Donor Cards

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Gordon Brown has said he is in favour of the opt out donor card system.

Every dead patient will have organs removed unless that person has opted out.

I think it is a really good idea, and have been told it works well in Spain.

Your views?

It is long overdue.

People should get the opt out when they receive their national insurance cards. If they don't send it back, they should be on the list.

I agree. Gosh this could be the dullest thread of all time.

koshkha wrote:

I agree. Gosh this could be the dullest thread of all time.

Hehe, not the reaction this is getting on another forum!!!

Anyway, would you opt out?

I was talking about this with WTT, and even so much as 6 months ago I would have said yes, straight away, no thinking needed.

Now I am not so sure.

I am in 2 minds about it, part of me wants to opt out and part of me thinks what if WTT or our son needed a donor, I would hope that there was someone out there a lot less selfish then me that would be a donor.

I read today though that everyone is up in arms in the USA over evidence that as the parts are taken while the body is still alive, the person can feel pain.

Also, if you opt out, should you still be able to be given a donor part should you need it?

If you are not willing to donate, then I don't think you should be able to receive.

drewboy wrote:

If you are not willing to donate, then I don't think you should be able to receive.

So if you opt out, there would be strings attached ??

By my reckoning, the current 9,000 potential donors would be enhanced to 582,000 potential donors going on our death rate and assuming the opt out rate would be 3% (the same as Spain who also have an opt out system).

Thats way more than we need. The cynic in me says Gordon Brown has pound signs before his eyes.

WormThatTurned wrote:

drewboy wrote:

If you are not willing to donate, then I don't think you should be able to receive.

So if you opt out, there would be strings attached ??

By my reckoning, the current 9,000 potential donors would be enhanced to 582,000 potential donors going on our death rate and assuming the opt out rate would be 3% (the same as Spain who also have an opt out system).

Thats way more than we need. The cynic in me says Gordon Brown has pound signs before his eyes.

Why shouldn't there be strings attached? Fair enough, you may have a reason for not wanting to donate, but it would be bloody hypocritical to then expect others to provide you/your family if the need arises.

And how would GB make money out of it?

drewboy wrote:

WormThatTurned wrote:

drewboy wrote:

If you are not willing to donate, then I don't think you should be able to receive.

So if you opt out, there would be strings attached ??

By my reckoning, the current 9,000 potential donors would be enhanced to 582,000 potential donors going on our death rate and assuming the opt out rate would be 3% (the same as Spain who also have an opt out system).

Thats way more than we need. The cynic in me says Gordon Brown has pound signs before his eyes.

Why shouldn't there be strings attached? Fair enough, you may have a reason for not wanting to donate, but it would be bloody hypocritical to then expect others to provide you/your family if the need arises.

And how would GB make money out of it?

Do they still sell cadavers to Universities or are they all donated? Even then it would only be a tiny percentage. I agree with Drew. You opt out, you do not get.

Why shouldn't there be strings attached? Fair enough, you may have a reason for not wanting to donate, but it would be bloody hypocritical to then expect others to provide you/your family if the need arises.

And how would GB make money out of it?[/quote]

I dont think I could refuse a transplant to someone who had opted out if they were going to die and we could save them. It doesnt seem right to me. And doesnt it undermine the opt out system too ? If theres going to be strings attached you might as well enforce a mandatory donor system. I think this system will work fine - people can opt out (for whatever reason that might be) and there will still be potentially plenty of organs for whoever needs them.

Couldnt Gordon Brown sell organs to countries who havnt got an opt out system and who are in dire need of them ? NHS revenue raising ?

WormThatTurned wrote:

Couldnt Gordon Brown sell organs to countries who havnt got an opt out system and who are in dire need of them ? NHS revenue raising ?

That looks more like organ harvesting - not donating. I would take great issue with that.

I'm IN - once I'm dead they can have anything they want. I'll not need it any more. The one line I draw (call my a hypocrit if you want) is they can't have my body for medical students to play with. I knew too many when I was a student and I heard too many nasty stories.

But everything else? Take what you want. What better donation could any of us make than to let others live when we no longer can.

When my mother in law died we told the transport coordinator to take everything they could. Sadly because of her age, they were barred from using a lot of her organs but her skin, bone and corneas helped dozens of people.

drewboy wrote:

WormThatTurned wrote:

Couldnt Gordon Brown sell organs to countries who havnt got an opt out system and who are in dire need of them ? NHS revenue raising ?

That looks more like organ harvesting - not donating. I would take great issue with that.

I can see it happening.

It seems to me we are going to have a surplus of organs and they can fetch upto 10k each.

Thats not to say Im not against an opt out system. Anything that prevents people needlessly dying is a good thing. But I do think everyone has the right to choice. And I bet anyone that does recieve an organ who has opted out would soon change their mind !!

At the very least, anyone who has opted out should be at the back of the list. If we have this surplus that you think we will, that should be enough to give them a fright without costing lives.

But no, I don't see harvesting happening - simply because of the timescales required to transplant certain organs.

Plus, I have seen no mention that being on the list denotes that the Govt owns the organs.....

I don't think there should be an opt out system. But I do see the point about not being able to benefit in that case either.