Presumed Consent for Organ Donation

[maxmaximus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximus

 

Will you allow them to burn it, or are you intending to allow microbes and fungi to slowly digest it.

 

 

After everything of any use is taken, they do do with it what ever they wish.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2013 at 20:41 ----------

 

 

I find it odd that people are squeamish about their body parts after death. For instance my partner is happy to have her organs transplanted apart from her eyes. That's just odd to me, she'll not need them when her ashes are being fired over Whitby so I really don't understand her objections.

 

 

But for some reason it’s quite common, many organ donors exclude their eyes.

[Agent Orange]

I'm not so sure about that Which is why I would opt out. I want next of kin to decide when & if it's time to switch off my life support.

 

The NHS are not going to murder you.

[WeX]

 

Don't think that David Cameron et al want your organs but a sick person might.

 

A sick person may want my organs after I have no more use for them, but its my human right to decide if they get them.

 

Why stop there, when I die, I have no need for my assets do I, why not allow the government to take those too and give them to people who may need them.

[taxman]

A sick person may want my organs after I have no more use for them, but its my human right to decide if they get them.

 

Why stop there, when I die, I have no need for my assets do I, why not allow the government to take those too and give them to people who may need them.

 

But your assets don't rot or burn, they get passed on. Unless you haven't provided a will, in which case the government may well take them.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2013 at 20:51 ----------

 

My one concern is that, should I be admitted to hospital after an accident, will they see me (at my age) as someone to be saved or as a set of organs to be harvested?

 

That all depends on whose liver is worse, yours or mine

[L00b]

Even odder is the poster who felt very strongly that no - one with any criminal conviction should be allowed to receive any donor organs.

 

Mean spirited or what?

You can name me in your post, H, I'm not going to dodge from my opinion.

 

So, I'm a meanie?

 

I suppose that's generally in keeping with my character, so will gladly and gratefully accept the compliment

Opt out is much easier and I do think there is a strong moral case for an earlier suggestion that those who opt out should not then be entitled to donated organs themselves. Be prepared to "pay in" to the system or don't expect the benefits if you find yourself needing a donated organ yourself is an entirely reasonable approach to take IMO.

That's eminently fair.

[WeX]

But your assets don't rot or burn, they get passed on. Unless you haven't provided a will, in which case the government may well take them.

 

Only if no heirs can be found. Just because you have no will does not mean the state automatically gets your assets.

 

and your assets can rot and burn. Estates are assets too.

[Daid]

[/b]

Don't wish to be morbid but this is a conversation you need to have NOW so that she is aware of your wishes and won't have to make any decisions should the worst occur.

 

As it stands, when I die no one gets anything unless someone gives the ok so I suppose it's all moot anyway.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2013 at 23:03 ----------

 

The NHS are not going to murder you.

 

Not strictly true is it. Six or seven were believed murdered at Stepping Hill Hosp.

[taxman]

Only if no heirs can be found. Just because you have no will does not mean the state automatically gets your assets.

 

and your assets can rot and burn. Estates are assets too.

 

And? Just because your assets can rot and burn, is that a reason for letting your organs do the same when there are critically ill people waiting for them.

 

Maybe you'd like to have that conversation with the mother of a child that is dying for want of a body part.

 

 

"Why won't you let your body parts save my child after your death?"

 

"Because these assets are my assets and I can do with them how I please"

 

"But my child is dying, she needs a lung"

 

"Well eff off to you because I'm going into the grave with all my parts, even though I'm not religious, I'm just a git"

 

"My child has died, thanks"

[Rampent]

Even my arms are fracked. All my body parts are no use to Bedders aliens. I might as well burn myself. Even my eyeballs don't work right.

[Obelix]

And? Just because your assets can rot and burn, is that a reason for letting your organs do the same when there are critically ill people waiting for them.

 

Maybe you'd like to have that conversation with the mother of a child that is dying for want of a body part.

 

 

"Why won't you let your body parts save my child after your death?"

 

"Because these assets are my assets and I can do with them how I please"

 

"But my child is dying, she needs a lung"

 

"Well eff off to you because I'm going into the grave with all my parts, even though I'm not religious, I'm just a git"

 

"My child has died, thanks"

 

The point is it is - or should be - our right to choose. My body is mine, like my assets. It does not belong to the State and the State should have no right to dare to presume they can do what they like with it. That is up to me.

 

What would have been a better situation would be for someone who is registered to be given an incentive - if you are registered then you or your spouse/children get priority ofr organs if you need them perhaps. Or maybe even some form of tax break, which probably wouldn't need to be that high. I'll bet most people with just a little financial incentive would get off their backsides and register with the donation service.

 

What is horribly wrong is to presume that people will want to do something unless they object. That's the lazy way out, that's the blunt club and it smacks of arrogance and force. IT would be far better to try and understand why people don't register and address that, rather than come in bull footed as they are.