the ethics of organ donating

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by gazzae

If you’re sick and need a transplant then you should only get one though the donor scheme if you are registered as a donor. If you haven’t then tough luck, you better hope a relative or friend have an organ to spare.

That would not be very fair. It is unlikely that anyone who has a need for a donor organ, that they would be in a position to offer one up in replacement. If a child is born with a dickey kidney, they hardly have the option to decide they will give up their heart if the want a transplant.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:30 ----------

Originally Posted by gazzae

Won't somebody think of the children

Once someone is old enough to decide for themselves (while children can join the donor scheme it still requires parent/guardian permission until they are 18) and they choose not to join the scheme then they should forfeit any right to receive an organ from the scheme. Sure it’s not fair, but since when is burying healthy organs when people are crying out for them fair?

What, wait until they are eighteen to become eligible to receive a donated organ?

[joglynne]

IMHO playing the equivalent of tit of tat to decide whether someone can be considered a suitable recipient for a donated organ is a very dangerous route to take.

I can understand someone being refused a transplant if they would be actively still putting the new organ at risk. A heavy smoker who doesn't attempt to give up smoking needing a new lung is a simplistic example, but with holding a transplant because you haven't put your own body forward? What if you nip in quickly and register once you find you need a transplant? Would there have to be a qualifying period or maybe, no transplant if you registered after the condition was diagnosed, or, you would have to go to the bottom of the list regardless of how serious your condition was.

Being in the position of needing a transplant in order to live is a nightmare scenario for anyone, being made to pay with your life for making a wrong choice is inhumane.

Originally Posted by joglynne

IMHO playing the equivalent of tit of tat to decide whether someone can be considered a suitable recipient for a donated organ is a very dangerous route to take.

I can understand someone being refused a transplant if they would be actively still putting the new organ at risk. A heavy smoker who doesn't attempt to give up smoking needing a new lung is a simplistic example, but with holding a transplant because you haven't put your own body forward? What if you nip in quickly and register once you find you need a transplant? Would there have to be a qualifying period or maybe, no transplant if you registered after the condition was diagnosed, or, you would have to go to the bottom of the list regardless of how serious your condition was.

Being in the position of needing a transplant in order to live is a nightmare scenario for anyone, being made to pay with your life for making a wrong choice is inhumane.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

That would not be very fair. It is unlikely that anyone who has a need for a donor organ, that they would be in a position to offer one up in replacement. If a child is born with a dickey kidney, they hardly have the option to decide they will give up their heart if the want a transplant.

What? I'm not suggesting to get an organ they have to provide one of theirs.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

What, wait until they are eighteen to become eligible to receive a donated organ?

Again what? As I said its the parents decision not the child until they are 18



---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Originally Posted by joglynne

IMHO playing the equivalent of tit of tat to decide whether someone can be considered a suitable recipient for a donated organ is a very dangerous route to take.

I can understand someone being refused a transplant if they would be actively still putting the new organ at risk. A heavy smoker who doesn't attempt to give up smoking needing a new lung is a simplistic example, but with holding a transplant because you haven't put your own body forward? What if you nip in quickly and register once you find you need a transplant? Would there have to be a qualifying period or maybe, no transplant if you registered after the condition was diagnosed, or, you would have to go to the bottom of the list regardless of how serious your condition was.

As martyh said make the system opt out. If you opt out from being a donor then you forfeit any option to receive a donation through the organ donar scheme.

Originally Posted by joglynne

Being in the position of needing a transplant in order to live is a nightmare scenario for anyone, being made to pay with your life for making a wrong choice is inhumane.

What if that choice was taking up smoking, or not quitting smoking?

[QUOTE=gazzae;35006146]

As martyh said make the system opt out. If you opt out from being a donor then you forfeit any option to receive a donation through the organ donar scheme.
QUOTE]


indeed ,opting out of a default system requires a reason and that reason would most likely be an objection to the principle of organ donation which inturn would mean that the prospective recipient would refuse the transplant anyway so yes under these criteria your system would have some merit

[frogstamper]

[QUOTE=martyh;35006189]

Originally Posted by gazzae

As martyh said make the system opt out. If you opt out from being a donor then you forfeit any option to receive a donation through the organ donar scheme.
QUOTE]


indeed ,opting out of a default system requires a reason and that reason would most likely be an objection to the principle of organ donation which inturn would mean that the prospective recipient would refuse the transplant anyway so yes under these criteria your system would have some merit

I wonder how many of the "opt out" side would change their minds if in the future they themselves needed a transplant?

As said already the opt out model seems best, its the same system being used at present if you don't want your medical records to be made available on-line....obviously the powers that be realize this method will yield the greatest gain.

[beeman]

As far as im aware the biggest problem for organ harvesting is the next of kin. Currently doctors have to ask the next of kin for permission to harvest at what would bee the most difficalt time for them to make a sound desision. The easiest way to overcome this while still ensuring peoples views are respected is a 3 teir system.

1) opt in (register on database) NO NEXT OF KIN PERMISSION NEEDED.
2) If your not a registered doner (maby the deceised hasnt bothered but the n.o.k is aware of their feelings) the n.o.k can give permission (effectivly the opt-out sceme)
3) total opt-out if your registered on the opt-out list then your organs MUST bee burried/burned with you.

run this 3 teir system and you will proberlly get a 10x yeld in organs as it cuts out the biggest hurdle in gettin organs (n.o.k permissions).