Should families be forced to donate our organs after we die?

I would not object to my body being 'harvested' for organs once I am dead. What difference could it possibly make to me? If this prolongs someone else's life and enhances the quality of their life, it can't be such a bad thing; can it?

I can't wait to read the reasoned posts from those objecting to this on 'religeous grounds'.

Should families be forced to donate our organs after we die? No, it's against people's human rights.

The debate is irrelevant as you'll never get it past the Muslims or Jews who fundamentally disagree with organ donation on religious grounds.

The system must remain as it is. I, for one, object to the idea that there is a "right" to "harvest" my corpse for spare parts, my objections are not of a religious nature, but rather that I have yet to hear of any of the recipients of organs ever express gratitude only their rights. Those who call for a change in "donation" seem to forget that death has to occur before "harvest" a little compassion might be in order here.

I agree that more people need to donate their organs and there is a shortage, but ultimately it is up to the deceased (having decided before he or she died, presumably) and/or their families what happens to the deceased's organs, and not the NHS or the government or anybody else. Nobody should be assuming that consent has been given - consent should be given before removing any organs.

Whilst my wife and I would happily donate our organs I do believe that the notion of presumed consent is wrong.

For me its a libertarian issue whereby I have the right to be ignored by the state. The state should not be allowed to act in this way unless the individual has affirmed that donation is in line with their wishes

Bring back the death penalty, then simply harvest organs, to order, from prisoners on death row as and when needed.

Seemples!

It works for the Chinese, and allegedly one or two other Nation States around the world, plus you can sell organs which are surplus to requirement to foreigners and reinvest the profits in the NHS

Seemples!

Should families be forced to donate our organs after we die?

Absolutely not. There are religious and many other factors that should be taken into consideration.

What is needed is wider advertising/education regarding why organ donation is so important, but it has to remain an 'opt in', not an 'opt out' option.

Maybe encouraged, but not forced. People often feel better about a free choice and doing something voluntarily, even if that choice is heavily guided. We should not "pay people" for an organ as this could cause further problems, say of addicts trying to donate just to get the money for another hit. The Issue definately needs open and informed debate, as we see an ever increasing rise in problems, and the need to solve those problems and get things back on track over all fields.

A healthy population is a happier and more productive population, and if working hard to ensure organs go where needed when someone does not need them helps achieve a healthier population, then so be it. All avenues should be looked at before rejecting one.

Most certainly NO !! This would be a human rights abuse. We are not property of the state, our bodies belong to us & no one else. I would certainly volunteer to donate, but it must remain my choice. What next, branding babies at birth "Property of HM Government" ???

I agree with an opt out system as long as it is managed very carefully.

However anyone not willing to donate should not receive organs should they need them. This excludes those who are not able to donate due to disease etc.

No. I carry a doner card but the moment any goverment brings in an opt-out policy I will opt out and rip up my doner card

No one is going to con me out of my organs....

I intend to take my offal with me.

If someone wants to donate then I applaud them - but it HAS to be a personal choice to opt in.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could not want their organs to be put to use in saving another human being after they have gone. I'd like the law to allow doctors to take all that they need regardless of the patients wishes. Why let perfectly usable organs rot away and keep a person suffering until a donor comes along?? Utter selfishness.

Nobody should be forced to donate anything but the organ donation list should also be the organ recipient list so that only those who are willing to donate are able to receive.

You could be sent the appropriate forms when you're 18, signing up as a donor would enable you to receive a donated organ should you be in need of them whereas those who decide not to donate would be unable to receive. Obviously there would be exceptions for those people with medical conditions that prevent them from donating organs but everyone else would have to make the choice to either support the system or to opt-out of it.

Nobody should be FORCED to submit to donation of their organs after death.It is morally wrong and totally against the Christian ethic.

I'm in favour of an "opt out" system instead of an "opt in" one for certain.

But why the headline "Should families be forced to donate our organs after we die?"

Families shouldn't be "forced" or even have the power to do anything. In fact, to be brutally honest, it isn't any of their business if a family member wanted to donate or not. If I die, it's my choice if I've opted out or in, not my family's.

If you feel strongly enough to say "It's my body, you have no right to take my organs without my concent" (which I'm sure people here will) then you should feel strongly enough to do what would be required to get yourself of the list.

Why moan if your apathy will prevent you from doing something about it.

"Should families be forced to donate our organs after we die?"

Forced? I shouldn't think so.

There may be a case to try to find some way of forcing everyone over 18 to make a decision as to whether they either wish to be on or off the donor register and to record that decision so that it's available nationally on a computer system. As for under 18s, parental consent should always be required.

I think the "opt out" system would work just fine, if you don't wanna give then just tick a box. I don't think any negative stigma would be attached to those that said no & a lot of people aren't donors because they can't be bothered, or don't know how, to sign up. But then, not being a religious type, I'm incredibly blase about what happens to my earthly remains.

My (slightly morbid) idea is "people powered crematoriums" (I actually considered sending this one to Dave Gorman at genius) The human body holds huge amounts of energy so it must give off the same (or more) when it burns, if we could harness this power it could be used to power the crematorium, giving a cheaper funeral & any excess electricity harnessed could be sold to the national grid so relatives of the deceased could get cheaper bills. Any science bods know if this could work? and could people tell me if this is just too morbid!

The Government are trying to take from us the only thing we truly have and own in the world, our bodies. Say no, our bodies are our own and forcing us to give what is truly ours is the last block in the grand scheme of things, enslaving us forevermore.

I think an opt-out system is a great idea. I assume that if you do opt-out, then you can't then opt back in if you need an organ at a later date. Surely you can't make an active decision to opt out but then 'change your mind' when it suits you.

No questions about it yes - your body ceases to be your own property when you die. As for any religious nutter going on about the "day of judgement" and nonsense like that then the body part will still be available - just somewhere else and on somebody else.

This is an outrageous suggestion. Families should not be forced to do any such thing. Organ donation is a private matter and any kind of compulsion strikes of Stalinism and an almighty State.

There should be an opt out … BUT anyone who has opted out should automatically go to the back of the queue should they become in need of a transplant.

This is one where we can all contribute to the NHS. However some hypocrite’s idea of ‘socialism’ is that everybody else contributes, financially or in other ways, but ‘special’ me never has to put anything into the pot.

Most certainly not! I intend on having my body (and all parts therein) preserved until such a time that I may be resurrected through the wonders of technology.

But what was this earlier in the week about scientists having grown miniature human livers? I'm sure that in a few years we won't have this problem :)

Don't think of organ donations as giving up part of yourself to keep a total stranger alive. It's really a total stranger giving up almost all of themselves to keep part of you alive.

im quite happy for my organs to be used after my death ive carried the card for as long as i can remember what use are your organs when your dead apart from worm fodder isnt it selfish to keep them when you could help save a life or improve someones life

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this, although logically I shouldn't be.

I think it cuts across the grieving period, and this is a very personal time.

Should the system of organ donation remain as it is?

No. I believe that an opt out system would be a better choice. I would include in an opt out system a regular review of those that had opted in or out, to make sure that choices were up to date.

Should there be further debate on the introduction of an "opt-out" system?

Absolutely. Without a period of consultation and debate, there can be no consensus. I wonder if this is a subject that should be decided by a referendum.

Would paying people for an organ encourage more donations?

You need to clarify whether the organ donation is a live one or post mortem. A way of testing this would be to offer payment for bone marrow donation as a pilot, and review the outcome.

Have you or has your family been affected by organ donation issues?

Yes. When I started my career in medicine, I did what was then a house officer post in neurosurgery. I remember all to vividly having to approach families after the diagnosis of brain death, asking their wishes on organ donation. I had had no training in how to do this, and think that had I had had advice on how to do this, I would have been able to ask about organ donation with greater success. I hope that the present incumbents of these posts have had proper tuition in how best to approach families in the acute numbing stage of grief.

The role of Transplant Coordinators may well have supplanted the role of the Junior Doctor in most hospitals, and it is good to see the role they have in supporting families and training doctors as in the following link.

https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Donation/Pages/Transplantcoordinator.aspx

I am happy to donate my organs but never, ever let the right to say no be taken away. My only objection is my organs should not go to an alcoholic or smoker so they can spend a few more years drinking or smoking, there are more people worthy of saving. It's a hard statement I know but a liver or heart going to someone young is far better than an addicted old person, choices have to be made and that would be mine.

23. At 12:59pm on 04 Nov 2010, Graham wrote:
No questions about it yes - your body ceases to be your own property when you die. As for any religious nutter going on about the "day of judgement" and nonsense like that then the body part will still be available - just somewhere else and on somebody else.

===========================
Dont know about you buddy - but my body isnt anyones property....

13. At 12:43pm on 04 Nov 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
No. I carry a doner card but the moment any goverment brings in an opt-out policy I will opt out and rip up my doner card

--------------

Wow, you base your life on spite, i hope no one you love dies while waiting for a transplant.

I also believe there should be an 'opt out' system. Those who do opt NOT to have their organs harvested should be placed firmly at the bottom of any waiting list should they require an organ donation. It disgusts me that there are so many selfish people that wouldn't want to help others in need. Would they change their tune if their child needed a transplant? Would their religious views suddenly change?
I would call these people heartless but that's one of the organs they selfishly hold on to and they're welcome to them.

Two "forced" debates on HYS today. It loos like old policemen can be forced to retire, then forced to hand over their organs when they die.
Although you're all welcome to my parts once I've croaked, I wouldn't want the State to think they can bully folk who might have a sentimental attachment to their own organs.

This system should stay as it is but with more advertising etc. No-ones body belongs to the state.

Also, the fact is that many of the organ transplants carried out in this country are done for visitors from overseas, even though the donor was from here! Shocking, but true.

Anyway, speaking as someone who will possibly need a kidney transplant in future, I don't want just anyone that drops dead in the street kidney. I want to know the person was not an alcoholic, a drug addict and not suffering from any communicable illness's etc.
In answer to another persons commnets:- everyone that receives that a new organ is always very grateful. I know I would be.

17. At 12:50pm on 04 Nov 2010, jaspertab wrote:
Nobody should be FORCED to submit to donation of their organs after death.It is morally wrong and totally against the Christian ethic.

----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, because Jesus would of never of given anything of his up for someone else.

An opt-out system doesn't force anyone to donate. If someone really doesn't want their organs to be re-used, which is entirely up to the person, then they will find the time to opt out of the system.

As it stands, many people wouldn't mind helping out others after they die, but because they aren't on the register through laziness amongst other things, their perfectly usable organs go to waste whilst someone who needs them slowly dies! It's madness.

I'm undecided on the idea that if you opt out then you also cannot receive someone elses organs. Whilst it appeals to me in the sense that it encourages people to stay in the system, it goes against all NHS principles to let some effectively die.

14. At 12:45pm on 04 Nov 2010, sixpackerL wrote:
No one is going to con me out of my organs....
I intend to take my offal with me.
If someone wants to donate then I applaud them - but it HAS to be a personal choice to opt in.

--------------------------------------------------------------

It will be a personal choice, if you choose not to donate then simple get a opt-out card, simples.

Certainly not. One of the many reasons being that George Best wasted both of his transplants and went on with the life style he wanted which was booze. It seemed to me that "celebrities" got priority which should not have been the case, {the selection committee were very much at fault as far as I am concerned} so the organs should have gone to two other people anyway. I for one do not wish for my organs to go to drunkards, drug users, smokers etc so they can carry on with the type of life they chose in the first place.

This is probably going to sound shallow to some on HYS, but I find it strange the way people talk about a corpse having a 'human right' to be kept intact i.e. not having it's organs removed.

I believe the dead DO deserve respect...BUT we do this best by honouring their memory, and NOT by creating a shrine out of their dead body. Even the religious amongst us must accept that the 'soul' is the real human element and that the body is merely a vessel for the soul.

Obviously I don't condone simply discarding a body like rubbish. Having a proper respectful burial or cremation is an important part of the grieving process for the family and friends of the deceased...BUT you can still be respectful even with the organs removed.

You simply have to go back to the point that the dead do not and never will need their organs, and it is an extremely shameful waste to simply bury or burn them when there are so many people who are still alive that can benefit from a transplant.

We best honour the dead by taking care of the living.

My body, my choice.

I happen to be on the organ donor list and carry a card with me. But the very moment 'assumed consent' kicks in, I'll opt out immediately.

How dare anyone 'assumes consent' over the one thing I can always claim ownership over. My own body.

I'm willing to assume that many people who are against 'presumed consent' for organ donation would be quite happy for a surgeon to remove a part of their body if it saved their *own* life (a limb amputation or appendectomy, for example), on the basis of presumed consent.

Perhaps a card should be carried, which communicates that you don't want anything removed from your body (for donation or to save your life) without your express written permission.

I'm a signed up organ and blood donor. As an atheist I believe that my organs are of no further use to me when I die and as such may as well be used to give another person a second chance and spare their family immeasurable grief. Unlike many who will no doubt post to this thread I also disagree with the idea of donations being conditional on someone being of the correct race or cultural background or (more likely) having lived a suitably 'healthy' lifestyle according to the ever-changing rules of the new religion of healthism - instead I accept that as I am myself far from perfect in this regard I have no right to judge, and that every life is precious irrespective of so-called 'vices'.

However this is a personal position, based on my own moral conscience and beliefs and entirely uncoerced. Presumed consent would completely change that, further eroding the relationship between the citizen and State and in fact (as is probably desired) give them even more ammunition with which to badger us about 'unhealthy lifestyles' - after all our bodies would no longer be be our property but in effect, and in the same way as our children have increasingly been redefined in this manner, something we rent from the authorities.

I agree with British Freikorps at #7 that this is a fundamental issue of civil liberties which believers in limits on state influence should overwhelmingly oppose. And like Frankiecrisp at #13 I would almost be tempted to opt out in principle and to spite the Government, as I believe would many others who reject the increasingly pervasive and accepted idea that our bodies are their business. I was under the impression we'd voted against the overbearing compliance state and a big government that considers us, our bodies and our decisions about our own health their concern. Given the continued obsession with 'public health', including a new national register of 'the obese' (what database state?) and a forthcoming White Paper on the same topic, it would appear we were (once again) seriously misled.

I don't think people should be forced to consent to organ donation, regardless of how sensible and socially responsible it may seem to want to donate either one's own organs, or those of a family member who has died.

People are (understandably) sensitive about issues surrounding their own bodies. Sometimes this is down to religious beliefs, and sometimes it's just because people are sentient, emotional beings.

This is why people have the right to refuse medical treatment, and to make decisions about their care. They have the right to eat and drink whatever they like, or to abstain, even if in doing so their health is damaged. They have the right to smoke or not, exercise or not, go skydiving or not.

Regardless of anything else, the one thing you really can't take away from people is the right to have control over what happens to their own bodies, alive or dead. I am not against an opt-out system, but the CHOICE has to be preserved.

"
17. At 12:50pm on 04 Nov 2010, jaspertab wrote:

Nobody should be FORCED to submit to donation of their organs after death.It is morally wrong and totally against the Christian ethic.
"

Hallelujah Brother! You and the lovely Christian O'Donnell would make a great pair. Religion - a curse on mankind.

As human beings we have free will. It is wrong to force anyone to do anything. As in China where one child policy exists - clearly, the situation is becoming urgent. Already the country's population is ageing fast. The first children born under the one-child policy face the prospect of caring for an ever-increasing number of pensioners. China also faces the daunting prospect of many men who can't find wives as many female foetuses have been aborted, resulting in a huge gender imbalance.

Human rights have been taken away from many people and this is dangerous.
Also dead bodies are no use to anyone which begs the question are we sure about donating our organs if we are still alive? No one can come back and tell us once these organs are harvested - just a thought.

22. At 12:58pm on 04 Nov 2010, Hammy02 wrote:
I think an opt-out system is a great idea. I assume that if you do opt-out, then you can't then opt back in if you need an organ at a later date. Surely you can't make an active decision to opt out but then 'change your mind' when it suits you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There in lies the problem and the very reason why the system should not be changed but better information should be made available. It is nothing short of sinister to pass laws determining that once dead your body is the property of the state and theirs to do with as they please.

It is also morally wrong to create an opt-out system with which people who have opted out are then exempted from being recipients of donation should they require.

Ultimately, it is down to better information for all on the benefits to one and all of voluntarily donating as and when they pass away.

One point made, that I do whole heartedly agree with (some might see this as a hypocrisy on my part - ask me if I care?) but I see great benefit to the reintroduction of the death penalty and using those who have been executed as a source of donation. Lets face it, they caused nothing but heartache and trouble when alive, let some good come from putting them to death - not to mention the benefit of the reduction in costs as you're not paying to keep someone in prison for the rest of their lives.

Come on! It’s a win, win situation….

20. At 12:55pm on 04 Nov 2010, RubbishGirl wrote:
"The human body holds huge amounts of energy so it must give off the same (or more) when it burns, if we could harness this power it could be used to power the crematorium, giving a cheaper funeral & any excess electricity harnessed could be sold to the national grid so relatives of the deceased could get cheaper bills. Any science bods know if this could work? and could people tell me if this is just too morbid!"

With the fear of going way off topic, there was a program last night (wallace and gromit's weird inventions" or something) in which a guy had invented a clock powered by dead flys. Apparently 3 flies gave enough power to dive this thing for 12 days from a "biological/bacterial power cell". Imagine what a human body could do!

Now if we're on the subject of donating organs or otherwise it opens up a whole new, if more than slightly gross, idea of giving body parts away for power generation!

15. At 12:46pm on 04 Nov 2010, Cheese And Biscuits wrote:
"I honestly don't understand how anyone could not want their organs to be put to use in saving another human being after they have gone."

Do you honestly believe that your lack of understanding of someone else's point of view would make a terrific basis for legislation? Who are you: a politician?

I cliam the same rights as which some cultures use
i was born whole I will be buried whole
just in case I am reborn again
but if my family need it I would give
willingly

"
27. At 1:12pm on 04 Nov 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:

Don't think of organ donations as giving up part of yourself to keep a total stranger alive. It's really a total stranger giving up almost all of themselves to keep part of you alive.
"

I think of it as a matter of freedom of choice.

Oh, btw I carry a donor card because to me, when I'm dead, I have no use for my body, they can use bits of it or through it is skip, it's all the same with me.

I can't understand why a convicted criminal's right to vote is more of a human rights issue than taxing citizen's organs when they die.

The simple answer is to only allow those with a donor card, who have held it for 5 years, to receive transplants. an exception could be made for those under 18.

The same should apply for blood donations- if you don't put in, you don't take out.

"
29. At 1:20pm on 04 Nov 2010, Sepenenre wrote:

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this, although logically I shouldn't be.

I think it cuts across the grieving period, and this is a very personal time.
"

Look at it this way, one grieving family "may" be able to stop one or more families from grieving as well.

The issue I have is that affects freedom of choice, like the seat belt and crash helmet laws; I always wore a seat belt when driving and wore a skid lid when ridding, before they became compulsory, but to me, people should have the choice.

"
26. At 1:09pm on 04 Nov 2010, R wrote:

Most certainly not! I intend on having my body (and all parts therein) preserved until such a time that I may be resurrected through the wonders of technology.
"

Not thought of being abducted by aliens? I'm sure they could resurrect you and make you immortal, highlander.

Anyone that would hope their child/parent/relative could possibly be saved by an organ has absolutely no right to deny others that opportunity. If you refuse to have a relatives organ donated you should automatically be put on a 'no transplant' list where you are not entitled to receive any organs in the event you become ill.

Once I push off this mortal coil if there's any bits of me that could possibly be used to make the life of someone else better then go for it as they will be no use to me. Whip 'em out and pop me in a wheely bin for all I care.

We all see death as the end but that need not be the case. It could very much be the beginning for someone else. How wonderful the thought that someone I love could bring as much happiness in death to another family as they did to me in life.

"There should be an opt out … BUT anyone who has opted out should automatically go to the back of the queue should they become in need of a transplant."

I don't see why. People who choose to opt out would not be doing anything 'wrong' so why should they be punished? They would be paying the same NI contributions as anyone else, therefore they should be entitled to the same level of treatment.

33. At 1:26pm on 04 Nov 2010, Andy wrote:
13. At 12:43pm on 04 Nov 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
No. I carry a doner card but the moment any goverment brings in an opt-out policy I will opt out and rip up my doner card

--------------

Wow, you base your life on spite, i hope no one you love dies while waiting for a transplant.
------------------------------

His comment is obviously nothing to do with spite as I am sure you were more than aware... His comment, rightly, is based on the growing irritation most people have of the government and other public bodies seemingly assuming that we have no rights to determine our lives and see us as nothing more than harvestable commodities, theirs to do with as they please. His is a reaction to the ever increasing encroachment by nefarious organizations, ever intent on the erosion of our freedoms and he is to be applauded for making such a statement.

The fact that he is already a donor card carrier is testament to his willingness to aid those at the time of his passing or whenever possible. To override that willingness with laws enforcing complicity is nothing short of sinister and should rightly be reviled and treated with the contempt, distrust and unwillingness to adhere it rightly deserves.

Tis your attitude me thinks, that needs to be checked!

Absolutely NO WAY is ANYONE having anything from me. I am not allowed to give my blood to save a life because I am a gay male so I am not giving anything away or allowing my family to do so on my behalf.

What a barbaric idea - no society has the right to harvest the organs from any individual without their expressed permission to do so! What a horrible form of brutality to 'force' a family to donate their deceased relatives for harvesting! Yuk!

Our bodies are made up of atoms on loan to us during our lifetime. Once we die we can no longer claim any kind of ownership over our bodies so an opt-out scheme makes sense. Ideally we wouldn't even need an opt out scheme but we do have to accommode the various crackpot ideas people have about an afterlife.

Looks like the Beeb are over-stating the issue as usual - no is being 'forced' to donate.

Personally I agree with an opt-out system. Most people who are quite happy to have their organs donated, never make the effort to get a donor card. That's what people are like... it's something that can always wait till later.

If you don't want to donate, you can opt out. There's no reason to believe that somehow unfair, unless of course you know that you're just too lazy to opt out. In which case, you can't have a very strong opinion.

I'm strongly against having to choose to have my organs harvested before the event of my death. People always simplify the situation, saying that what does it matter when you're dead? - Well how do you define dead? In most situations, pretty much all the cells in your body are in full working order when you die. Oscillatory death means just that, the pendulums have stopped moving but they are far from "broken". By definition, the oscillatory components (i.e. the organs) have to be in full working condition to be viable for donation. Even with brain death, most of the cells will still be alive; they've just stopped firing. If your were to inject some ATP into them they would begin firing again.

Fair enough, if there's no absolutely no chance of revival then that's as good as being dead. However, the fact is that none of us know what the circumstances of our death will be. I mean, however unlikely, there do exist circumstances where there is OD, brain activity has stopped but there is still chance for revival. What if I end up in a severe hypothermic state, not breathing and my heart won't start? It could take well over an hour before I'm truely non-revivable, are they really going to wait that long if I've agreed to donate my organs beforehand?

Instead of agreeing to something before having any idea of the circumstances, I think there should be a guarantee that a family member will be there to make an unpressured and fully informed decision. Therefore, I think the present situation is fine as it is.

Priority for organ donations should be given on the basis of how proportionally long someone has been on the organ donor register.

I'd have no objection to being 'broken for spares' as it were and am on the register; it's just a shame I can't insist that potential recipients share the same view.

33. At 1:26pm on 04 Nov 2010, Andy wrote:
13. At 12:43pm on 04 Nov 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
No. I carry a doner card but the moment any goverment brings in an opt-out policy I will opt out and rip up my doner card

--------------

Wow, you base your life on spite, i hope no one you love dies while waiting for a transplant


Spite? Ive carried a doner card since I was 16 I am happy to have my organs used all my family know this but I do not agree with this opt-out policy .

20. At 12:55pm on 04 Nov 2010, RubbishGirl wrote:
I think the "opt out" system would work just fine, if you don't wanna give then just tick a box. I don't think any negative stigma would be attached to those that said no & a lot of people aren't donors because they can't be bothered, or don't know how, to sign up. But then, not being a religious type, I'm incredibly blase about what happens to my earthly remains.

Totally agree with you there RubbishGirl. I think a lot of people don't become organ donors due to apathy rather than any strong feelings against it but I don't think anyone should be forced into it if they are strongly against it. BTW, for anyone reading this who is toying with the idea of becoming an organ donor, the online form is really easy to complete :-)

If it is guaranteed they will go first to UK patients who require an organ transplant.

If they are being sold to paying queue jumpers from the UK then no.

If they are being sold or given as priority to overseas patients then no.

It is a disgrace that UK organs were previously donated and sold to countries where there is a shortage because the populace do not agree with donating organs but still require them for transplant.

And my source for this is a freedom of information request raised by an organ transplant charity, so sorry, you can't pin your daily mail tag here.

The 'opt-out'system would appear to be the least contraversial way forward. That way, those opting out on either religious or ethical grounds can be automatically excluded from transplant waiting lists; unless, of course, they have a change of heart (pun fully intended).

13. At 12:43pm on 04 Nov 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
No. I carry a doner card but the moment any goverment brings in an opt-out policy I will opt out and rip up my doner card
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right. Kebab eating is a very personal choice.

Only slightly tongue in cheek but.....

I would like every part of my body,not used for student practice,to end up in a jar somewhere.

If theres nothing left to bury or burn....no robbing undertaker for my family to pay.

"11. At 12:42pm on 04 Nov 2010, Dave Derrick wrote:
Most certainly NO !! This would be a human rights abuse."

Sorry, but you're wrong. Laws cease applying to individuals upon the moment of death, unless specifically drafted for that purpose.

Anyway, if you REALLY don't want to donate, then just tick the box. Genuinely, is that *really* too much to ask?

Much as I think that everyone should donate their organs, nobody should be forced to do it.

I would have a system where people are asked by their GP's when they reach adulthood and that decision remains unless changed by that individual.

The decision can then by easily checked by having all those that agree on a database so there is no delay in harvesting the organs.

Those that object should not be disallowed from receiving organs either, as that would be unethical.

35. At 1:28pm on 04 Nov 2010, Christopher Styles wrote:
Two "forced" debates on HYS today. It loos like old policemen can be forced to retire, then forced to hand over their organs when they die.

------

The more I hear about ageing populations, global over population and yes organ shortages, the more I start wondering if the film 'Logan's Run' may be a more accurate representation of the future than anybody ever thought.

An opt out system has to be right.

I can very well understand that bereaved relatives in the hours immediately after death will find it very difficult to agree to donation, because they are emotionally clinging onto the body as if it were still the living person they loved. There must be an element of "this is all I have left of him/her, I cannot bear to let any part of him/her go".

I understand that, but do bear in mind that organs like the heart,lungs, liver and kidneys tend to deteriorate with age and will be most useful for transplant if the deceased was relatively young and healthy. When relatively young and healthy people die there is very often a post mortem - for example, violent death, death in an accident, sudden or unexpected death are all likely to result in there being a post mortem. This will involve the body being cut open, organs including sometimes the brain taken out and examined, then the whole lot put back together and fastened up.

It seems to me that we should look at the harvesting of organs as a routine necessity at a very sad time, in much the same way as a post mortem.

At 12:33pm on 04 Nov 2010, shendor wrote:

The debate is irrelevant as you'll never get it past the Muslims or Jews who fundamentally disagree with organ donation on religious grounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please check your facts before making ridiculous statements like that please.

Lots of people here saying that those opting out of organ donation should be barred from receiving organs if they needed them.

I think that there'd be some major objections from doctors about this - I very much doubt that such a stipulation would be compatible with the Hippocratic Oath.

39. At 1:31pm on 04 Nov 2010, Andy wrote:
14. At 12:45pm on 04 Nov 2010, sixpackerL wrote:
No one is going to con me out of my organs....
I intend to take my offal with me.
If someone wants to donate then I applaud them - but it HAS to be a personal choice to opt in.

--------------------------------------------------------------

It will be a personal choice, if you choose not to donate then simple get a opt-out card, simples.

============================
NO - it just isnt morally correct to default to a situation where someone can help themselves to body parts.

Take this scenario.
A person with a life threatening injury, mostly likely as a result of a domestic accident according to ROSPA.

Being attended to by a doctor at the lower end of the medical hierarchy (no reflection on that doctors ability).

That doctor is subject to pressure from a most eminent surgeon who views the injured persons body as a parts store.

Will the injured person be declared DEAD while there is still a chance of restoring that person to health?

I would prefer to see an opt-out system, with those who opt out being bottom of the list for donated organs.

I don't know how anyone could live with the rank hypocrisy of refusing to give up any part of themselves but expect to be fixed by another willing donor.

No thanks, if in the future I decide that I would like my organs to go to someone else when I die I would make sure to apply for it.

'presumed consent' is a horrible idea, even with the donor card system in use today things go wrong, look how the NHS managed to take out the wrong organs from donors back in April, just imagine the errors they would make doing it the other way round.

I don't want to give my organs up and nor do I want somebody elses, the theory of natural selection comes to mind.

60. At 1:56pm on 04 Nov 2010, Paul wrote:
Absolutely NO WAY is ANYONE having anything from me. I am not allowed to give my blood to save a life because I am a gay male so I am not giving anything away or allowing my family to do so on my behalf.

--------------------------------------------------
Seriously? Gay men can't give blood, why for smurfs sake!? jeez are we all living in the dark ages & assume that all homosexuals have aids?
That needs sorting out double time. Imagine the deep wells of the red stuff being stoically ignored by the NHS because the owner of said red stuff prefers willies to boobies. Or perhaps we still think gay is catching!
Even though I'm all for presumed consent I'm totally behind your stance, such bloomin hypocrisy boggles my wee mind. Though if they won't take your blood I'm thinking they'd turn your organs down too. More fool them!
For the record if I needed it I'd happily accept whatever parts from whoever was generous enough to donate, gay, straight, rich, poor, black, white etc. Though I'd probably turn down anything donated by Keith Richards as being past it's use by date (though terrifically well preserved!)

The whole idea is barbaric, in a country obsessed with human rights. Dignity in death is the greatest right of all. Where will the line be drawn, will the patient who can pay the donors' families get first pick. If nature has decided that someone cannot sustain life because they are not fitted with viable organs, what right have we to decide that transplanting organs from a corpse is justified. Even in the young, sadly, the transplant may allow them to live but they may well pass their genetic failings on to their children if they have any and thus to successive generations.

I think that all organs should be used and the harsh step of making it opt-out instead of opt-in as law taken.

Anyone going through the pain of the loss of a loved one may not be objective to consent but convsersely would soon enough acknowledge the donor who may have prolonged that persons life.

Make it so please.

There should be a register of donors for all organs. Since there is always a shortage of organs, it would only be fair to put potential donors at the top of the list. People who refuse to donate cannot expect any form of priority to receive

13. At 12:43pm on 04 Nov 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
No. I carry a doner card but the moment any goverment brings in an opt-out policy I will opt out and rip up my doner card
=========================oooooooooooo====================================

Does this work at all kebab shops frankie, or just your local?

71. At 2:09pm on 04 Nov 2010, amp46 wrote:

Only slightly tongue in cheek but.....

I would like every part of my body,not used for student practice,to end up in a jar somewhere.

If theres nothing left to bury or burn....no robbing undertaker for my family to pay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely! That's exactly what I intend to do when my time is up. They can harvest away also as far as I'm concerned.

I used to think that presumed consent would be preferable, but my views have changed over the last few years. Instead, GPs (or specialists in hospitals) could ask people when they come in for routine appointments whether or not they would like to donate organs, and help them to put their details on the donor register. These preferences could be revised on subsequent visits.

We then need to entrench in law a comittment to honour the wishes of those who put their names on the register. Their organs, their death, their decision! Families should never be able to make a decision contrary to those wishes, especially when their mental state during a time of grief might prevent them from making a reasoned judgement.

A better education around the process and benefits of organ donation would also help. People seem to have a squeamish attitude to the whole thing without a real understanding about how it works - the number of people who are reluctant to donate their eyes is a classic example of lack of understanding leading to fear of the 'state' the body will be left in if they donate them.

It should never get to a point where the wishes of the family need to be taken into account because the organs will never 'belong' to them and no tangible harm will come to them as a result of these organs being taken.

I find it strange that anyone could ever disagree with organ donation on religious grounds. There seems to be an obsession in certain religious circles of life being sacred, so people are consequently not allowed dignity in death, but there's an outcry about a procedure that could help someone else to live. Very much double standards...


3. At 12:32pm on 04 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
Should families be forced to donate our organs after we die? No, it's against people's human rights.

Kuradi, I usually find myself agreeing with many of your posts but not on this one. The human rights of families is irrelevant, the organs would be harvested from a dead body (by a surgeon)and the family wouldn't be 'forced'(once again, a poor choice of words from the Beeb...) as such to do anything detrimental to their own wellbeing. Rather, their opinion wouldn't count for as much as it does now, and in my view that's how it should be. Similarly families shouldn't have a right to allow organs to be used if the deceased did not want them to be used

As I say above, we should legislate so that the decision rests on the shoulders of an individual before they die. That way families wouldn't even need to be asked, let alone make a decision. Let's not forget that the next of kin might not even be close to the deceased and won't have an idea of what they would or wouldn't want to do, so it's important that more formal records are kept and requests honoured.

52. At 1:45pm on 04 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

"
27. At 1:12pm on 04 Nov 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:

Don't think of organ donations as giving up part of yourself to keep a total stranger alive. It's really a total stranger giving up almost all of themselves to keep part of you alive.
"

I think of it as a matter of freedom of choice.

Oh, btw I carry a donor card because to me, when I'm dead, I have no use for my body, they can use bits of it or through it is skip, it's all the same with me.

Looking at the majority of your postings it seems that one part of your body doesn't work too well already.

54. At 1:49pm on 04 Nov 2010, potatolord wrote:

The simple answer is to only allow those with a donor card, who have held it for 5 years, to receive transplants. an exception could be made for those under 18.

The same should apply for blood donations- if you don't put in, you don't take out

In your selfish world what would happen if someone was unable to donate, or give a blood donation, due to a medical condition?

I agree with the idea that only doners can receive organs, introduce that rule and the donations would increase dramatically.

Uh seriously if you remove the organs then your soul is destroyed and you suffer a second death in the afterlife. Don't they teach this stuff in school anymore? Probably EU regulations...

I am sorry but how many more times are we going to get the BBC publicising the supply demand issues of transplants.

We have had the opt-in or opt-out debate, we have had the mistakes made for those who opted-in but had details inappropriately recorded because the computer system was not fit for purpose, and we have had the "pressure relatives" arguments.

The transplant authority needs to get its opt-in act together and start making it possible to sign up almost anywhere if it is what you choose to do. They may also wish to us ethe same process to identify those who really do not want to have their bodies harvested whatever.

As someone once said "they'll never be enough organs no matter what you do" because spare parts are always easier and cheaper to do than longer term remedial treatment.

As a brief but relevant aside - you cannot give blood after you reach sixty - why not?

61. At 1:57pm on 04 Nov 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:

What a barbaric idea - no society has the right to harvest the organs from any individual without their expressed permission to do so! What a horrible form of brutality to 'force' a family to donate their deceased relatives for harvesting! Yuk!

I don't think they will force them to watch while they are doing it.

I'll have no use for any of my organs after I'm dead, so they can take whatever's still working!
I think it's incredibly selfish of people who would deny others either a life-saving transplant or a better quality of life, just because they're squeamish about being "cut up".
People who want to opt out of a nationwide donor scheme should also be considered "opted out" if they ever need a transplant themselves.

"
89. At 2:42pm on 04 Nov 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:

52. At 1:45pm on 04 Nov 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

"
27. At 1:12pm on 04 Nov 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:

Don't think of organ donations as giving up part of yourself to keep a total stranger alive. It's really a total stranger giving up almost all of themselves to keep part of you alive.
"

I think of it as a matter of freedom of choice.

Oh, btw I carry a donor card because to me, when I'm dead, I have no use for my body, they can use bits of it or through it is skip, it's all the same with me.

Looking at the majority of your postings it seems that one part of your body doesn't work too well already.
"

There is one particularly organ of yours which I really do hope does not work.

"78. At 2:19pm on 04 Nov 2010, sixpackerL wrote:
39. At 1:31pm on 04 Nov 2010, Andy wrote:
14. At 12:45pm on 04 Nov 2010, sixpackerL wrote:
No one is going to con me out of my organs....
I intend to take my offal with me.
If someone wants to donate then I applaud them - but it HAS to be a personal choice to opt in.

--------------------------------------------------------------

It will be a personal choice, if you choose not to donate then simple get a opt-out card, simples.

============================
NO - it just isnt morally correct to default to a situation where someone can help themselves to body parts."
-------------------

On the contrary, I think it's entirely morally correct that organs should be used to save other lives, unless that person has expressly said not.

"I agree with the idea that only doners can receive organs, introduce that rule and the donations would increase dramatically."

What an excellent way of stripping away a perfectly legal right to choose! With a policy such as you are suggesting, there may as well be compulsory harvesting of organs.

93. At 2:46pm on 04 Nov 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:
As a brief but relevant aside - you cannot give blood after you reach sixty - why not?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you got that from, but it isn't true - assuming you're in the UK.

Will being a donor give me extra brownie points on my carers card?