Voluntary opt-out scheme for organ donors

[leviramsey]

Not really, I think people should NOT be opted into a scheme, YOU should be have the right to opt in, NOT opt out!

Fair enough if you think like that. Personally I think people in general are lazy bastards and will mostly do nothing despite not being averse to donating. So in this case those lazy bastards still save lives and people who feel strongly still have the same rights. As for the potential for mixups, I'm sorry but I'd rather it meant someone living rather than the potential to upset someone who's dead anyway - apart from the remoteness of this happening.

How easy is it to opt in?

In Massachusetts, when you apply for a drivers license or ID card (both are issued by the RMV, as they have the infrastructure to handle the identity verification already), you're presented with a paragraph on the form explaining the benefits to society of organ donation with an opt-in check box. That seems to me to be ubiquitous enough to allow anyone who wants to donate to donate.

I'm sure there will be safeguards in place to ensure there are no 'mix ups'

This being the same government that had safeguards in place to ensure that a disc of personal information on millions of people wouldn't be lost?

Obligatory disclosure: I am a registered donor, but, like snowychap, I would probably opt out on principle.

[Irish_Villain]

I think no one should be opted into anything automatically. It doesn't matter what it is or what benefits it can bring. If i want to save lives then i will opt in but i think that people having to opt out would be a disgrace.

[nrogers]

I think no one should be opted into anything automatically. It doesn't matter what it is or what benefits it can bring. If i want to save lives then i will opt in but i think that people having to opt out would be a disgrace.

Agreed, the government have no right to denote what happens to YOUR body after death, it sets a very worrying precident!!

[chrissmith921]

Organ donation should be mandatory IMO, you should not be able to opt out. When your dead your valuable organs which can save LIVES!!! are either going to be worm food or burnt. What a waste.

Or if you're of a certain, rare tissue type, perhaps doctors may take less care over making sure you survive your RTA to save 10 others with your liver, kidneys etc?

If you want a conspiracy theory - thats one right there!

[ianrobo1]

the problem is Nick is that when even a person has a donor card the relatives become all precious over the body.

sorry but this is an excellent idea, many people's lives can only be improved by this and put yourself into a position where say you need a liver transplant and you are told there is a 6 month waiting list because of a lack of supplies ...

people can opt out and thus if the publicity around it is right no-one shoudl surely sdisagree with this

[nrogers]

sorry but this is an excellent idea

No it's not, it's my body, and the government has no right to decide what happens to it, if I want to donate, it's my right to opt in, it's not the government right to demand it.

What's next? The government deciding how long we live for? A shite idea and one I would protest about!!

[Irish_Villain]

I think no one should be opted into anything automatically. It doesn't matter what it is or what benefits it can bring. If i want to save lives then i will opt in but i think that people having to opt out would be a disgrace.

Agreed, the government have no right to denote what happens to YOUR body after death, it sets a very worrying precident!!

Bit by bit it's being forced in.

Everyone will have an ID card, all our DNA will be on record, we won't be able to walk 2 steps without our movement being recorded on CCTV or by satellite. George Orwell's prediction is tame in comparison to what's really going to happen.

[Gringo]

Having not read all the thread, but doesn't your body belong to the state upon death?

[Bazdavies79]

sorry but this is an excellent idea

No it's not, it's my body, and the government has no right to decide what happens to it, if I want to donate, it's my right to opt in, it's not the government right to demand it.

What's next? The government deciding how long we live for? A shite idea and one I would protest about!!

That's an odd analogy. I'd love to hear an explanation of how it fits into our discussion lol.

Nobody is telling anybody they must do anything, no rights are being lost because you can opt out.

All that's happening is a change in the presumption for people who do nothing from a 'no I don't want to donate' to a 'yes I'd be happy to save a life'. Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, but I think that is where your beef is, you believe as a point of principle it should be the other way around.

Whatever angle I look at it from I still believe your wrong and I haven't read a compelling argument in this thread to make me change my mind, because as I said, no rights are being lost and lives will be saved. So the point of principle argument is all that the people opposed have got.

My only concerns are with the homeless, mentally ill and disabled. People who might be incapable of opting out for some reason.

[ianrobo1]

thing is most people don;t mind giving their organs, after all when we die we either get burnt or eaten

If some poor person can have a better life after I die then my years on this planet will be worth it

[snowychap]

sorry but this is an excellent idea

No it's not, it's my body, and the government has no right to decide what happens to it, if I want to donate, it's my right to opt in, it's not the government right to demand it.

What's next? The government deciding how long we live for? A shite idea and one I would protest about!!

That's an odd analogy. I'd love to hear an explanation of how it fits into our discussion lol.

Nobody is telling anybody they must do anything, no rights are being lost because you can opt out.

All that's happening is a change in the presumption for people who do nothing from a 'no I don't want to donate' to a 'yes I'd be happy to save a life'. Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, but I think that is where your beef is, you believe as a point of principle it should be the other way around.

Whatever angle I look at it from I still believe your wrong and I haven't read a compelling argument in this thread to make me change my mind, because as I said, no rights are being lost and lives will be saved. So the point of principle argument is all that the people opposed have got.

My only concerns are with the homeless, mentally ill and disabled. People who might be incapable of opting out for some reason.

My main beef with the idea is that it infuriates me that anyone has the arrogance to 'presume consent' from me for anything.

Yes, I have the 'right' to opt out. I think we also have the right to sovereignty over our own consent and rather than having to withdraw it, we should have to give it.

It is something which seems to be creeping in to society in many areas (e.g. marketing / data sharing clauses).

I think that any idea of presumed consent is an example of a lack of consideration for an individual and a lack of decency and manners.

I also believe that the lack of donors and donor organs is not good but that the way to address that is not to increase the subservience of the individual to society (or to influence the presumption that an individual's main purpose is to benefit society).

[Jon]

Fully behind the idea, for the reasons outlined by Bri, ml1dch et al.

Much, much bettre/more beneficial to wider society than the current system.

A few poeple/groups mught not be in favour, but i thinmk the vast majority of citizens will back this.

It will save lives, at the end of the day.

[Bazdavies79]

My main beef with the idea is that it infuriates me that anyone has the arrogance to 'presume consent' from me for anything.

But this is not just anything, it saves lives.

Yes, I have the 'right' to opt out. I think we also have the right to sovereignty over our own consent and rather than having to withdraw it, we should have to give it.

I think doing it the other way around will save lives, no brainer. As you said, you can opt out.

It is something which seems to be creeping in to society in many areas (e.g. marketing / data sharing clauses).

I agree with you on that point about personal data. But you cannot lump personal privacy in with something like this and use it as an example of why opt out organ donation should not happen.

I think that any idea of presumed consent is an example of a lack of consideration for an individual and a lack of decency and manners.

I also believe that the lack of donors and donor organs is not good but that the way to address that is not to increase the subservience of the individual to society (or to influence the presumption that an individual's main purpose is to benefit society).

Again it will save lives and nobody is being forced to do anything. The opt out option is there and I think it's a healthy caring society which presumes people want to help.

[El Zen]

I think it's an excellent idea that should set a norm for other countries to follow.

For me it is obvious that if the worst should happen, it would be comforting to know that my organs could save someone's life. As it happens, I always forget to register (though I have given very clear instructions to my parents), so I am a good example of why the system should be changed.

[tonyh29]

why not allow Human stem cell work and we can grow as many new organs as we like

I'm not a donar at the moment , it's not something I've really given any thought to ... I know my wife would be unable to contemplate the idea of bits of me being cut out after my death though .....

Just wondered though if people opt out , should they be excluded form receiving any donor organs in the event they needed them later in life for any reason ?

[R.I.C.O.]

No its not. Apart from things which religious loonies might say, you can't take it with you when you die. When I am no longer of this mortal coil the NHS can have it all as far as I care - fat chance it'll do me when I'm dead!

[snowychap]

I think it's an excellent idea that should set a norm for other countries to follow.

For me it is obvious that if the worst should happen, it would be comforting to know that my organs could save someone's life. As it happens, I always forget to register (though I have given very clear instructions to my parents), so I am a good example of why the system should be changed.

I disagree.

You are not a good example of why the system should be changed.

You are a good example of why the present system isn't working (I'm not having a go btw).

There is a fundamental difference.

[snowychap]

I think it's a healthy caring society which presumes people want to help.

I don't think an opt out system exemplifies a society that presumes people want to help.

It is a society that assumes that it will never get the required number of organ donations by a voluntary method and therefore thinks it has to come up with an alternative solution by which to attempt to satisfy the demand.

If indeed we were in such a healthy, caring society where people wanted to help then our blood banks would not be nearly dry and we would have a national register of a large enough number of volunteer organ donors.

And if surveys are truly representative and 90% would be willing to donate organs but only 25% have registered as donors then get the other 65% to register. Why should we arse around changing a law when all we need to do is manage the current system more effectively. That would save lives.

[Gringo]

And if surveys are truly representative and 90% would be willing to donate organs but only 25% have registered as donors then get the other 65% to register. Why should we arse around changing a law when all we need to do is manage the current system more effectively. That would save lives.

Good point - why not add it as a tick box to the electoral roll, if you want to donate, tick this box. The companies that manage access to the online versions of this data could then charge a very small amount to check a persions wishes. (would also require the addition of date of birth to the electoral roll, which is currently only held for those who are 17-18, but not overly onerous a task).

[snowychap]

And if surveys are truly representative and 90% would be willing to donate organs but only 25% have registered as donors then get the other 65% to register. Why should we arse around changing a law when all we need to do is manage the current system more effectively. That would save lives.

Good point - why not add it as a tick box to the electoral roll, if you want to donate, tick this box. The companies that manage access to the online versions of this data could then charge a very small amount to check a persions wishes. (would also require the addition of date of birth to the electoral roll, which is currently only held for those who are 17-18, but not overly onerous a task).

Not a bad idea but considering the turnout for elections isn't much better than the number registered as donors I'm not sure it would help.

Actually, I now have a picture in mind of lots of mobile 'donation' vans at the back of polling stations. Just for those who may have voted 'incorrectly'. :winkold: