Legislation to make organ donations automatic

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Every patient admitted once this legislation is passed will be assessed de facto and checked if they have opted out. That will form routine administrative practice.

How could you possibly know that? And what would be the point? Very few hospital visits actually result in someone dying and, of those, only 0.3% in such a way that makes organ donation possible. It would be a massive waste of time and effort.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You are also clinically alive when organs are removed.

Again, not true. I corrected you on this previously, you are braindead. Clinically dead. Kept artificially breathing by life support only.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You may well be conscious and compis mentis upon your first admission. A terminal cancer patient on a ward will be asked their wishes. If they feel coerced into not opting out then there is a risk their care could be compromised to hasten their death if their organs are deemed of value.

That's scaremongering pure and simple.

A terminal cancer patient will be asked their wishes? What? No they won't, that doesn't even make sense, there would be assumed consent (not that a terminal cancer patient could even be an organ donor).

And again, as has been pointed out multiple times, doctors are there to save lives. Why would they ever deliberately compromise someone's care? It makes no sense and is just paranoia.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Dear God the lack of knowledge around this topic is terrifying.

Well at least that much we agree on

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

clinically dead but artificially kept alive. well alive enough for your organs not to decay. Not anything i would call actual life.

Then only express written voluntary informed consent during your lifetime can legally cover organ removal or the written consent of your legal representative if you cannot consent for yourself.

There is no basis on which the State can lawfully assert a presumption of consent.

seamus

If you're the kind of person who believes that being braindead and on permanent life-support qualifies you as "alive", then you should probably opt-out. I'd also make it clear that you must not be cremated and that they must install little bell above your plot that you can ring in case you get buried alive.

gctest50

van_beano wrote: »

It ain't about what you would be feeling as you'd be dead, it's about what sort of Society you have left behind that has resorted to those tactics to gets your organs in the first place.

van_beano wrote: »

...............

your organs

They're not really yours though after yer dead.

You didn't make the atoms you are made from, you just borrowed them

Stark

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If the current Opt-in is not working sufficiently, why would that be, do you think?

Most people assume it's enough to carry around one of those cards in your wallet. But in Ireland, you have to explicitly notify your next of kin of your wishes. As someone in my 30s, I don't really plan on dying for another few decades so conversations about plans for my death aren't really conversations I feel comfortable about having. Similarly, if the opportunity does arise for me to be an organ donor while I'm young enough for the organs to be useful, it's going to be a thoroughly distressing time for my family and they'll most likely be too distraught to make a clear decision when asked by medical professionals.

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

How could you possibly know that? And what would be the point? Very few hospital visits actually result in someone dying and, of those, only 0.3% in such a way that makes organ donation possible. It would be a massive waste of time and effort.



Again, not true. I corrected you on this previously, you are braindead. Clinically dead. Kept artificially breathing by life support only.



That's scaremongering pure and simple.

A terminal cancer patient will be asked their wishes? What? No they won't, that doesn't even make sense, there would be assumed consent (not that a terminal cancer patient could even be an organ donor).

And again, as has been pointed out multiple times, doctors are there to save lives. Why would they ever deliberately compromise someone's care? It makes no sense and is just paranoia.



Well at least that much we agree on

Care to comment Ian?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

https://dolanlawfirm.com/2018/07/new-legal-issues-arise-over-the-passing-of-jahi-mcmath/

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Then only express written voluntary informed consent during your lifetime can legally cover organ removal or the written consent of your legal representative if you cannot consent for yourself.

There is no basis on which the State can lawfully assert a presumption of consent.

that is what the proposed change will do. It will create a presumption of consent.

van_beano

gctest50 wrote: »

They're not really yours though after yer dead.

You didn't make the atoms you are made from, you just borrowed them

The State didn't make the atoms either but are presuming they have the automatic right to your organs regardless. Going by your comment it'd be best to just let them to turn to dust and thus return them to nature where they came from.

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is what the proposed change will do. It will create a presumption of consent.

It is unlawful under Constitutional law and the ECHR and will undoubtedly be the subject of a Court challenge.

van_beano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is what the proposed change will do. It will create a presumption of consent.

That's the problem, presuming. The only consent that there should be should be the one freely decided by you when you were alive in opting in. Legislation should not be used to make a presumption that you have made the decision.

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

There is no basis on which the State can lawfully assert a presumption of consent.

Consent doesn't apply. You're dead.

The is no presumption of consent, because there is no requirement for consent.

Most likely what the legislation will do in effect is lay out a framework whereby the hospital will begin preparation for transplantation after death, and notify the next-of-kin, giving them a right to reply/object.

If the NOK cannot be contacted/located or fail to respond in the given timeframe, then the hospital will be permitted to proceed without later fear of litigation.

At present they have to ascertain the wishes of the family and cannot proceed without their confirmation.

Mrs Shuttleworth

van_beano wrote: »

That's the problem, presuming. The only consent that there should be should be the one freely decided by you when you were alive in opting in. Legislation should not be used to make a presumption that you have made the decision.

Exactly. Such legislative "presumption" could then apply to anything at all.

Example: It is "presumed" that all owners of homes with one or more spare bedrooms consent to house Syrian child refugees. Opt-out if you don't like it. But who could possibly be so selfish to refuse the child?

It's nonsense, folks.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It is unlawful under Constitutional law and the ECHR and will undoubtedly be the subject of a Court challenge.

I'm sure that will come as a surprise to the spanish and 20-odd other european countries that already have such a system. Perhaps you should inform them?

Mrs Shuttleworth

seamus wrote: »

Consent doesn't apply. You're dead.

The is no presumption of consent, because there is no requirement for consent.

Most likely what the legislation will do in effect is lay out a framework whereby the hospital will begin preparation for transplantation after death, and notify the next-of-kin, giving them a right to reply/object.

If the NOK cannot be contacted/located or fail to respond in the given timeframe, then the hospital will be permitted to proceed without later fear of litigation.

At present they have to ascertain the wishes of the family and cannot proceed without their confirmation.

Read the thread and beyond and inform yourself.

You are clinically alive when harvesting occurs.

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure that will come as a surprise to the spanish and 20-odd other european countries that already have such a system. Perhaps you should inform them?

It has been highlighted already in legal opinions overseas and particularly in the UK but no one has yet taken proceedings that we publicly know of.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It has been highlighted already in legal opinions overseas and particularly in the UK but no one has yet taken proceedings that we publicly know of.

Opt out has been in force in spain for 40 years. Do you think that nobody has gotten around to bringing a case against it yet or perhaps nobody has bothered because it would be a waste of time?

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

......


You are clinically alive when harvesting occurs.

You are dead

Brain stem death means that there is no blood flow or oxygen to the brain. The brain is no longer functioning. There is no hope of recovery. The patient cannot breathe without the help of the ventilator. Doctors will carry out tests to confirm brain stem death. Two sets of tests are carried out. The time of death recorded on the death certificate is when the second set of brain stem tests have been completed.

Dead. Game over.

Cardiac death happens after an illness or injury from which a patient cannot recover.
The patient is not brain dead, but has no hope of recovery.

The patient cannot survive without the support of a ventilator and medication.

No hope of recovery ? needs a ventilator ? Dead.






.

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Care to comment Ian?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

https://dolanlawfirm.com/2018/07/new-legal-issues-arise-over-the-passing-of-jahi-mcmath/

Sure.

The first case has literally nothing to do with organ donation, it was organs extracted and kept during routine autopsy. They're normally put back after being examined by a pathologist, but weren't in that case, god knows why. I don't see how it's relevant.

The second case is extremely tragic in general, but particularly the misdiagnosis of brain death. That's what it was though, they thought the patient was dead.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

some of us are concerned about the reliability of the relatively new concept of "brain death" and do not implicitly accept it as confirmation of definitive death.

I don't agree with you, but I can at least understand that.

So presumably then you are against all (non living) organ donation? And this legislation just because it supports organ donation in general?

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Opt out has been in force in spain for 40 years. Do you think that nobody has gotten around to bringing a case against it yet or perhaps nobody has bothered because it would be a waste of time?

The Spanish system is ghoulish.

Internal "co-ordinators" scour ICU units, A&E units and routine wards for potential donors and they are approached.

I will try and link to the article which referenced the system as a potential breach of the ECHR.

Taking such an action would be very costly and bring scorn upon the litigant. That's what the Governments quietly count on.

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

Sure.

The first case has literally nothing to do with organ donation, it was organs extracted and kept during routine autopsy. They're normally put back after being examined by a pathologist, but weren't in that case, god knows why. I don't see how it's relevant.

The second case is extremely tragic in general, but particularly the misdiagnosis of brain death. That's what it was though, they thought the patient was dead.



I don't agree with you, but I can at least understand that.

So presumably then you are against all (non living) organ donation? And this legislation just because it supports organ donation in general?

I'm not against organ donation where someone has expressly given written informed consent for it during their lifetime and without coercion.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Spanish system is ghoulish.

Internal "co-ordinators" scour ICU units, A&E units and routine wards for potential donors and they are approached.

I will try and link to the article which referenced the system as a potential breach of the ECHR.

Taking such an action would be very costly and bring scorn upon the litigant. That's what the Governments quietly count on.

Or maybe anybody who has the wherewithal to actually bring a case knows they would lose and it would be a waste of time.



I just hope we are as organised as the spanish are when we introduce it. They seem very efficient.



https://mosaicscience.com/story/spain-uk-organ-donation-transplants-liver-kidney-heart-lungs-surgery-nhs/

batgoat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'm not against organ donation where someone has expressly given written informed consent during their lifetime.

The problem is, most people either don't consider it or don't tell their families what their wishes are. Hence the optout system being put in place elsewhere and being found to be the most effective methodology. In terms of hospital staff judging, it's pretty unlikely. For all they know, you're donating your body for medical research which is separate.

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Or maybe anybody who has the wherewithal to actually bring a case knows they would lose and it would be a waste of time.



I just hope we are as organised as the spanish are when we introduce it. They seem very efficient.



https://mosaicscience.com/story/spain-uk-organ-donation-transplants-liver-kidney-heart-lungs-surgery-nhs/

Shame is the main reason this hasn't been challenged.

However I wouldn't be at all sure of that on this occasion where we also have our own Constitution with its privacy and expression rights.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

............................

https://dolanlawfirm.com/2018/07/new-legal-issues-arise-over-the-passing-of-jahi-mcmath/

. Under the cover of darkness, and under the noses of the flange of television crews (who were watching the Packers/49rs game), we spirited Jahi off to a private airfield in Oakland, and her mother accompanied her on a life flight jet to New Jersey. Jahi almost died in route.
Jahi received intensive intervention in New Jersey and was ultimately discharged to a home environment where she lived with her mother, stepfather and sister for over four years

That one is like Charlie Gard in the UK

Gadgetman496

Press Release 21.11.2013

https://health.gov.ie/blog/press-release/public-consultation-introduction-of-an-opt-out-system-of-consent-for-organ-donation/

TheChizler

gctest50 wrote: »

That one is like Charlie Gard in the UK

I'm not sure what the relevance is here, sure there may be uncertainty regarding brain death, but ultimately the parent's consent was required. Same as now, same as after.

Ariadne

Mrs Shuttleworth, you are scaremongering and I sincerely hope you don't succeed in putting people off signing up to be organ donors. There is already so much misinformation around organ donation and people not wanting to think about death and people on the transplant list die as a result. Let me think, someone opting out feeling "shunned" vs saving several peoples' lives? Forgive the pun but this is a no brainer.

Doctors are dedicated to saving a person's life, why would they want to cause your death to save the life of someone else, it doesn't make any sense unless it happened to be a relative of the doctor. Transplant co-ordinators are not ghoulish, they are there to ask families if they would like to donate their loved ones organs when they are brain dead. I am saying brain dead because you are being very disingenuous when you say that the person is still alive. They are brain dead and artificially kept alive until their organs can be taken.

I have constant interaction with doctors and medical staff due to my illness. They do occasionally make mistakes, in fact I was misdiagnosed for a long time. I don't blindly take whatever they say as gospel and I challenge them. However, I still have a firm belief that this system will not be abused and ultimately saves lives.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Succubus_ wrote: »

Mrs Shuttleworth, you are scaremongering and I sincerely hope you don't succeed in putting people off signing up to be organ donors. There is already so much misinformation around organ donation and people not wanting to think about death and people on the transplant list die as a result. Let me think, someone opting out feeling "shunned" vs saving several peoples' lives? Forgive the pun but this is a no brainer.

Doctors are dedicated to saving a person's life, why would they want to cause your death to save the life of someone else, it doesn't make any sense unless it happened to be a relative of the doctor. Transplant co-ordinators are not ghoulish, they are there to ask families if they would like to donate their loved ones organs when they are brain dead. I am saying brain dead because you are being very disingenuous when you say that the person is still alive. They are brain dead and artificially kept alive until their organs can be taken.

I have constant interaction with doctors and medical staff due to my illness. They do occasionally make mistakes, in fact I was misdiagnosed for a long time. I don't blindly take whatever they say as gospel and I challenge them. However, I still have a firm belief that this system will not be abused and ultimately saves lives.

Spare me the fluffy unicorns and PR guilt trip.

You demonstrate no respect whatsoever in your post for the bodily integrity of others and the principle of voluntary informed consent.

Your response is evidence as to why this system will cause suspicion, distrust and a backlash from a solid group of people.

Ariadne

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Spare me the fluffy unicorns and PR guilt trip.

You demonstrate no respect whatsoever in your post for the bodily integrity of others and the principle of voluntary informed consent.

Your response is evidence as to why this system will cause suspicion, distrust and a backlash from a solid group of people.

Well you have no argument other than claiming I'm talking about fluffy unicorns and PR guilt tripping. That says it all. By the way, I have 50% lung function and when I reach 30% I will need a double lung transplant. This is very real to me, this will directly affect my chances of continuing to live. How exactly will it affect yours? Someone takes your organs when you're dead and don't need them in order to save another person's life? Which they won't even do when you opt out so it's a non argument.

batgoat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Spare me the fluffy unicorns and PR guilt trip.

You demonstrate no respect whatsoever in your post for the bodily integrity of others and the principle of voluntary informed consent.

Your response is evidence as to why this system will cause suspicion, distrust and a backlash from a solid group of people.

It really won't, people are free to opt out and patients are not suddenly going to become slabs of meat. It has worked effectively in other countries. If you're too paranoid to opt out, it's your own problem.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Succubus_ wrote: »

Well you have no argument other than claiming I'm talking about fluffy unicorns and PR guilt tripping. That says it all. By the way, I have 50% lung function and when I reach 30% I will need a double lung transplant. This is very real to me, this will directly affect my chances of continuing to live. How exactly will it affect yours? Someone takes your organs when you're dead and don't need them in order to save another person's life? Which they won't even do when you opt out so it's a non argument.

More guilt tripping and side stepping of the central issue which makes a nonsense of the illusion to "opt out".

Your illness is not my problem. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it is.

I would not want doctors to make a judgment call over my worth as opposed to yours if I was in a position where my lungs could be harvested to give to you unless I had given prior voluntary wholly informed consent in writing at a time of full capacity.

You have no right to expect lungs other than those given voluntarily and without coercion.

Canis Lupus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Your response is evidence as to why this system will cause suspicion, distrust and a backlash from a solid group of people.

I imagine it'll be the likes of anti vaxxers and big pharma facebook posters.

Organ donation is amazing and should be mandatory in my book. I'd do it myself but past illness has ruled me ineligible.

There's no reason any one should opt out.

Ariadne

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Your illness is not my problem. Sorry to be blunt but that is how it is.

You have no right to expect lungs other than those given voluntarily and without coercion.

I hope you never find yourself on the transplant list with that attitude.

I have no interest in having lungs that were given under coercion but I won't receive lungs that have been given under those circumstances anyway. Someone who doesn't want to donate opts out.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I imagine it'll be the likes of anti vaxxers and big pharma facebook posters.

Organ donation is amazing and should be mandatory in my book. I'd do it myself but past illness has ruled me ineligible.

There's no reason any one should opt out.

Armchair General.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Succubus_ wrote: »

I hope you never find yourself on the transplant list with that attitude.

I have no interest in having lungs that were given under coercion but I won't receive lungs that have been given under those circumstances anyway. Someone who doesn't want to donate opts out.

Is that so?

When persons with weaker mental fortitude than I find themselves on the receiving end of guilt trips in the media and their families and social circles?

That is what the Government and medical establishment are banking on - fear, shame and a spirit to weak to question and challenge.

Podge_irl

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Care to comment Ian?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

https://dolanlawfirm.com/2018/07/new-legal-issues-arise-over-the-passing-of-jahi-mcmath/

Illegal organ harvesting remains illegal

Dead person can unsurprisingly no longer be kept artificially alive.

I'm not entirely sure what either of these incidents are supposed to tell us?

runawaybishop

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Is that so?

When persons with weaker mental fortitude than I find themselves on the receiving end of guilt trips in the media and their families and social circles?

That is what the Government and medical establishment are banking on - fear, shame and a spirit to weak to question and challenge.

They are dead, no shame or guilt.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Is that so?

When persons with weaker mental fortitude than I find themselves on the receiving end of guilt trips in the media and their families and social circles?

That is what the Government and medical establishment are banking on - fear, shame and a spirit to weak to question and challenge.

the only fear and shame is coming from you.

Canis Lupus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Armchair General.

Just telling it like it is.

batgoat

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I imagine it'll be the likes of anti vaxxers and big pharma facebook posters.

Organ donation is amazing and should be mandatory in my book. I'd do it myself but past illness has ruled me ineligible.

There's no reason any one should opt out.

Yep and for a country with such a high occurrence of the likes of cystic fybrosis, the need for transplants is incredibly important.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Is that so?

When persons with weaker mental fortitude than I find themselves on the receiving end of guilt trips in the media and their families and social circles?

That is what the Government and medical establishment are banking on - fear, shame and a spirit to weak to question and challenge.

It should be much more straightforward

Want to opt out ?

- no organs for you
- no blood for you
- no social welfare for you

don't want to share ? we don't either

don't like it ? you know where the airport is


* all this doesn't apply if you can't donate

kthxbye

weldoninhio

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I imagine it'll be the likes of anti vaxxers and big pharma facebook posters.

Organ donation is amazing and should be mandatory in my book. I'd do it myself but past illness has ruled me ineligible.

There's no reason any one should opt out.

Funny the amount of people who are ineligible who would have not problem with it, as it will never come up for them. It’s not gonna be them on the organ teppanyaki table

Ariadne

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Is that so?

When persons with weaker mental fortitude than I find themselves on the receiving end of guilt trips in the media and their families and social circles?

That is what the Government and medical establishment are banking on - fear, shame and a spirit to weak to question and challenge.

Or maybe they take the time to think about organ donation thanks to the media and government campaigns and come to the informed decision not to opt out. No one will know what their choice is until they are dead and shame doesn't bother a dead person, if you believe they will be shamed.

weldoninhio

gctest50 wrote: »

It should be much more straightforward

So we could opt out of paying taxes too? Or would you want our share of that??

Canis Lupus

weldoninhio wrote: »

Funny the amount of people who are ineligible who would have not problem with it, as it will never come up for them. It’s not gonna be them on the organ teppanyaki table

Had a donor card before. Got cancer, can no longer donate. Literally couldn't care less what happens to my body when I'm dead and the thought that someone could use my bodyparts to live would have been awesome.

Being squeamish about your dead body is weird and frankly a bit stupid.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Succubus_ wrote: »

Or maybe they take the time to think about organ donation thanks to the media and government campaigns and come to the informed decision not to opt out. No one will know what their choice is until they are dead and shame doesn't bother a dead person, if you believe they will be shamed.

That is nonsense. Organs are removed before death. This legislation is a deliberate licence to harvest organs. I do not trust politicians, clinicians or the HSE with that power. If you do, good for you..

Why do you have such a problem with the current opt-in system, and the notion of bodily autonomy? And don't give me "not enough donors" as an answer.

batgoat

weldoninhio wrote: »

Funny the amount of people who are ineligible who would have not problem with it, as it will never come up for them. It’s not gonna be them on the organ teppanyaki table

I'm planning to donate my body to medical research so while ineligible, my organs will end up used.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That is nonsense. Organs are removed before death. This legislation is a deliberate licence to harvest organs. I do not trust politicians, clinicians or the HSE with that power. If you do, good for you..

Why do you have such a problem with the current opt-in system, and the notion of bodily autonomy? And don't give me "not enough donors" as an answer.

paranoid and delusional nonsense

Canis Lupus

weldoninhio wrote: »

Funny the amount of people who are ineligible who would have not problem with it, as it will never come up for them. It’s not gonna be them on the organ teppanyaki table

Actually you motivated me to check. I was sure I couldn't donate after cancer but this mightn't be the case or at least they can use parts of me. Gonna send an email enquiring and make sure I'm on the register if they let me.

runawaybishop

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That is nonsense. Organs are removed before death. This legislation is a deliberate licence to harvest organs. I do not trust politicians, clinicians or the HSE with that power. If you do, good for you..

Why do you have such a problem with the current opt-in system, and the notion of bodily autonomy? And don't give me "not enough donors" as an answer.

Dont know why you are so worried about it, they won't take organs pickled in weed and LSD.