Organ Transplant Bill

[Moonhawk]

Rovinghawk said:

They want to presume the choice, I choose to rebel against it.

The choice was always presumed though.

It was just presumed to be "no" rather than "yes".

Given the results of surveys like the one below - it seems that the presumption of "no" was further from the wishes of the majority than presuming "yes" is.

https://www.bma.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-rel...

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 23 February 20:28

[Roofless Toothless]

sidicks said:

Derek Smith said:

The London Chest Hospital in east London put out a call one evening to police forces. An operation had developed problems and the patient needed hot and steaming O+. About two dozen of us turned up. As soon as the bag was full, a waiting nurse would rush off to immediately, we were told, pump it into the chap. An artery had developed a leak and it was pumping out all over the place. Two of the nurses had blood splashes on their theatre clothes. There was mention of fresh platelets being required, but it was very hectic so might have got that wrong.

So they don't test blood before using it?

I wondered that, but not knowing how old Derek is or when this happened, I couldn't comment.

[anonymous-user]

Roofless Toothless said:

I made part of this clear when I originally posted. Donation is and should be anonymous, unconditional and altruistic. If you start stipulating conditions like 'donors first' then where do you go next? No Chinese, perhaps, if they lag behind in the donation table? Or nobody who voted for Brexit? Getting silly, I know, but there are people out there like this.

Yep get that... donor has no say who it goes to or we're on the slippery slope to selling organs on eBay. Not relevant to my question though; we have a heart to give someone...

Roofless Toothless said:

Secondly, following on from this, the recipient of an organ should be the person who needs it most urgently in the opinion of the medics. Pure and simple.

Urgency pure and simple? So the 98 year old with mutiple organ failure who needs a heart today gets it ahead of the 21 year old who needs one this week? Really?

2 patients, same age, same condition, both will die in a week. What's the case for the opt out getting the heart? If there isn't one we've at least established a priority no?

Why so squeamish about the social contract extending to organs?

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

So they don't test blood before using it?

Not that day.

There were fairly regular calls for assistance from the police and this was the only time I've seen them in such a rush. We were asked if we had been told what our blood group was. Most of us carried med cards in those days as there were frequent injuries. It was no good expecting the police hierarchy to be able to access records.

The patient died.

[sidicks]

Roofless Toothless said:

sidicks said:

Derek Smith said:

The London Chest Hospital in east London put out a call one evening to police forces. An operation had developed problems and the patient needed hot and steaming O+. About two dozen of us turned up. As soon as the bag was full, a waiting nurse would rush off to immediately, we were told, pump it into the chap. An artery had developed a leak and it was pumping out all over the place. Two of the nurses had blood splashes on their theatre clothes. There was mention of fresh platelets being required, but it was very hectic so might have got that wrong.

So they don't test blood before using it?

I wondered that, but not knowing how old Derek is or when this happened, I couldn't comment.

Or maybe the anecdote has been embellished...

[Rovinghawk]

Moonhawk said:

Given the results of surveys like the one below - it seems that the presumption of "no" was further from the wishes of the majority than presuming "yes" is.

Surveys can be worded to elicit a desired response. Actions have contradicted the words.

If we look at people voting with their feet rather than giving lip service, not opting in was the choice. I don't support any scheme whereby if people won't do it voluntarily then they get railroaded into doing it anyway.

[Derek Smith]

Roofless Toothless said:

I wondered that, but not knowing how old Derek is or when this happened, I couldn't comment.

This was 1977 or 78. More details in my book. The call from Met control, MP, was for supervisors to allow all available O+ officers to go.

As I intimated, I think the urgency of the need was a major factor.

[Moonhawk]

Rovinghawk said:

Surveys can be worded to elicit a desired response. Actions have contradicted the words.

We'll see won't we. I suspect the uptake of "opting out" won't be anywhere near the inverse of those who opted in.

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

Or maybe the anecdote has been embellished.

And there's me trying to be pleasant to you, even answering what I thought was a question.

Ah, well, you're back on the list.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

This was 1977 or 78. More details in my book. The call from Met control, MP, was for supervisors to allow all available O+ officers to go.

As I intimated, I think the urgency of the need was a major factor.

I guess that by choosing police officers it was considered lower risk than general members of the public?

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

sidicks said:

Or maybe the anecdote has been embellished.

And there's me trying to be pleasant to you, even answering what I thought was a question.

Ah, well, you're back on the list.

[Randy Winkman]

Once I was getting ready to leave the house when my Mum said to me "Put a coat on, it's cold out."

I was furious, "I'm not stupid and I don't need you to tell me what to do. I was going to put my coat on but now I'm not going to."

I was 15 though.

[grumbledoak]

I've opted out. On principle. They are mine to give, not theirs to annex to help meet their performance targets.

Now try getting that code off your driving licence...

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

I've opted out. On principle. They are mine to give, not theirs to annex to help meet their performance targets.

Now try getting that code off your driving licence...

Would you like organs to be available if you or your loved ones are unfortunate enough to need them?

[Long Drax]

Randy Winkman said:

grumbledoak said:

I've opted out. On principle. They are mine to give, not theirs to annex to help meet their performance targets.

Now try getting that code off your driving licence...

Would you like organs to be available if you or your loved ones are unfortunate enough to need them?

I donate blood on a voluntary basis 3-4 times a year and have done so for a number of years. Do you?

[0ddball]

MacW said:

Rovinghawk said:

I carried an organ donor card for years.

I am now opting out because I refuse to have anybody make decisions like that for me. Tough on those that would otherwise benefit but how dare the authorities try to presume what I want to do based on their wishes rather than mine.

All they had to do was ask people nicely rather than dictate, but they're too arrogant for that.

They've been asking people politely for decades and people have ignored them meaning more and more people are dying while waiting for transplants.

You're basically letting people potentially die just because you want to have a tantrum.

Why don't you try and bully him some more. It sounds like you are the one having the tantrum because someone dares to have an opinion that is not yours.

[chow pan toon]

Some new weirdos to add to The NP&E list of mental. Excellent.

[anonymous-user]

0ddball said:

Why don't you try and bully him some more. It sounds like you are the one having the tantrum because someone dares to have an opinion that is not yours.

Was the nasty man mean to your friend? Ffs

[Murph7355]

grumbledoak said:

I've opted out. On principle. They are mine to give, not theirs to annex to help meet their performance targets.

Now try getting that code off your driving licence...

Right on brother. Stick it to the man. (And keep your fingers crossed nobody you know needs and organ and everybody else hasn't followed your example).

Roofless Toothless said:

I made part of this clear when I originally posted. Donation is and should be anonymous, unconditional and altruistic. If you start stipulating conditions like 'donors first' then where do you go next? No Chinese, perhaps, if they lag behind in the donation table? Or nobody who voted for Brexit? Getting silly, I know, but there are people out there like this....

You are indeed getting silly.

Yes, there may be people like that. But the suggestion was quite simply a bounded one that says if you simply cannot be arsed to donate your organs (let alone do that to try and prove some sort of point!), why should you be anywhere in the queue for available organs. It makes perfectly logical sense for you not to be and has nothing to do with race or anything else.

[55palfers]

Unless you are on the donor register, you can't have a transplant.