Organ donation.

[Digga]

Oakey said:

It's not being in a comatose state with blood still being pumped around my body and doctors who are 99% sure I'm "definitely dead" when maybe I'm not and there might be a chance of recovery (however small). In that scenario one thing is certain, if they remove my organs I'm most definitely going to be dead afterwards.

One would hope doctors would be able to tell, but I do take your point.

It reminds me of that joke where a redneck calls the emergency services:

Emergency Services: Hello caller how can we help?

Redneck: I was out a hunting and done shot ma cousin dead by accident.

Emergency Services: Are you sure he's dead?

Redneck: Hold on... BANG!BANG! ... yep, he dead alright.

[Murph7355]

grumbledoak said:

This is all about the NHS and it's statistics. The proportion of organ donors was low, and the NHS doesn't like it when stats make it look poor. They thought about ways to encourage people to sign up but in the end decided it was easier to reclassify everyone as "parts". The "consultation" did raise one ironic effect - the people who will think about the issue, realize there is a principle involved, and fill in a form to opt out are likely to be the exact same people who previously thought about it and filled in the form to opt in. But the stats also made it clear that there are far fewer of them. So, onward with mininal publicity and "Bingo! World Class organ donor statistics!" But probably no more actual organ donation.

As has already been noted, there's some very odd logic in there. Not to mention a need for NHS treatment t to deal with all your tin foil

If you wanted to donate anyway, why on Earth let this change stop you? A Pyrrhic "victory".

I would hope the only stats that really matter are lives saved through transplants.

They have missed a trick though - allowing us to tick a box to refuse organ use for anybody opting out for anything other than medical reasons. Or even just having that as the default too.

[hotchy]

I'd donate. A young guy I know just donated all of his. Atleast he lives on in some form.

I'd want to be burried though. I dont want burnt. I believe the electrical signals that your brain fire off for up to a year is your afterlife. I'll just enjoy that for a while before it all goes black.

[Evoluzione]

SHutchinson said:

Why would you object? What selfish reason could you have to cling on to stuff you couldn't ever use again?

Religion.

[anonymous-user]

hotchy said:

I'd donate. A young guy I know just donated all of his. Atleast he lives on in some form.

I'd want to be burried though. I dont want burnt. I believe the electrical signals that your brain fire off for up to a year is your afterlife. I'll just enjoy that for a while before it all goes black.

Hmmm, you’re very optimistic!

Unless your ‘mate’ donated his brain then he very much isn’t living on in any form.

And if you think rotting away 6’ under with, perhaps, the odd electrical or chemical signal between neurons might be enjoyable........

[grumbledoak]

Murph7355 said:

I would hope the only stats that really matter are lives saved through transplants.

Well, brace yourself. As I pointed out, that isn't expected to change.

[Murph7355]

grumbledoak said:

Murph7355 said:

I would hope the only stats that really matter are lives saved through transplants.

Well, brace yourself. As I pointed out, that isn't expected to change.

If it saves one more life I'm for it. Zero downside.

[Desiderata]

Does anyone know how it will work with a visitor from Scotland (or any other country that doesn't have the same system at the moment)?
Assumed consent? Or go by Scottish rules?

Also wondering if any English visitors to Wales over the last 5 years had their organs removed under assumed consent?

It doesn't affect me as I've been on the organ and marrow donors lists for 40 years and have donated over 50 units of blood so am unlikely to withdraw my consent over a (less important) principle but am still not happy with the concept.

[Digga]

Desiderata said:

Does anyone know how it will work with a visitor from Scotland (or any other country that doesn't have the same system at the moment)?
Assumed consent? Or go by Scottish rules?

Scottish organ donors? We're trying to increase life expectancy here, not minimise it.

[Oakey]

Digga said:

One would hope doctors would be able to tell, but I do take your point.

It reminds me of that joke where a redneck calls the emergency services:

Emergency Services: Hello caller how can we help?

Redneck: I was out a hunting and done shot ma cousin dead by accident.

Emergency Services: Are you sure he's dead?

Redneck: Hold on... BANG!BANG! ... yep, he dead alright.

Well you'd hope so wouldn't you but they are still human and they're not infallible, mistakes can and do happen.

Plenty of medical papers out there discussing the controversy of 'brain death'

[bristolbaron]

Digga]i]Scottish[/i said:

organ donors? We're trying to increase life expectancy here, not minimise it.

“Sorry it’s taken so long to get these to you, they’re battered.”

[Digga]

bristolbaron said:

Digga]i]Scottish[/i said:

organ donors? We're trying to increase life expectancy here, not minimise it.

“Sorry it’s taken so long to get these to you, they’re battered.”

[grumbledoak]

Oakey said:

Well you'd hope so wouldn't you but they are still human and they're not infallible, mistakes can and do happen.

Plenty of medical papers out there discussing the controversy of 'brain death'

This is the bit they don't want people to think about. It is why there is a principle involved here at all. You are not dead when they take your organs. You have to hope that they don't make the decision based purely on what would make their stats look best.

And what have they just done?

[chrispmartha]

grumbledoak said:

Oakey said:

Well you'd hope so wouldn't you but they are still human and they're not infallible, mistakes can and do happen.

Plenty of medical papers out there discussing the controversy of 'brain death'

This is the bit they don't want people to think about. It is why there is a principle involved here at all. You are not dead when they take your organs. You have to hope that they don't make the decision based purely on what would make their stats look best.

And what have they just done?

I'm sure you'd be quite happy if you, a family member or friend were part of those stats if they were a donor recipient though eh?

has Agammemnon or yourself answered whether you would be happy to not be eligible for a transplant if you opt out?

Also Agammemnon seems to think the choice has been taken away from him whether to be a donor or not - it hasn't

[gregs656]

grumbledoak said:

This is the bit they don't want people to think about. It is why there is a principle involved here at all. You are not dead when they take your organs. You have to hope that they don't make the decision based purely on what would make their stats look best.

And what have they just done?

You may not be. In the case of donation after circulatory death or in emergency care you will be.

If you’re brain dead perhaps not, even then you’re only alive because of mechanical ventilation.

I have no problem thinking about it.

[Mort7]

One for the surgeons involved in this.

My understanding, as mentioned by others previously, is that if you are dead, i.e. heart stopped, not breathing, brain not functioning, then your organs cannot be used for donation. In order to donate you would either be 'brain dead' (no brain activity), or 'brain stem dead' (body unable to sustain breathing or heart function) and therefore connected to a ventilator - hence the requirement to be in hospital for donation to take place. This raises some questions:-

1) If you are breathing independently, but there is no normal brain activity, what criteria are applied when considering organ donation? There are documented cases where such patients have eventually made a recovery, sometimes months or years later, so how is the decision made, and who makes it?

2) if an individual is on a ventilator, and would die if disconnected from it, is there any chance that such an individual would, given recovery sufficient time, be able to breath unassisted again?

3) I understand that organ removal takes place when the individual is (bodily at least) alive. Are painkillers / anaesthetics used, or would they decrease the viability of the organ to be donated?

Uncomfortable questions, but necessary to make a properly informed decision.

[gregs656]

You are better off looking up this information your self as some of what you are saying is incorrect and I think it is better to get it from the horses mouth so to speak. It is not difficult information to find.

[Oakey]

Mort7 said:

One for the surgeons involved in this.

My understanding, as mentioned by others previously, is that if you are dead, i.e. heart stopped, not breathing, brain not functioning, then your organs cannot be used for donation. In order to donate you would either be 'brain dead' (no brain activity), or 'brain stem dead' (body unable to sustain breathing or heart function) and therefore connected to a ventilator - hence the requirement to be in hospital for donation to take place. This raises some questions:-

1) If you are breathing independently, but there is no normal brain activity, what criteria are applied when considering organ donation? There are documented cases where such patients have eventually made a recovery, sometimes months or years later, so how is the decision made, and who makes it?

2) if an individual is on a ventilator, and would die if disconnected from it, is there any chance that such an individual would, given recovery sufficient time, be able to breath unassisted again?

3) I understand that organ removal takes place when the individual is (bodily at least) alive. Are painkillers / anaesthetics used, or would they decrease the viability of the organ to be donated?

Uncomfortable questions, but necessary to make a properly informed decision.

Have some light reading;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33729...

https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/2/89

https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/7/406

[Mort7]

Cheers.

[Randy Winkman]

chrispmartha said:

grumbledoak said:

Oakey said:

Well you'd hope so wouldn't you but they are still human and they're not infallible, mistakes can and do happen.

Plenty of medical papers out there discussing the controversy of 'brain death'

This is the bit they don't want people to think about. It is why there is a principle involved here at all. You are not dead when they take your organs. You have to hope that they don't make the decision based purely on what would make their stats look best.

And what have they just done?

I'm sure you'd be quite happy if you, a family member or friend were part of those stats if they were a donor recipient though eh?

has Agammemnon or yourself answered whether you would be happy to not be eligible for a transplant if you opt out?

Also Agammemnon seems to think the choice has been taken away from him whether to be a donor or not - it hasn't

Exactly. Agemmemnon can still either say "yes" or say "no". Since Agemmemnon would like to donate, my suggestion is that he makes use of this choice and stay opted-in. It's even easier than opting out. A win-win.