakka12

hgfj wrote: »

My concern would be if you found yourself in a situation where you are on an operating table after say a car crash and you only have a 20% chance of survival IF the operation is a sucess, while in the next room someone else is waiting on a liver which will give them a 90 to a 100% chance of survival. What decisions will the doctors/surgeons make? Would they "allow" you to die for a better chance of someone elses survival? Would it come down to statistics?

The person with the liver problems has no right to your liver while youre still alive, keeping you alive in a hospital is absolute top priority to doctors before giving your organs away is considered

theguzman

I wouldn't want my organs to be donated to wasters or lowlifes, e.g. a liver to an alcoholic would be a waste but to someone with liver cancer fine. Similarly I wouldnt want to save the live of a scumbag with 100+ previous convictions wheras I'd have no problem to save the life of a middle class respectable young mother or father struck down with some disease etc. Also I wouldn't want my organs donated to some migrant organ tourist etc.

Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

McDermotX

theguzman wrote: »

......

Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

I transplant my male organ into a female a few times a week and she never complains.
Quite the opposite actually.

wakka12

theguzman wrote: »

I wouldn't want my organs to be donated to wasters or lowlifes, e.g. a liver to an alcoholic would be a waste but to someone with liver cancer fine. Similarly I wouldnt want to save the live of a scumbag with 100+ previous convictions wheras I'd have no problem to save the life of a middle class respectable young mother or father struck down with some disease etc. Also I wouldn't want my organs donated to some migrant organ tourist etc.

Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

Where do you draw the line? Does a middle aged person who never exercised their whole life and now has premature heart disease deserve your heart?Or what about an old person who has kidney failure because they neglected to take their blood pressure meds? People like the alchoholic will probably change their ways and be very grateful for a second chance at life, and in fact a doctor will only give them a liver if they do show they are making huge chanages to their lifestyles and trying to become healhier, hospital and doctors do not and will not waste organs on people who dont deserve them and who will clearly go on to follow exact same path that led them to needing a transplant in the first place

angel eyes 2012

theguzman wrote: »

I wouldn't want my organs to be donated to wasters or lowlifes, e.g. a liver to an alcoholic would be a waste but to someone with liver cancer fine. Similarly I wouldnt want to save the live of a scumbag with 100+ previous convictions wheras I'd have no problem to save the life of a middle class respectable young mother or father struck down with some disease etc. Also I wouldn't want my organs donated to some migrant organ tourist etc.

Can male organs be transplanted into female or Vice versa? Something I was wondering since reading the thread.

Yes, male organs can be transplanted into females and vice versa. In respect of your concerns about alcoholics receiving transplanted livers, there are extremely strict criteria to be adhered to when coming under consideration to be put on waiting list for an organ. Once on the list there is no guarantee that you remain on it, you must maintain a healthy lifestyle and have regular check ups. There is no way that someone with an alcohol dependency would qualify for a donated organ in Ireland.

Unfortunately there are far more genuinely good people waiting years on the lists than there are organs available and that is the motivation behind this legislation.