Organ Donation: Opt Out?

[Fierce_LiNk]

I caught a debate this morning on BBC 1's "The Big Questions" about the subject of organ donation. The discussion revolved around a proposed system of "presumed consent" where everyone is automatically "opted-in" unless you explicitly state that you want to "opt out". 

Some more details can be found here. 

My personal opinion is that I believe organ donation to be a good thing and I was initially in favour of "everyone is in unless you decide to opt-out". But now, I'm not sure. The idea of "presumed consent" doesn't quite sit right with me. I still believe that organ donation is a good thing and I've not heard a good enough argument to go against that, but I'm slightly dubious about the "everyone in" method of consent.

 

 

[Iun]

I think there are religious reasons that automatically should be put in the category of "Opt-Out" - IIRC Judaism and Islam require the complete body untouched for burial? I could be wrong on that one.

 

But I'm relatively ambivalent on this, generally speaking.

[bob]

I think it's a good thing, but they need to have an extensive campaign of letting everyone know that the law has changed, and an easy way to opt out.

Personally, I think what happens to your body after you die doesn't matter, and if you can help others with your left-over warm meaty parts, then great. But I do see how it could be upsetting for others, especially if they were unaware the law had changed and they could have done something about it.

So yeah, make sure everyone knows, and let people opt out easily, but hopefully there'll be lots of good juicy organs for everybody!

[Rummy]

I've seen this debate pop up quite regularly over the last few years (notably on The Wright Stuff, one of my guilty pleasures) - I'm personally quite in favour of an everyone in unless otherwise said - just make it obvious or maybe something you can opt out of at voting age etc. If it's national then can easily work it into a PSHE agenda and do the forms there even?

One gets me is that some families actually manage to overrule the wishes of the deceased to stop organ donation. Personally if any part of my body can be used after my death to nurture further life then I'm more than behind it. Unlikely though, given how much abuse I've subjected my organs to

[Goafer]

When renewing my driver's licence a few years back, they were already doing this. On the form, it said I would be opted in by default. I checked that my family were ok with it first, which they were, so I didn't opt out.

That said, I don't like that by default, someone (presumably the NHS?) can just help themselves to your body when you die. It just seems wrong that it's now the default. Ultimately, your body is your property (and arguably the most important thing you own) and to me, consent should be given to use it. Having to tell someone not to, otherwise they'll help themselves isn't how consent works for me.

I think the best way is to just send out letters to everyone asking if they want to be an organ donor, whilst still keeping the dafault as yes. Combine it with a campaign on TV etc to make people aware that if they don't return the letters, they'll be opted in.

Maybe that's what is happening. I dunno. All I know is that it doesn't affect me as I'm already opted in.

[Eenuh]

I think I'm in favour of a system like this. Apparently Belgium has had it since 1986 (something I was unaware of, or maybe forgot). The way it works in Belgium is that everyone over 18 will have presumed consent, however you have the option to let the authorities know that you are in or out. This information will then be collected in a database, which hospitals can check in case something happens to you.

If you never explicitly said you are in, your family can still object to organ donation. However if you did register that you opt in or out, that wish will (normally) be followed, and the family might not have a say in it anymore. Apparently you can also have told your GP or doctors or something about your decision without registering, as an informal way of letting them know. Though the formal way seems the best way, and quite easy (I just ticked the box when I needed to get my new identity card).

I don't see how a similar system wouldn't work in the UK, as long as people are informed about it and it is easy for people to opt-out or specifically say they are in (so their family can't just veto it).

[bob]

I think I'm in favour of a system like this. Apparently Belgium has had it since 1986 (something I was unaware of, or maybe forgot). The way it works in Belgium is that everyone over 18 will have presumed consent, however you have the option to let the authorities know that you are in or out. This information will then be collected in a database, which hospitals can check in case something happens to you.
If you never explicitly said you are in, your family can still object to organ donation. However if you did register that you opt in or out, that wish will (normally) be followed, and the family might not have a say in it anymore. Apparently you can also have told your GP or doctors or something about your decision without registering, as an informal way of letting them know. Though the formal way seems the best way, and quite easy (I just ticked the box when I needed to get my new identity card).
I don't see how a similar system wouldn't work in the UK, as long as people are informed about it and it is easy for people to opt-out or specifically say they are in (so their family can't just veto it).

I wonder if Belgium has drastically lower waiting lists for organ transplants?

[Jonnas]

How it works in Portugal is similar to Belgium, but we've only had for... 12-15 years, I think. And I don't think the family has any choice in the matter (at least when it was first introduced, they didn't).

I think it makes perfect sense. If, in case of tragedy, my body can help save someone else's life, then yeah, do it. People don't really think of what might happen upon death, and just live their lives without ever thinking of the choice to donate organs in case of an accident. Even those of us who'd be totally on board with donating don't think about it much enough to choose, so it makes sense to make the default option the one that saves some lives. And it's not mandatory, you can always opt out for whatever reason.

I also find it amusing that this system has the potential to guilt-trip those on the fence ("Do you wish to opt out of a program that saves lives?").

[Fierce_LiNk]

On ‎26‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 11:05 AM, Rummy said:

I've seen this debate pop up quite regularly over the last few years (notably on The Wright Stuff, one of my guilty pleasures) - I'm personally quite in favour of an everyone in unless otherwise said - just make it obvious or maybe something you can opt out of at voting age etc. If it's national then can easily work it into a PSHE agenda and do the forms there even?

One gets me is that some families actually manage to overrule the wishes of the deceased to stop organ donation. Personally if any part of my body can be used after my death to nurture further life then I'm more than behind it. Unlikely though, given how much abuse I've subjected my organs to

I was thinking about this the other day when relating it to voting age. Couldn't they do it so that when you register to vote, you also register your wishes to opt in/out/give consent? I'm all for organ donation and can't think of a specific reason against it. But, the concept of presumed consent is a tricky one, imo. I feel that it's right to still gain the consent of the donor, because they should be given a choice. But at the same time, the education needs to be better to enable them to "want" to make that choice. 

How that choice is made is what I think needs sorting out. I think I recall ticking a box (organ donation consent) when I had to renew my driving licence? 

 

[Jimbob]

I'm all for organ donation, and the "everyone is signed up unless they choose not to" idea.  I'm a organ doner myself, signed up at the earliest chance i could as i believe it's a great thing.  I mean, when i'm gone i'm not likely to need the organs anymore.  As long as they work still.

[Rummy]

On 01/03/2018 at 9:50 AM, Fierce_LiNk said:

I was thinking about this the other day when relating it to voting age. Couldn't they do it so that when you register to vote, you also register your wishes to opt in/out/give consent? I'm all for organ donation and can't think of a specific reason against it. But, the concept of presumed consent is a tricky one, imo. I feel that it's right to still gain the consent of the donor, because they should be given a choice. But at the same time, the education needs to be better to enable them to "want" to make that choice.

Funnily enough I thought exactly the same as I made my post - do it with voting registration! Recheck every once in a while somehow maybe, but carefully avoid tangling the two together too much. However I then thought why not go down the PSHE route as unlike voting it isn't neccessarily a cyclical decision or one that can't be made/changed at any time - having it on a curriculum agenda as a single quick lesson in PSHE seems exactly the sort of useful thing a subject like that could be used for.

 

Edit:forgive me btw when I call it PSHE if it isn't called that these days; I've little to no clue of what the modern day education system is upto at all. Iirc it did at some point have a different name but server still a similar purpose.

[Julius]

1 hour ago, Rummy said:

However I then thought why not go down the PSHE route as unlike voting it isn't neccessarily a cyclical decision or one that can't be made/changed at any time - having it on a curriculum agenda as a single quick lesson in PSHE seems exactly the sort of useful thing a subject like that could be used for.

Edit:forgive me btw when I call it PSHE if it isn't called that these days; I've little to no clue of what the modern day education system is upto at all. Iirc it did at some point have a different name but server still a similar purpose.

Yeah...whilst I agree that PSHCE (that’s what they called it when I left high school a couple of years ago, and still call it, according to my little brother - C is for Citizenship, iirc, if anyone’s wondering) would be a great route to go for raising awareness of such a thing, the whole course becomes a bit of a waste towards the tail end of high school (Year 10/11), focusing almost exclusively on things teenagers “shouldn’t” doing (i.e. drugs and alcohol; sexual education, unprotected sex and the problems that could arise from it; sometimes self harm, depression/anxiety and the like). 

It’s a course that isn’t taken seriously at all, because the people who would typically take it seriously use it as a chance to relax their mind a bit compared to other classes, and the people that such lessons are targeting have likely already partaken in something that they “shouldn’t” have done. 

Things like the above should be added to the long list of things that PSHCE in the later years of high school should, in my opinion, be used for, like financial awareness and stresses, mortgages, loans (student and otherwise), mental well-being, etc. Furthermore, sex education is something that should be taught earlier (as it will likely be taken more seriously, and might actually be able to have an impact), just like the problems with drugs and alcohol, because the demographic taking part in activities relating to these things is, worryingly, only getting younger.

Back to the topic at hand though (apologies for my tangent), I agree that voting registration would probably be the best time to make this available. Desired changes after this could probably be made accessible by means of a simple form at your local GP. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Julius Caesar

[bob]

What are the current laws regarding people under 18? Is it the parents decision?

What about when it becomes opt out? Will the parents still have their final say I wonder?

[Fierce_LiNk]

6 hours ago, Rummy said:

Funnily enough I thought exactly the same as I made my post - do it with voting registration! Recheck every once in a while somehow maybe, but carefully avoid tangling the two together too much. However I then thought why not go down the PSHE route as unlike voting it isn't neccessarily a cyclical decision or one that can't be made/changed at any time - having it on a curriculum agenda as a single quick lesson in PSHE seems exactly the sort of useful thing a subject like that could be used for.

 

Edit:forgive me btw when I call it PSHE if it isn't called that these days; I've little to no clue of what the modern day education system is upto at all. Iirc it did at some point have a different name but server still a similar purpose.

Would it be as simple as a box tick? I assume that you don't need to do anything other than just tick a box saying that you wish to donate your organs in the event of death. So, in that case, maybe doing it with voting registration is the best way. I'm all for it, but I think that you should be given a choice.

As for the issue of family having a say: If the person in question has ticked the box saying that they want the organs donated, then I don't see why a family member would have any right to go against those wishes. When it's the other way around though, where the person doesn't express a desire either way, that's where it gets a bit complicated, imo. 

5 hours ago, Julius Caesar said:

Yeah...whilst I agree that PSHCE (that’s what they called it when I left high school a couple of years ago, and still call it, according to my little brother - C is for Citizenship, iirc, if anyone’s wondering) would be a great route to go for raising awareness of such a thing, the whole course becomes a bit of a waste towards the tail end of high school (Year 10/11), focusing almost exclusively on things teenagers “shouldn’t” doing (i.e. drugs and alcohol; sexual education, unprotected sex and the problems that could arise from it; sometimes self harm, depression/anxiety and the like). 

It’s a course that isn’t taken seriously at all, because the people who would typically take it seriously use it as a chance to relax their mind a bit compared to other classes, and the people that such lessons are targeting have likely already partaken in something that they “shouldn’t” have done. 

Things like the above should be added to the long list of things that PSHCE in the later years of high school should, in my opinion, be used for, like financial awareness and stresses, mortgages, loans (student and otherwise), mental well-being, etc. Furthermore, sex education is something that should be taught earlier (as it will likely be taken more seriously, and might actually be able to have an impact), just like the problems with drugs and alcohol, because the demographic taking part in activities relating to these things is, worryingly, only getting younger.

Back to the topic at hand though (apologies for my tangent), I agree that voting registration would probably be the best time to make this available. Desired changes after this could probably be made accessible by means of a simple form at your local GP. 

PSHE/PSHCE coverage really depends on the school's individual curriculum and attitudes to it. Some schools treat it as a bit of a box-ticking exercises, whereas others will view it as essential to helping to build a well-rounded individual. I don't see any reason why having the subject of organ donation slotted into that curriculum would be a bad idea and I think that education towards this is important to make a more informed decision.

It's interesting because the audience on "The Big Questions" were all for organ donation. There didn't seem to be anyone against it. So, you'd think that there should be a huuuuge donation rate in this country. 

[Fierce_LiNk]

3 hours ago, bob said:

What are the current laws regarding people under 18? Is it the parents decision?

What about when it becomes opt out? Will the parents still have their final say I wonder?

Trying to find some information regarding this.

Found this link here:

Children joining the ODR

Children can join the ODR but their parents or guardians:

• must give consent after they die, or
• until they reach 16 or 18 years old depending on where they die in the UK.

Not sure what happens when it becomes opt out. I'm assuming that parents will have the final say in that situation. Hmm.

 

[Julius]

59 minutes ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

PSHE/PSHCE coverage really depends on the school's individual curriculum and attitudes to it. Some schools treat it as a bit of a box-ticking exercises, whereas others will view it as essential to helping to build a well-rounded individual. I don't see any reason why having the subject of organ donation slotted into that curriculum would be a bad idea and I think that education towards this is important to make a more informed decision.

It's interesting because the audience on "The Big Questions" were all for organ donation. There didn't seem to be anyone against it. So, you'd think that there should be a huuuuge donation rate in this country. 

Oh, I agree. I hope it wasn’t coming across that I was against it, or it being included in a PSHCE course, because I think it absolutely belongs there.

I was just giving my opinion on why it might not just slot straight into the curriculum, because, as you alluded to, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all PSHCE specification (though, arguably, it’s the course that would really need it) which is being applied at every place of secondary education across the country, which means that this - along with many other important things that perhaps should be on the spec. - couldn’t just be slotted in. Though I definitely think that it’s important that education about such an agreement is made apparent, I think that it might be better suited to an assembly format than a classroom-based one. This is, of course, a pretty serious agreement: PSHCE is almost objectively a subject that isn’t treated as seriously as its content might merit, and has many points of relevance for all students to learn from, so I personally don’t think that it’s an optimal environment to learn about the ins-and-outs of such a topic. 

I’m not too surprised at your mentioning of the reaction of The Big Questions’ audience, because I doubt that there will be a large enough portion of the country against it to warrant not having it available as an option. 

[Raining_again]

Maybe this is a controversial opinion....

I think while medicine is not advanced enough to be able to replacate human organs, I feel like it should be our duty to give life to someone in our death.... I mean even if you believe in the afterlife, you ain't taking your body with you and leaving it to rot underground, or burning it doesn't seem sacred to me...

If I have any organs left when i die (unless i get killed in an RTA thats probably not going to happen) I'd happily give EVERYTHING to ensure someone gets their life extended.  Or they can use me for medical studies.  

I dunno if anyone caught the documentary on a few years ago, following a couple of people with various types of cancer who decided to donate their bodies to science... its definitely an eye opening watch. 

[Fierce_LiNk]

22 hours ago, Julius Caesar said:

Oh, I agree. I hope it wasn’t coming across that I was against it, or it being included in a PSHCE course, because I think it absolutely belongs there.

I was just giving my opinion on why it might not just slot straight into the curriculum, because, as you alluded to, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all PSHCE specification (though, arguably, it’s the course that would really need it) which is being applied at every place of secondary education across the country, which means that this - along with many other important things that perhaps should be on the spec. - couldn’t just be slotted in. Though I definitely think that it’s important that education about such an agreement is made apparent, I think that it might be better suited to an assembly format than a classroom-based one. This is, of course, a pretty serious agreement: PSHCE is almost objectively a subject that isn’t treated as seriously as its content might merit, and has many points of relevance for all students to learn from, so I personally don’t think that it’s an optimal environment to learn about the ins-and-outs of such a topic. 

I’m not too surprised at your mentioning of the reaction of The Big Questions’ audience, because I doubt that there will be a large enough portion of the country against it to warrant not having it available as an option. 

Oh no, it didn't come across that way at all. I agree with what you're saying. The assembly idea is an interesting one. Maybe it's a case of actually getting in doctors or educated speakers to go into schools, colleges and other establishments to educate the people. It might not necessarily need a whole week's worth of work, but definitely a 30 or so minute discussion would go a long way. You only need to plant the seed, really. Get it into people's minds and remind them that this is an option.

I do think educating younger people/children is a good step forward, but then there's also a whole big current generation of people out there who are none the wiser. So, I wonder what can be done for them. Maybe there needs to be more coverage on television aimed at discussing the benefits of organ donation. I guess it's something that a lot of people don't think about until you're thrust into a situation where you either need an organ or maybe you get asked a question about donating. 

 

1 hour ago, Raining_again said:

Maybe this is a controversial opinion....

I think while medicine is not advanced enough to be able to replacate human organs, I feel like it should be our duty to give life to someone in our death.... I mean even if you believe in the afterlife, you ain't taking your body with you and leaving it to rot underground, or burning it doesn't seem sacred to me...

If I have any organs left when i die (unless i get killed in an RTA thats probably not going to happen) I'd happily give EVERYTHING to ensure someone gets their life extended.  Or they can use me for medical studies.  

I dunno if anyone caught the documentary on a few years ago, following a couple of people with various types of cancer who decided to donate their bodies to science... its definitely an eye opening watch. 

I didn't catch that documentary, but it sounds pretty interesting. Might try and track it down later.

I don't think it's that controversial a statement, but I do still think that there is a "moral" element to this. I think as soon as we start forcing people to do things with their bodies (whether they're alive or dead), then it's just dangerous territory. Morally, I think humans should help others and I think organ donation is a very generous way to help others in need. But, I still think that you should give your blessing to do so. The choice should still be there. So, from my point of view, it's about giving people the information to want to make that choice. Not necessarily making it for them. 

Morals aside, I think it's a fantastic way to help other people who are in need or even just for the benefit of science. I'm very much for it.

[Raining_again]

1 minute ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

I didn't catch that documentary, but it sounds pretty interesting. Might try and track it down later.

I don't think it's that controversial a statement, but I do still think that there is a "moral" element to this. I think as soon as we start forcing people to do things with their bodies (whether they're alive or dead), then it's just dangerous territory. Morally, I think humans should help others and I think organ donation is a very generous way to help others in need. But, I still think that you should give your blessing to do so. The choice should still be there. So, from my point of view, it's about giving people the information to want to make that choice. Not necessarily making it for them. 

Morals aside, I think it's a fantastic way to help other people who are in need or even just for the benefit of science. I'm very much for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK6MKAZq2v0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSodl2PhZQg

There ye go  

I dunno, I just feel some of these religious nuts who can't even say the word cancer would soon have a change of mind if they were on the other end of it.   

I'm likely jaded because i'm exposed to more of the above mentioned religious nuts than sensible people lol

[MoogleViper]

If somebody opts out of organ donation, should they beautiful lower priority if they're on the organ donor list?