Should donating organs by compulsory?

[fryke]

I'm not that paranoid. I'd go for an opt-_out_ strategy, i.e. anyone is automatically an organ-donor, but if your illogical faith (i.e. religion or similar thing) calls for an "out", you can get a non-donor card or something like that. Before they cut you open and start dealing your organs around, officials would, of course, have to make sure you're not on a non-donor list.

Most people I've talked about this in recent days (obviously spurred by that TV show about it) had very similar things to say:

1. I'm not sure I'd want another person's organ(s). (My answer to this is: If you're dying, you might get sure quickly.)
2. I haven't really thought about it, but yes people should have my organs if I die and they're still of some use.

The important part: They haven't really thought about it but wouldn't mind giving organs. That means that an opt-out strategy is called for. In my book.

[Rhisiart]

A similar poll in the British Medical Journal (yes, I can crib at the best of times) has most respondents supporting an Opt Out, i.e. your organs may be taken unless, as Fryke says, you carry a non-donor card.

Most of these respondents are doctors and other health professionals. Perhaps this explains why they favour the Opt Out system. Either they are out to exploit innocent victims (I think not), or they see the anguish in seriously ill patients awaiting new organs.

[icemanjc]

Maybe I would do it only for my family members.

[chevy]

Originally Posted by icemanjc

I never really thought of it, I really wouldn't want to give my organs.

This reminds me an excellent Monthy Python movie.

Mine will be available... once I'm dead.

[bbloke]

Originally Posted by fryke

I'm not that paranoid.

What? As in you don't listen to what someone inside the medical profession has hinted might well go on?

The person did not say the hospital would deliberately let someone die if they could save them. What they did hint at was that if they have to make a choice of who to save when things are tight, and know one person is a donor and the other isn't, they would put the organ donor lower on the priority list than the non-organ-donor. I don't know how true this is, and it may vary from establishment to establishment, but if an "insider" basically said it, who am I to argue?

A way round that, whether only a fear or whether it actually goes on, is to ensure medical staff only find out who is a donor and who is not after a patient's death.

Originally Posted by fryke

...but if your illogical faith (i.e. religion or similar thing)

This is not helpful. Less of the inflammatory remarks, please.

(This could open a whole new debate about the reasoning behind everyone's beliefs, atheists and thesists alike, and we don't need to go there...)

I might not agree with people who believe they need to keep the body whole after death, for whatever reason, but I won't be derogatory about those beliefs.

[bbloke]

Originally Posted by chevy

This reminds me an excellent Monthy Python movie.

Ah yes, I remember that rather messy scene!

(The same movie that had Mr. Creosote, but I digress.)

[chevy]

Sound of a bell ringing
Mr Brown: Yes ?
Man 1: Hello. Can we have your liver ?
Mr Brown: What ?
Man 1: Your liver. It's a glandular organ in your abdomen. You know, it's a reddish-brown, sort of --
Mr Brown: Yeah, yeah, I know what it is, but I'm using it.
Eric: Come on, sir. Don't muck us about.
Eric takes a card from Mr Brown's pocket
Man 1: What's this, then ?
Mr Brown: A liver donor's card.
Man 1: Need we say more ? No.
Mr Brown: Listen, I can't give it to you now. It says, "in the event of death."
Man 1: No one has ever had their liver taken out by us and survived.



... don't be paranoid ...

[reed]

On a New York State drivers license you check a little box on the back saying:"I hereby make an anatomical gift to be effective upon my death"
A. Any needed organ parts
B. The following body part(s)...see below, etc. Signature, witness, date etc.

I signed, of course.

Only the liver may be a wee bit tired. Hic.