Legislation to make organ donations automatic

Canis Lupus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That is nonsense. Organs are removed before death.

Stop with the semantics. You're effectively dead. You ain't coming back from the point organ donation is considered.

Podge_irl

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Stop with the semantics. You're effectively dead. You ain't coming back from the point organ donation is considered.

You're not "effectively dead". You are dead.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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.

We do not have an opt-in system. We have a "whatever the hell your next of kin wants" system.

gctest50

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.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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

. I do not trust politicians, clinicians or the HSE with that power..

But yet you trust them to keep you alive in the minutes before the organ removal would usually occur ?

Mrs Shuttleworth

Here comes all the abuse, which is why people will feel afraid into "opting-out".as those who support the proposal do not in fact respect the concept of informed consent.

Thankfully there's still a few of us out here who don't give a toss what slurs are cast and will defend inalienable rights regardless.

Ariadne

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.

Not enough donors is the only answer I need. However, I have a problem with the opt in system because so many people never consider organ donation either way and their next of kin are left to make a decision not knowing what their wishes are. This legislation ensures that they make a decision either way so their next of kin are aware of their decision. A lot of people go through their lives never considering their death, what a luxury for them.

Stop harping on about the person being alive when they have their organs taken, they are brain dead.

Podge_irl

Succubus_ wrote: »

Stop harping on about the person being alive when they have their organs taken, they are brain dead.

Brain dead = dead.

Forced respiration and autonomous muscle action does not equal life.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Succubus_ wrote: »

Not enough donors is the only answer I need. However, I have a problem with the opt in system because so many people never consider organ donation either way and their next of kin are left to make a decision not knowing what their wishes are. This legislation ensures that they make a decision either way so their next of kin are aware of their decision. A lot of people go through their lives never considering their death, what a luxury for them.

Stop harping on about the person being alive when they have their organs taken, they are brain dead.

So many lies in your post.

Not enough donors? Not my problem. Yours yes; mine, not now, maybe someday. Your problem doesn't grant you the right to assume I want to give my lungs to you if I'm questionably "brain dead" and the Government to legislate to assume I do. Where did you get such a hubristic notion into your head?

Secondly, brain death is an entirely questionable medical concept. Why should I be mandated by legislation into a scheme based on a questionable and arguable concept of preliminary death only around since the late 1960s arising from the first heart transplant?

Thirdly, if someone has not made any formal decision during their lifetime, then it is assumed they do not wish to donate. How arrogant of you to assume that their wishes are "unknown". They didn't want to give to you. The end.

Fourthly, we are not now being asked to choose "either way"; we're being mandated into a scheme by stealth with a very questionable and uncertain "opt out" as to how it will be applied.

If you need organs and can't find them, go to a country where organ sales are legal such as Iran, and pay.

And no, I'm not going to apologise on here for being tough with you.

The legal stakes for public safety are simply too high.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Not enough donors? Not my problem. Yours yes; mine, not now, maybe someday.

So you want to be able to receive organs but not donate any

Mrs Shuttleworth

gctest50 wrote: »

So you want to be able to receive organs but not donate any

No. I meant that someday in the future in the context that none of us can predict our clinical future.

Whether I would want to receive them; I would say under no circumstances would I accept an organ procured from a presumed consent system solely. I would view it as not having been given freely and not my right to take it. I would not want it in my body.

Ipso

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

No. I meant that someday in the future in the context that none of us can predict our clinical future.

Whether I would want to receive them; I would say under no circumstances would I accept an organ procured from a presumed consent system solely. I would view it as not having been given freely and not my right to take it. I would not want it in my body.

Best to put together a legal document to state that you don't want organs from a glorified harvesting organization, maybe even tattoo it on your chest as they can't be trusted.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Ipso wrote: »

Best to put together a legal document to state that you don't want organs from a glorified harvesting organization, maybe even tattoo it on your chest as they can't be trusted.

You are being facetious but in actuality that is probably the best safeguard to adopt under this rancid proposal.

batgoat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

No. I meant that someday in the future in the context that none of us can predict our clinical future.

Whether I would want to receive them; I would say under no circumstances would I accept an organ procured from a presumed consent system solely. I would view it as not having been given freely and not my right to take it. I would not want it in my body.

Grand job, I'm gonna side with the cystic fybrosis groups on this one. You may be lucky enough not to need an organ transplant but there are many who do. Various groups have campaigned for this for good reason.


https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/cystic-fibrosis-organ-donation-presumed-13267868

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That is nonsense. Organs are removed before death.

Been over this multiple times. You don't believe in brain death despite the medical evidence, fine, whatever, your body, your choice.

Repeatedly saying someone is alive when their organs are donated is totally disingenuous though, and you know it.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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.

What? What are you even talking about "deliberate license to harvest organs"? Again you're trying to imply doctors and the government are somehow colluding to steal organs from the unwilling, which is crazy.

You seem to have so little faith in doctors and the HSE, but the irony is that if they were actually that corrupt, they wouldn't need legislation, they'd just do it anyway.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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

So, what, you want us to make up a reason because you don't like the actual one??

And very few people in this thread have said that people shouldn't have bodily autonomy. You. Can. Still. Opt. Out.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

Thankfully there's still a few of us out here who don't give a toss what slurs are cast and will defend inalienable rights regardless.

Inalienable rights? You think that default non-consent to organ donation is an inalienable right? You're sorely mistaken, as proven by numerous other forward thinking countries around the world, and soon also ourselves.

Wheres Me Jumper?

i would never carry a donor card, and if this legislation is passed i will definitely opt-out.
i dont want those surgeons slicing into me before i passed away.

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

Been over this multiple times. You don't believe in brain death despite the medical evidence, fine, whatever, your body, your choice.

Repeatedly saying someone is alive when their organs are donated is totally disingenuous though, and you know it.



What? What are you even talking about "deliberate license to harvest organs"? Again you're trying to imply doctors and the government are somehow colluding to steal organs from the unwilling, which is crazy.

You seem to have so little faith in doctors and the HSE, but the irony is that if they were actually that corrupt, they wouldn't need legislation, they'd just do it anyway.



So, what, you want us to make up a reason because you don't like the actual one??

And very few people in this thread have said that people shouldn't have bodily autonomy. You. Can. Still. Opt. Out.



Inalienable rights? You think that default non-consent to organ donation is an inalienable right? You're sorely mistaken, as proven by numerous other forward thinking countries around the world, and soon also ourselves.

Look at your last paragraph. That reveals you for what you are.

You don't respect my choice.

You don't respect bodily autonomy.

You don't respect the age-old principle of informed consent.

You don't believe anyone has the right to choose on this issue.

You Sir, are an authoritarian brute.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i would never carry a donor card, and if this legislation is passed i will definitely opt-out.
i dont want those surgeons slicing into me before i passed away.

I carry one. No problem.

You are more likely to need an organ transplant than be asked to give one.


I have one relation who is only alive today because of a transplant and another who died needing one.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I carry one. No problem.

You are more likely to need an organ transplant than be asked to give one.


I have one relation who is only alive today because of a transplant and another who died needing one.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with that as all parties decisions were made voluntarily and freely.

That is not the issue in this thread.

skooterblue2

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i would never carry a donor card, and if this legislation is passed i will definitely opt-out.
i dont want those surgeons slicing into me before i passed away.

Something like this has already happened in the state with trialing Vaccines and medical trials in Childrens homes in Ireland. Why would now be any different. Who safe guards the homeless once their bodies enter the morgue or if they are on life support? Most of those poor souls are dead by 40 from various conditions.

Ariadne

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

So many lies in your post.

Not enough donors? Not my problem. Yours yes; mine, not now, maybe someday. Your problem doesn't grant you the right to assume I want to give my lungs to you if I'm questionably "brain dead" and the Government to legislate to assume I do. Where did you get such a hubristic notion into your head?

Secondly, brain death is an entirely questionable medical concept. Why should I be mandated by legislation into a scheme based on a questionable and arguable concept of preliminary death only around since the late 1960s arising from the first heart transplant?

Thirdly, if someone has not made any formal decision during their lifetime, then it is assumed they do not wish to donate. How arrogant of you to assume that their wishes are "unknown". They didn't want to give to you. The end.

Fourthly, we are not now being asked to choose "either way"; we're being mandated into a scheme by stealth with a very questionable and uncertain "opt out" as to how it will be applied.

If you need organs and can't find them, go to a country where organ sales are legal such as Iran, and pay.

And no, I'm not going to apologise on here for being tough with you.

The legal stakes for public safety are simply too high.

So many lies in your post I find. I also find your lack of empathy incredibly odd. So, the lack of donors is my problem and not yours so you have no interest in donating your organs to save others because that's ''their'' problem? That's an incredibly selfish point of view, and then you call me hubristic. Regardless of ''my'' problem, Cystic Fibrosis that is, I would be an advocate of organ donation, I know this because I wasn't diagnosed until I was fourteen but my mother has a donor card and explained to me why she had one and I told her of my wishes before I was even diagnosed. So this isn't just about me having a horse in the race, though it's obviously far more important to me than it should be to you. You can still opt out. No one is enforcing anything. Is it hubristic to say that you don't know what someone's wishes are when they haven't told you? No, it's not. Why is not making your wishes known = no consent? Anyway, it's still up to the next of kin, but this way they know your wishes and can make the right decision for you.



I'm going to go with medical science on brain death, and not you. Once again, if you have issues, opt out. Problem solved.



You are being asked to choose either way. At the moment you are automatically being opted out, in future you'll be automatically opted in, and if you don't like it then OPT OUT. Christ.



I'd never pay for an organ, even if I did have the money, which of course I don't, haven't exactly had a high flying career while my lungs deteriorate, but that's my problem, not yours :rolleyes:

gctest50

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i would never carry a donor card, and if this legislation is passed i will definitely opt-out.
i dont want those surgeons slicing into me before i passed away.

You will be passed away

At that stage, it's like towing a car that has a blown engine

batgoat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with that as all parties decisions were made voluntarily and freely.

That is not the issue in this thread.

And you can opt out... So get over it, there's a reason why advocacy groups for illnesses have been campaigning for this. It's not because of some evil organ harvesting plot. It's because people rarely opt in for organ donation, it doesn't cross their mind and their families have no clue where they stand on it. It's laziness, so now the setup is moving to a fairer system where people opt in to not donate.

If you feel passionately, say it. Even tell your family members cause the next of kin stance is given priority in both the current system and the next system. Even if you didn't officially choose not to donate, your family can say. So evil organ harvesting agenda is nonsense.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I carry one. No problem.

You are more likely to need an organ transplant than be asked to give one.


I have one relation who is only alive today because of a transplant and another who died needing one.

a very close relative of mine living in London, suffered a brain hemorrhage and was on life support.
once the medical staff became aware she was carrying a donor card, the family came under immediate pressure to hit the switch, which they duly did.

it's human nature. hospitals are under intense pressure also.

kittensmittens

lan wrote: »

Well, there was one thing wrong with it, we don’t have enough donors to meet the needs of all the sick people waiting on a transplant...

There may very well be a reason for this.

I have been an organ donor over 20yrs. A couple of years ago I watched an programme (I cant remember if it was RTE or BBC but it was either an English station or an Irish one) about organ donation here in Ireland. I was floored to find out that a huge amount of the organs donated here leave the country to be given to other people from different countries)
While I'm totally aware that we have a "medical exchange" system with the EU, the figures just didnt add up it was something like 75% that leave.
I have to admit that made me uncomfortable tbh. And I get there may not be a match etc here, yada yada, why waste the organ yada yada, but something about it just felt like a "market" to me.
I have to say, I dont support this scheme.

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Not enough donors? Not my problem. Yours yes; mine, not now, maybe someday. Your problem doesn't grant you the right to assume I want to give my lungs to you if I'm questionably "brain dead" and the Government to legislate to assume I do. Where did you get such a hubristic notion into your head?

Well, that's clearly not true, the government does have the right to bring in legislation assuming you want to donate unless told otherwise, hence this thread.

Hubristic? This is literally legislation the government are bringing in.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Secondly, brain death is an entirely questionable medical concept. Why should I be mandated by legislation into a scheme based on a questionable and arguable concept of preliminary death only around since the late 1960s arising from the first heart transplant?

You're not being mandated. OPT OUT.

Also, are you trying to imply that brain death is on sketchy grounds because it's a relatively new concept? Have you any idea how far medicine has come in the last 100 years?

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Thirdly, if someone has not made any formal decision during their lifetime, then it is assumed they do not wish to donate. How arrogant of you to assume that their wishes are "unknown". They didn't want to give to you. The end.

That sword cuts both ways.

How arrogant of you is it to assume they didn't want to donate?

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Fourthly, we are not now being asked to choose "either way"; we're being mandated into a scheme by stealth with a very questionable and uncertain "opt out" as to how it will be applied.

Again, you are not being mandated. OPT OUT.

If you're worried about the logistics of opting out, just tell your family your wishes!

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If you need organs and can't find them, go to a country where organ sales are legal such as Iran, and pay.

Jesus, is this what it's come to? :rolleyes:

I'm not dignifying that with a rebuttal.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

And no, I'm not going to apologise on here for being tough with you.

The legal stakes for public safety are simply too high.

And then you try to frame your argument as one of public safety. They are bringing this in precisely to benefit public health and society!

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

So many lies in your post.

The irony! And you probably don't even see it.

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

Well, that's clearly not true, the government does have the right to bring in legislation assuming you want to donate unless told otherwise, hence this thread.

Hubristic? This is literally legislation the government are bringing in.



You're not being mandated. OPT OUT.

Also, are you trying to imply that brain death is on sketchy grounds because it's a relatively new concept? Have you any idea how far medicine has come in the last 100 years?



That sword cuts both ways.

How arrogant of you is it to assume they didn't want to donate?



Again, you are not being mandated. OPT OUT.

If you're worried about the logistics of opting out, just tell your family your wishes!



Jesus, is this what it's come to? :rolleyes:

I'm not dignifying that with a rebuttal.



And then you try to frame your argument as one of public safety. They are bringing this in precisely to benefit public health and society!



The irony! And you probably don't even see it.

Opting out is not the answer. You should not have to "opt out" in the first instance. I have explained that to the death.

Your argument is akin to that of a man who rapes a woman and then proclaims that she consented because he managed to muffle her screams.

Wheres Me Jumper?

and dont forget any aspiring transplant surgeon will be very eager to perform as many transplants as possible, as that is the best way to further their career.

human nature can be a strange thing depending on which side of the (operating) table you are on

TheChizler

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Your argument is akin to that of a man who rapes a woman and then proclaims that she consented because he managed to muffle her screams.

An actual accurate simile would be stopping when she says no, but I have issues with comparing such a fantastic way to help someone to rape.

TheChizler

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

and dont forget any aspiring transplant surgeon will be very eager to perform as many transplants as possible, as that is the best way to further their career.

human nature can be a strange thing depending on which side of the (operating) table you are on

You realise that the surgeon has nothing to do with securing a doner even in the incredibly unlikely event of the doner and recipient being in the same hospital?

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

lan wrote:

Inalienable rights? You think that default non-consent to organ donation is an inalienable right? You're sorely mistaken, as proven by numerous other forward thinking countries around the world, and soon also ourselves.

Look at your last paragraph. That reveals you for what you are.

You don't respect my choice.

You don't respect bodily autonomy.

You don't respect the age-old principle of informed consent.

You don't believe anyone has the right to choose on this issue.

For gods sake. I have repeatedly told you I respect your choice and your decision to not donate. It's completely up to you. Same goes for your bodily autonomy.

Informed consent isn't necessary here, you're dead.

Everyone has the right to choose, you can opt out! You're just spouting lies now.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You Sir, are an authoritarian brute

:p

Mrs Shuttleworth

TheChizler wrote: »

An actual accurate simile would be stopping when she says no, but I have issues with comparing such a fantastic way to help someone to rape.

There's no difference when informed consent is not obtained and the bodily violation occurs by stealth.

Save that alleged rapists will face the brunt of law and doctors protected by law will never face criminal prosecution (even if they break such law) and the hospitals free to enter into commercial arrangements with third parties to profit from the organs.

Anyone who falls for this, is an idiot.

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

For gods sake. I have repeatedly told you I respect your choice and your decision to not donate. It's completely up to you. Same goes for your bodily autonomy.

Informed consent isn't necessary here, you're dead.

Everyone has the right to choose, you can opt out! You're just spouting lies now.



:p

Maybe the concept of "brain dead" is real after all.

Ken.

Mod- Mrs Shuttleworth do not post in this thread again. You have taken this thread in a horrible direction with your rape analogies.

lan

Mod edit-Please don't quote Mrs Shuttleworth, S/he can't reply and its not fair.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Grinchbot wrote: »

Mod- Mrs Shuttleworth do not post in this thread again. You have taken this thread in a horrible direction with your rape analogies.

Mod-Banned

TheChizler

I don't think you're expressing a genuine opinion here; you just compared donating organs when either your family, or both you and your family, have given explicit consent, to rape. Those are the only cases it would happen in, if you try to twist that I wouldn't be able to take your post seriously.

Wheres Me Jumper?

TheChizler wrote: »

You realise that the surgeon has nothing to do with securing a doner even in the incredibly unlikely event of the doner and recipient being in the same hospital?

i'm sorry but they are effectively part of the same system.
a system that actively promotes and encourages donor "participation".

runawaybishop

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i'm sorry but they are effectively part of the same system.
a system that actively promotes and encourages donor "participation".

We have that now though. Just opt out.

batgoat

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i'm sorry but they are effectively part of the same system.
a system that actively promotes and encourages donor "participation".

Meanwhile you're trying to warp people donating their organs into some nefarious agenda...

Wheres Me Jumper?

runawaybishop wrote: »

We have that now though. Just opt out.

Absolutely i intend to do so.

as an aside, an out-law of mine just got a new kidney. a greater gob****e you will likely never meet this side of of the Kathmandu. when i think of all the lovely great people i once knew who are now deceased ....:(

skooterblue2

TheChizler wrote: »

You realise that the surgeon has nothing to do with securing a doner even in the incredibly unlikely event of the doner and recipient being in the same hospital?

Of course money has nothing to do with it?
Then how do you explain how a seasoned alcoholics like Larry Harman and George Best got donor livers? You dont think Brian Lenihan Senior didnt push to get a new pancreas? Same with Steve Jobs.

Money talks. Stem cell technology is still far away from being perfected according to my Dentist as of last year. There is no problem growing it in a lab but there is uncontrolled cell division after that. Growing tissue is not a problem.....organs a while away.

Wheres Me Jumper?

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Of course money has nothing to do with it?
Then how do you explain how a seasoned alcoholics like Larry Harman and George Best got donor livers? You dont think Brian Lenihan Senior didnt push to get a new pancreas? Same with Steve Jobs.

Money talks. Stem cell technology is still far away from being perfected according to my Dentist as of last year. There is no problem growing it in a lab but there is uncontrolled cell division after that. Growing tissue is not a problem.....organs a while away.

i'm not sure if money actually changing hands has much to do with it tbh, but doctors prefer treating living people with a chance of making a full recovery. keeping a person on life support is hugely expensive.
i do wonder though if Michael Schumacher had been an ordinary joe in an ordinary hospital, would his machine be still switched on?

lan

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Of course money has nothing to do with it?
Then how do you explain how a seasoned alcoholics like Larry Harman and George Best got donor livers?

No idea. Maybe they went on the list like everyone else and just got lucky. Maybe their whole system was rigged. However it happened, it wasn't over here in our country, so it hardly matters for this argument.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You dont think Brian Lenihan Senior didnt push to get a new pancreas?

Maybe he did, but it wouldn't have got him very far for a few different reasons. There's no way the HSE would have been corrupt enough to pull strings like that. All it would take is one leak, one whistleblower and there'd be a total ****storm. That's irrelevant in his case anyway, by the time pancreatic cancer gets diagnosed, it's normally spread throughout your entire body and a pancreatic transplant wouldn't do you any good anyway.

TheChizler

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Of course money has nothing to do with it?
Then how do you explain how a seasoned alcoholics like Larry Harman and George Best got donor livers? You dont think Brian Lenihan Senior didnt push to get a new pancreas? Same with Steve Jobs.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, surgeons are bribing the donor service so they can practice transplants on their patients? I'm trying to connect the dots here.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i do wonder though if Michael Schumacher had been an ordinary joe in an ordinary hospital, would his machine be still switched on?

Do you have an idea of the level care he needs? That's an incredible assumption on your part.

There are regular news articles about regular people being on life support in hospital for years, but what had this to do with an opt out system?

jackofalltrades

Succubus_ wrote: »

Not enough donors is the only answer I need.

You're getting into "the ends justify the means" territory with this though. I wonder if this type of system would still be proposed even there was high levels of opting in.

Succubus_ wrote: »

However, I have a problem with the opt in system because so many people never consider organ donation either way and their next of kin are left to make a decision not knowing what their wishes are.

Yes but from my understanding of this current situation next of kin would only be asked if an organ donor card was found or the organ donor box was ticked on their drivers licence.
So next of kin would know that the person thought about it and made a decision.

This legislation ensures that they make a decision either way so their next of kin are aware of their decision.

It doesn't though. The state makes the decision. The next of kin have no way of knowing if the person is a)aware that this has happened and b) actually agrees with it.
The move to an opt-out system will create more confusion for the next of kin.

lan

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You're getting into "the ends justify the means" territory with this though.

The problem with the ends justifying the means is when 'the means' are in some way negative or morally wrong. I don't think organ donation is a negative thing, neither do I think assumed consent for donation is negative.

skooterblue2

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i'm not sure if money actually changing hands has much to do with it tbh, but doctors prefer treating living people with a chance of making a full recovery. keeping a person on life support is hugely expensive.
i do wonder though if Michael Schumacher had been an ordinary joe in an ordinary hospital, would his machine be still switched on?

You hold doctors, dentist and nurses (and such) in incredibly high regard........ try hanging around with a few of them. They have all the morals of a Boston hooker. Crank out a few extra prescriptions, rob the medical trolley, bill the HSE for extra treatments, Bill the HSE AND the patient for optical lenses. Run out and be unavailable to testify against a colleague in a malpractice suit.

skooterblue2

lan wrote: »

Maybe he did, but it wouldn't have got him very far for a few different reasons. There's no way the HSE would have been corrupt enough to pull strings like that. All it would take is one leak, one whistleblower and there'd be a total ****storm. That's irrelevant in his case anyway, by the time pancreatic cancer gets diagnosed, it's normally spread throughout your entire body and a pancreatic transplant wouldn't do you any good anyway.

It was paid for in the United States by the VHI, He went on to run for President afterwards.

jackofalltrades

lan wrote: »

The problem with the ends justifying the means is when 'the means' are in some way negative or morally wrong. I don't think organ donation is a negative thing, neither do I think assumed consent for donation is negative.

Do you not think that moving from explicit consent to presumed consent is a retrograde step morally thinking?

stefanovich

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You hold doctors, dentist and nurses (and such) in incredibly high regard........ try hanging around with a few of them. They have all the morals of a Boston hooker. Crank out a few extra prescriptions, rob the medical trolley, bill the HSE for extra treatments, Bill the HSE AND the patient for optical lenses. Run out and be unavailable to testify against a colleague in a malpractice suit.

Paid pharmaceutical company salesmen. Don't trust the majority of doctors.

lan

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It was paid for in the United States by the VHI, He went on to run for President afterwards.

Apologies, I was thinking of Brian Lenihan Junior, not Senior, though in fairness Senior never had a pancreas transplant, it was his liver.