Organ Transplant Bill
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
There are many things that have to be presumed if you havent left explicit instructions.
I did leave explicit instructions- help yourselves. I'm able to offer you 2nd dibs if there's anything you might need (reciprocal necrosodomy offers not required, thanks)They've now said they don't really give a damn whether anyone's given instructions, they'll just get on with it and I doubt they'd look desperately hard for instructions to the contrary if it doesn't suit them.
It's not about the organs, the benefits to others, etc. It's about the unacceptable intention of the authorities to treat me as an asset to be used as they see fit. I do not exist as a government chattel & refuse to be considered as such.
fblm said:
Seems like a good idea (eta; assuming the donor is actually dead). As a biker I always felt a bit like a bag of spare parts whenever it rained anyway. It never even occurred to me that they needed permission to take what they needed once I was dead.
It is rather absurd to think that a bunch or rotting bio matter has rights, because rotting bio mass is what a dead person is.MacW said:
Which part of the end isn't justified by the means? Please be specific and detailed.
Giving an ill person my kidney is good but doesn't IMHO give the government the right to do whatever the hell it likes when they have the simple option of either leaving the old system alone & not pissing people off or just asking people their wishes.They can ask for it but it's not acceptable to just take.
Rovinghawk said:
Giving an ill person my kidney is good but doesn't IMHO give the government the right to do whatever the hell it likes when they have the simple option of either leaving the old system alone & not pissing people off or just asking people their wishes.
They've been "asking" for ages.Nearly a decade ago, everybody renewing their driving licence photocard started to be asked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14341553
They've also been doing the same with passport renewals, tax returns and even travelcards.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-u...
And STILL 90% of people say "Oooh, yes, good idea" yet less than half have actually bothered to sign up.
Reversing that - so that the terminally selfish small minority are the ones who have to extract digit from rectum - makes far more sense. If a tiny handful of the terminally petulant wish to join them, I'm sure the overall result will still be a massive increase.
98elise said:
They've been "asking" for ages.
And I answered yes98elise said:
Reversing that - so that the terminally selfish small minority are the ones who have to extract digit from rectum - makes far more sense.
Removing their freedom to be left alone might make sense to you but might not be acceptable to them. How many future removals of freedom might take place because they 'make sense'? I give you the snooper's charter for a start.98elise said:
I'm sure the overall result will still be a massive increase.
If you get the agreeable & the apathetic then good. Trying to sweep up the objectors would be unacceptable.Edited by Rovinghawk on Friday 23 February 15:27
Moonhawk said:
fblm said:
Opting out should also mean you go right to the bottom of the transplant list should you ever be on one!
Yep - this.
I was 10 years on the road with a Blood Service collection team. You have to learn the responses to all sorts of things donors say. One of the most frequent is "Everybody should do this, and if you don't then you can't receive blood either."
I never understood why people used to say this. It was usually uttered with a fair degree of belligerence, as well, with a dash of self congratulation on top.
The truth is, a volunteer based system is much safer than compulsion. Would you really want an American style gleaning of prisons for blood and organs? Also many people, myself included, would be barred from organ donation because of their medical history. Many are similarly barred from blood donation.
It becomes obvious doing the job that certain ethnic groups are under represented at donor sessions, but this is down to cultural history, and you can't expect people to change overnight when they arrive in a country like the UK. The same would be true of organ donation. I can't confirm my suspicions about cultural subgroups among the British population, but I wouldn't be surprised...
Does that mean that hospitals should put certain ethnic groups at the back of the queue if they need blood or tissues? Or, sorry mate, you're a Jehova's Witness, so we'll just stand here and watch you die.
Donation is a matter of totally altruistic giving. Start making stipulations about who you are willing to give to and you are on a very slippery slope.
After all this, I have to say I have my doubts about this scheme. One of the stock answers to a blood donor in the scenario above is, "well, if everybody donated we would end up with too much blood, and it would go wasted." About five percent of people donate, and actually that quite neatly covers demand. If it were to become necessary to up that percentage a couple of points this could be done easily enough by an advertising campaign. Blood collection sessions after a rail crash are manic. People are willing to come along, but just need a bit of a nudge.
I suspect the same might be true of organ donation, outside of the case where a specific and rare match is required. If just a relatively few more people carried a card, it might be all that is needed.
One of the nurses on my team went off and got a job with the transplant people in a role where she basically 'ambulance chased' cases where organ donation was a possibility, and had to talk to relatives at a very sensitive time, trying to persuade them to give permission. How she did that job I shall never know. She told me that even when the 'donor' was carrying a card, relatives would still refuse permission.
This is the problem that has to be overcome first - educating people what it is all about, and the real need to let NHSBT teams glean the organs. Surely this would be possible to achieve by better public education, and such a seemingly draconian move - guaranteed to get some people's backs up - wouldn't be needed.
The current system has too many people who never thought they would need to sign up. (Young people killed tragically etc.)
This system is far better to help those in need, a relative of mine was saved when needing a heart transplant because of a caring family.
I don't have any problems with saving others if I can be of any use to someone.
Don't you think it is better than feeding worms or a crematorium fire?
This system is far better to help those in need, a relative of mine was saved when needing a heart transplant because of a caring family.
I don't have any problems with saving others if I can be of any use to someone.
Don't you think it is better than feeding worms or a crematorium fire?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff