Voluntary opt-out scheme for organ donors

[BOF]

The point worth re-iterating here is that this will only affect the 'mehh' crowd, the ones who weren't bothered either way. Whereas those of us who feel strongly enough will exercise our rights, whether they be to stay on, or come off, any register. It is the lazy mofo's who don't mind being donors who would effectively be added.

Those WITH AN OPINION would not change. They would stay on or they would stay off the register either way.

[snowychap]

But, BOF, my situation would change.

I am currently on the donor's register and, under a system of presumed consent, I would be putting my name on the register of non-donors.

So I think it does affect me.

[BOF]

Well that is strange snowychap. What are your motives for being on it currently, and why would they change ? I presume you would not feel any different towards any recipient of an organ under either system and you would only be spiting 'the man'. Or cutting off your kidney to spite your face

[snowychap]

Well that is strange snowychap. What are your motives for being on it currently, and why would they change ? I presume you would not feel any different towards any recipient of an organ under either system and you would only be spiting 'the man'. Or cutting off your kidney to spite your face

My motives for being on it currently are that I think it is the right thing to do and that I would want any part of my body to be utilised for the good of another whose life it may prolong (though not as part of a cannibal's meal obviously :winkold: ).

I also believe that it is a good thing for everyone to do and that we should spend time and money in trying to educate people that it is of great benefit to those in need of replacement organs, their families and possibly society as a whole.

What I don't like is the attitude of presumed consent.

It's lazy government for a lazy society.

It might just be me being bolshie but there is a fundamental idea behind this that unless you stick your hand up and say so then your organs are someone else's to do with as they please when you pop your clogs.

Are we to have an opt out system for blood donation?

An opt out system to DNA donation for gene therapies?

[BOF]

It might just be me being bolshie but there is a fundamental idea behind this that unless you stick your hand up and say so then your organs are someone else's to do with as they please when you pop your clogs.

I do understand what you are saying, absolutely, and believe me I do tend to go with those views normally.

It's lazy government for a lazy society.

This I slightly disagree with. I would call it clever government for a lazy society. Bear with me. They are actually doing something about it, so it's not lazy per se. I know you'll say they should put more effort into getting people to voluntarily sign up to the existing system, but again I think you are both under-estimating the sheer laziness and apathy of the common or garden slob and under-estimating the benefit the new system would have on people in life-threatening situation without actually diminishing the rights of anyone.

I do understand your reservations, and if my rights were being compromised in any way, shape or form I would be hugely against it, but they're not. And also, if this motivates people to do something - even if it is like you, to remove themselves from the register, and to be in some way 'political' then that might be a fringe benefit too. They might start to take an interest in what affects them.

[Gringo]

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.

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.

Election turnout is a mute point as people still add themselves to the electoral roll as otherwise obtaining credit becomes rather difficult, so I guess you'd get a rather high proportion caught up.

The point worth re-iterating here is that this will only affect the 'mehh' crowd, the ones who weren't bothered either way. Whereas those of us who feel strongly enough will exercise our rights, whether they be to stay on, or come off, any register. It is the lazy mofo's who don't mind being donors who would effectively be added.

Which doesn't address Nick's rather valid point of the govt's inability to manage databases - people who have nay'd have a reasonable chance of being identifed as those who have yay'd. The electoral roll is an existing database, access to it is well managed, and the accuracy is shown to be reasonably proven - otherwise it wouldn't be so widely used by the finance industry.

I now tend to agree with with snowy's assertion that we should first try to improve the current opt-in process rather than move fast forward to an opt-out process. An opinion which is completely opposite to that I held before I read this thread.

[rjw63]

Havent read any of this thread, but I think its a good idea.

Not that any of my organs will be of any use (unless garlic is really as good as they say)

[snowychap]

It's lazy government for a lazy society.

This I slightly disagree with. I would call it clever government for a lazy society. Bear with me. They are actually doing something about it, so it's not lazy per se. I know you'll say they should put more effort into getting people to voluntarily sign up to the existing system, but again I think you are both under-estimating the sheer laziness and apathy of the common or garden slob and under-estimating the benefit the new system would have on people in life-threatening situation without actually diminishing the rights of anyone.

One of the reasons that I think it is lazy government is because I very much doubt that, with the presumed consent system. there would come the financial and infrastructural back up required to get any real benefit.

It is not a necessary corollary of an opt out system that donations increase.

I believe that Sweden has an opt out system and their donation rate is around the same as the UK (and falling, I think).

By all accounts the 'Spanish model' is the leading light of organ donations with about 35 per million population (see UK Transplant website) and it is argued that their figures are more to do with the investment in a change of attitude rather than a change in system.

In fact their increase since the early nineties has been more down to a decrease in the family refusal rate than anything else (from c.27% down to c.15%).

So I stand by the lazy government call because it seems clear that it is how you manage the system that counts and not what the system is.

It would be bloody brill if we could have the UK model - to rival the Spanish model - only based upon an opt in system.

I won't get in to the politicising by-product. :winkold:

Leave that for another time.

And Gringo, thanks for the conversion.

[BOF]

Good chat all the same snowy

[snowychap]

Yes, BOF.

Enjoyed the discussion. :nod:

[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.

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.

Well, that's true, but a system not working and a system needing to be changed - they are kind of related, aren't they?

[Gringo]

Well, that's true, but a system not working and a system needing to be changed - they are kind of related, aren't they?

Indeed. But some times you need a renewal of the system and allowing the people who want to participate full access, ie the organ donor scheme, and in other cases, for example the failed electoral process you need to adpot a slash and burn approach, and a "burn it all down" type style consideration.

If you can amend the system as snowy proposes without amending peoples rights, well thats the way to go.

Q: How many organs do we need?

Q: How far short are we?

Q: So how many more donors do we need to be posititely on the register?

A far more analytical approach to the problem may help us produce the best solution.

[El Zen]

If you can amend the system as snowy proposes without amending peoples rights, well thats the way to go.

Q: How many organs do we need?

Q: How far short are we?

Q: So how many more donors do we need to be posititely on the register?

A far more analytical approach to the problem may help us produce the best solution.

I don't want to get into a big debate about this, and I feel my views have been presented quite well by others, but I have to say I don't agree that the bit in bold is necessarily true about this proposal. Your rights don't really change at all.

[snowychap]

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.

Well, that's true, but a system not working and a system needing to be changed - they are kind of related, aren't they?

I don't think so.

If something is not working, one needs to investigate why and then address those issues.

Take a footy side playing 4-4-2. They are losing every game.

Does it automatically follow that the way to improve their fortunes is to change the system?

No. There has to be a holistic approach. All aspects need to be looked at and the best remedy chosen.

Now, that best remedy might well be a different system; on the other hand it might well be addressing issues to do with the understanding and implementation of the current system. Perhaps some do not realise the way in which they fit in to the current system and the importance of their role.

So apart from the issue that I have with 'presumed consent', I also have a problem with the automatic assumption that when something is not working it is the system which needs changing.

It is an example of the 'paper over the cracks' society where mistakes are rarely acknowledged or admitted to, where people 'work around' problems rather than solve them and where adoption of someone else's 'model' is a substitute for a proper thought process.

As Gringo suggested, complex problems are best served by an analytical approach and I don't think Brown's or Donaldson's proposals are anything other than snap reactions.

[Gringo]

If you can amend the system as snowy proposes without amending peoples rights, well thats the way to go.

Q: How many organs do we need?

Q: How far short are we?

Q: So how many more donors do we need to be posititely on the register?

A far more analytical approach to the problem may help us produce the best solution.

I don't want to get into a big debate about this, and I feel my views have been presented quite well by others, but I have to say I don't agree that the bit in bold is necessarily true about this proposal. Your rights don't really change at all.

Well if you don't want to get a debate about it, why raise the point?

But to move from a an assumption that your organs are not goint to be donated,

to a presumption that they are going to be donated;

would seem like quite a rather drastic change in peoples rights.

Of course there are mechanisms made available where people can opt out, but if that operation is managed as badly as the current one, people will be unaware of those mechanisms and over times the presumption takes hold and the rights are watered down, dissappear and effectively removed.

So if you don't want to get into a debate, ignore the above and address the actual points raised in my post, ie the requirement for an analytical approach, determin how big the problem is, and introduce sensible measures in order to meet those requirements instead of going from black to white in one big jump. This is not a scenario that requires a "burn it all down" approach but one that requires tinkering with.

[El Zen]

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.

Well, that's true, but a system not working and a system needing to be changed - they are kind of related, aren't they?

I don't think so.

If something is not working, one needs to investigate why and then address those issues.

Take a footy side playing 4-4-2. They are losing every game.

Does it automatically follow that the way to improve their fortunes is to change the system?

I didn't say that, though. I only said they were kind of related as in, there's often a relation between the two.

In this case, though, I honestly believe they are. But I'll leave it there as I'm not really ready for a big debate right now. I just think it's a simple and effective way to improve/change/fix/whatever a system that needs to be improved/change/fix/whatever, and I can't see how it breaches any individual rights either.

[leviramsey]

It might just be me being bolshie but there is a fundamental idea behind this that unless you stick your hand up and say so then your organs are someone else's to do with as they please when you pop your clogs.

Not to take this offtopic, but perhaps we have an interesting case where the fringes of the ideological spectrum will not only agree on an action that moderates disagree with, but agree on it for the same reason.

Those of you who have read my [rare] political posts know that I can't remotely be described as Bolshie (for reference sake, my political registration was Libertarian until the party lost ballot status in Massachusetts). And I 100% agree with what my "chilly friend from the other Worcester county" has written in this thread.

If you take the philosophical position that you are merely occupying the constituent parts of your body on loan from the State on the terms handed down by the State (and as evidenced by the very fact that the State proposes this, with the terms of the loan deal unilaterally modifiable by the State with limited notice), unless you actively and publicly take certain actions to prevent this, you open the door to total deprivation of liberty, because ultimately all liberty (and property...) boils down to ownership of the body and the fruits thereof.

Situation: the nation is at war, a war that is expected to last for a very long time and require the sacrifices of multitudes of conscripts. The State decides that it is necessary, in order to save the lives of further multitudes of civilians at home, to have a large fighting force ready for the future. Accordingly, all women of childbearing age are required to have at least one child every 16 months and abortion is completely and totally prohibited. Those women who desire not to follow along must have their names and addresses placed on a public registry, the "Whores Who Do Not Support the State" list. The plan is absolutely defensible if you grant that the State is the ultimate owner of the organs (the uteri, etc. in this case).

Alternatively, such a view might lead to activities/lifestyles that have a perceived greater risk of damaging the value of the organs being singled out for harsh legal treatment, in the interest of increasing the supply of suitable organs and of Saving Lives! Alcohol consumption (at least by those who have not opted out) must be eradicated! Sexual activity outside of one's designated life partner must be outlawed with harsh penalties for the first offense (after all, we must prevent things from deteriorating too much...)! Unhealthy foods must be banned!

If the choice is between a) drinking, *****, and eating a Double Quarter Pounder plus three chicken wraps with ranch dressing, large fries, and a 32 oz. blue Powerade (that meal being probably the only thing I've eaten on at least a third of the past 180 days) every day and saving a hundred people from my grave, well, I'm choosing a) every time.

*: not that I've done any of that in the past 2-plus years, though...

[snowychap]

Great post, Levi.

On a technicality: bolshie, though its political origins are obvious, is generally a word associated with being stubborn,cantankerous and argumentative (in the UK).

Just in case anyone starts putting me in the box of the October revolutionaries. :shock:

[leviramsey]

Great post, Levi.

On a technicality: bolshie, though its political origins are obvious, is generally a word associated with being stubborn,cantankerous and argumentative (in the UK).

Just in case, anyone starts putting me in the box of the October revolutionaries. :shock:

You learn something new every day...

[BOF]

It is a good post Levi BUT it misses a fundamental point in the discussion. The point being that the organs only become property of the state once the person is dead. I also think the idea of conscription and non-voluntary pregnancy is a huge leap to make for a democratic nation and I don't think said party would last very long at all, and I'm not sure those changes are relevant to a discussion about how to dole out the organs of a dead person. Plus the peripheral law changes around your hypothetical conscription scenario DO change the rights of the individual. They REMOVE things we can do from day to day, they force people to do 'a' 'b' or 'c' and again I think that is changing the argument, because it is adding a perceived greater risk to the 'opt out' organ scheme than the one that currently exists.