Organ Donation

[Number 6]

Been on the organ donor list for a while now, mum didn't like the idea, but I don't see any reason not to be on the list as I will be dead and gone and unaware. I don't donate blood but that's more through fear of needles.

[MikeyT]

I carry a doner card as well.

I know it sounds cliched but if i can help someone live after ive gone then why not!

[Alexikokopops]

Been on the organ donor list for a while now, mum didn't like the idea, but I don't see any reason not to be on the list as I will be dead and gone and unaware. I don't donate blood but that's more through fear of needles.

I'm on the bone marrow donor list, apparantly the needle they use in that is the diameter of a small child.

[Number 6]

I'm on the bone marrow donor list, apparantly the needle they use in that is the diameter of a small child.

Yeh I think that is supposed to be pretty painful, that's something I have picked up from Scrubs and House

[The People's Hero]

I think it was a lovely gesture for Ultra to donate his personality whilst still alive, but perhaps taking things a bit far.

[Rt Hon Percy Longprong]

I'v "donated" my organ more times than i care to remember

And although i say so myself,a splendid example it is too don't you know.

[Daggers]

I'v "donated" my organ more times than i care to remember

And although i say so myself,a splendid example it is too don't you know.

The Organ Gag has been provided on load to FoxesTalk for the duration of this thread on behalf of the British Library. It first dates from 1619 and examples of its use can be seen in manuscripts still held in Thomas Tresham's Triangular Lodge, Rothwell.

Thank you to all members of FT that have graciously used the loaned pun during the last couple of days but it is my unfortunate responsibility to inform you that it is being sent back to London tomorrow morning.

[breadandcheese]

I'm intrigued to know the views of the 8 people who have said they are totally against it.

Make that 9 - someone just voted now - who are you?!

I was one of them.

It's not about being against donating organs. Far from it. It's vital and life-saving.

It's more the implication that the state owns our body parts, unless we specifically opt out. It is almost a shared ownership, that our organs are no longer just ours, they are simply loaned to us for the duration of our life until the state takes them upon our death. Of course, unless you opt out. It's just a nasty tone with the implied nature of it.

I think the current system should continue to be about encouraging more organ donation. Not a massive amount is done to promote it. Let's be honest, you come across more promotion of some pretty random charities just walking down Churchgate towards the Clocktower, rather than organ donation, a vital life-saving necessity.

[Zingari]

I'v "donated" my organ more times than i care to remember

And although i say so myself,a splendid example it is too don't you know.

its the "assumed consent" bit that is worrying though ;

didn't you have the decency to even ask

[Zingari]

I was one of them.

It's not about being against donating organs. Far from it. It's vital and life-saving.

It's more the implication that the state owns our body parts, unless we specifically opt out. It is almost a shared ownership, that our organs are no longer just ours, they are simply loaned to us for the duration of our life until the state takes them upon our death. Of course, unless you opt out. It's just a nasty tone with the implied nature of it.

I think the current system should continue to be about encouraging more organ donation. Not a massive amount is done to promote it. Let's be honest, you come across more promotion of some pretty random charities just walking down Churchgate towards the Clocktower, rather than organ donation, a vital life-saving necessity.

i did not vote before, but i have now and i think you are quite correct......but no doubt someone will post an equally persuasive argument that will make me change my mind again ; this damned abulia

[Monk]

i did not vote before, but i have now and i think you are quite correct......but no doubt someone will post an equally persuasive argument that will make me change my mind again ; this damned abulia

This thread has shown that there are a decent number of people out there who are willing to sign up to the register but do not through lazyness or whatever reason.

This notion of assumed consent has been around a fair while and yes OK I can understand the concerns set out in the above post but if every one is aware that if you do no opt out then you will potentially be a donor then what's the problem? If you don't like it then opt out. Even if all people with this opinion opt out there will still be a much higher percentage of dead organs that will go to good use. The only question for me is if the transplant surgeons can cope with the extra supply?

[cisono]

Wheres the, Its completely fooking necessary & what the hell are you gonna do with your body when your dead anyway you selfish bar steward option

It is not up to the state to decide what becomes of anyone's body, even after their death. Surely everyone can see that.

Moreover, at some level, I am worried that the medical staff might stop seeing people as patients and instead just see them as "organ carriers" and therefore forced donors. Might this not prevent them from taking care of you properly?

I am also worried that an assumed consent might make it easier for nasty people to steal some of your organs and "sell them on the black market". After all, if every dead body is an assumed donor...

Don't misunderstand me: I would be totally ok to donate my liver or heart or whatever to someone who needed it. But I would feel much better donating them to someone specific rather than just to "the medical community" or the community at large for them to do whatever they want with (perhaps we'll have a market trading in human organs next?!?!).

[Daggers]

It is not up to the state to decide what becomes of anyone's body, even after their death. Surely everyone can see that.

In short, no.

Moreover, at some level, I am worried that the medical staff might stop seeing people as patients and instead just see them as "organ carriers" and therefore forced donors. Might this not prevent them from taking care of you properly?

Again, no.

I am also worried that an assumed consent might make it easier for nasty people to steal some of your organs and "sell them on the black market". After all, if every dead body is an assumed donor...

They need to be pretty thick. Where is the market for them to sell the organs if supply starts outstripping demand?

People are attached to their organs and prevent others benefiting from them out of vanity alone. People are very stupid.

[Monk]

Sorry Cisono but that post was just plain incorrect.

First of all the 'state' effectively decides what happens to your organs right now if you carry a donor card, so with assumed consent after everyone who wants to opt out has done so then the situation hasn't changed in the slightest. Also there are no stories at the moment of people carrying donor cards being left to die so why would this be any different with assumed consent?

Secondly, black markets are created by lack of supply not over supply. There is currently a black market for organs in existence already. Assumed consent would reduce the gap between supply and demand and therefore reduce the demand for a black market.

[James.]

Sorry Cisono but that post was just plain incorrect.

First of all the 'state' effectively decides what happens to your organs right now if you carry a donor card, so with assumed consent after everyone who wants to opt out has done so then the situation hasn't changed in the slightest. Also there are no stories at the moment of people carrying donor cards being left to die so why would this be any different with assumed consent?

Secondly, black markets are created by lack of supply not over supply. There is currently a black market for organs in existence already. Assumed consent would reduce the gap between supply and demand and therefore reduce the demand for a black market.

Spot on Monk and after reading through the thread I'm still yet to see a convincing argument against assumed consent.

[Monk]

I think it's more of the perception of the idea as portrayed by the media than a genuine founded concern. It doesn't help that Gordon Brown is horribly unpopular at the moment either.

[BigGibbo]

Don't misunderstand me: I would be totally ok to donate my liver or heart or whatever to someone who needed it. But I would feel much better donating them to someone specific rather than just to "the medical community" or the community at large for them to do whatever they want with (perhaps we'll have a market trading in human organs next?!?!).

I think daggers has rightly rubbished the rest of it but what are you expecting "the medical community" to do with your organs? start a 5 a side organ football league!

I have enough mistrust in medical professionals for the lot of us but to think they would treat a persons internal organs with any less than the utmost respect is ridiculous!

There already is a black market for human organs this is because there aren't enough of them to go around.

If everyone becomes an organ donor there will no longer be a black market for organs because there will be a surplus of them & they will no longer have such monetary value(Not to say they wouldn't be of unequivocal value to the medical proffesions & the recipients).

[breadandcheese]

I think daggers has rightly rubbished the rest of it but what are you expecting "the medical community" to do with your organs? start a 5 a side organ football league!

I have enough mistrust in medical professionals for the lot of us but to think they would treat a persons internal organs with any less than the utmost respect is ridiculous!

There already is a black market for human organs this is because there aren't enough of them to go around.

If everyone becomes an organ donor there will no longer be a black market for organs because there will be a surplus of them & they will no longer have such monetary value(Not to say they wouldn't be of unequivocal value to the medical proffesions & the recipients).

I think possibly it is to do with organ donors' bodies being used for medical training. Being cut-up by students or having organs taken to help with training. Whilst again, this helps trains tomorrow's doctors and is of course important, some people, despite consenting to have their organs donated to a patient in need, may not be happy to have their body cut up for the purposes of teaching.

They are small destinctions and I guess a sideways arguments into the particulars of how an implied consent policy would operate, rather than the actual principle itself, but the concern is valid.

[Monk]

Ultimately that is down to the goverment to be very clear and transparent on their proposals here. You're not wrong in what you say about medical research but then if you organ is given to a person you are saving their live if it goes towards medical research then you are potentially saving a life. Maybe they should keep the Medical Research Organ Donation list separate to the Transplant Organ Donation List? That way people would be very clear about what the assumed consent relates to.

[coale39]

I think assumed concent is a fantastic idea. I already have a doner card and think most people are just too lazy to do it. In a perfect world, no one would want to give there organs up when they die but in reality its giving life to someone by giving them something that will just rot away and be wasted anyway. If people are really bothered I bet it wouldn't be hard to remove yourself.

[acooling08]

apparently in a few years science will be able to make organs by cloning cells or something

[cisono]

I just have to post this... the Health Ranger's opinion of informed consent.

Thanks for "Volunteering" Your Organs!

Speaking of incredibly stupid things, the U.K.s Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced a plan to steal organs from dead patients by acting on what he calls "implied consent to donate organs." This is not a joke, by the way: It's true! If Brown gets his way, patients who die in the U.K. will have their organs immediately harvested and sold to the high-profit organ donation industry, where every spare organ generates at least $250,000 in profits for the hospitals, surgeons and drug companies involved. Patient consent is no longer required -- it is implied by the State. I'm not kidding. It's being called "implied consent." Besides, what patient can possibly object? Dead people don't argue with you, right?

Apparently, Brown has already volunteered to have one of his own organs donated away -- his brain! The organ was promised to U.S. President George W. Bush, who has yet to receive the brain implant due to the fact that the removal of his old brain could not be accomplished because surgeons couldn't find it! Instead, they've decided to dose him up on statin drugs and hope the dementia fades away...

There's one thing that's always bothered me about organ harvesting, even from organ donor volunteers: Isn't it true that if the patient dies, their organs lose oxygen and start deteriorating within seconds? So isn't it in the interests of the high-profit organ harvesting and transplantation industry profiteers to get to work harvesting from patients before they're really dead? The brain stem is alive and active for several minutes after the heart stops beating -- the very same minutes in which their organs are savagely cut out of their bodies and put on ice! Think about that the next time you're pondering the organ donor checkbox on your driver's license.

Gordon Brown's mandating the harvesting organs from everyone makes China's policy of only harvesting organs from criminals seem downright humane. If there's one thing you remember this week, remember this: Don't die in the UK! If you're about to croak, run, swim or crawl your way to some other country's jurisdiction so that you can die in peace instead of pieces.

[Rincewind]

Just to keep things balanced.

DONATION OF ORGANS IS IN CRISIS

4 readers have commented on this story. Click here to read their views.

BY CATHY BUSS

HEALTH CORRESPONDENT

10:30 - 17 January 2008

Just 21 people who have died in Leicester's hospitals since 2002 have donated their organs, it emerged today.

Doctors say people not carrying a donor card, and relatives not realising their loved ones would want to donate their organs on their death, are the main reasons why there have been so few.

The lack of donors means one person a month in Leicestershire dies waiting for a transplant - twice as many as in 2002.

The scale of the county's organ donation crisis was revealed as the Prime Minister called for a nationwide debate on whether organ donation should be compulsory.

If it was, hospitals would use organs for operations unless the deceased had opted out.

Every home in Leicestershire is now to be leafleted in a campaign to encourage more people to carry a donor card.

Dr Kevin Harris, a consultant at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, said: "We have a very limited window in which organs can be taken for transplant so the most important thing at the moment is for people to let their relatives know they are happy to be a donor when they die.

"It then makes it easier for relatives to give permission when approached in hospital.

"The transplant waiting list grows every year, so we do need to find more donors."

He appealed to families to make a decision together and let each other know if they wanted to be a donor.

More than 200 people in Leicestershire are waiting for transplants - 40 are now too ill to have the operation.

Teacher Shamshad Patel faces a lifetime on dialysis unless a suitable kidney can be found. She is backing Mr Brown's call for a change in the system.

Mrs Patel, 34, from Evington, Leicester, has been waiting for a kidney for 10 years. None of her family are a good enough match to be a living donor.

A transplant could also allow Mrs Patel to have children.

She was 24 when a routine test revealed both her kidneys had all but failed. She now has dialysis for four hours, three times a week at Leicester General Hospital.

She said: "There should be freedom of choice over whether you are a donor, but if there was a system where you had to opt out it would make people think.

"It would be wonderful to have a baby - I had always thought I would have a family."

The campaign by UK Transplant will target every household in Leicester to encourage people, particularly from the south Asian community, to register as donors.

People from south Asian communities have a greater chance of needing a kidney transplant because they are more likely to develop diabetes or high blood pressure, which are major causes of kidney failure.

To register as a donor, call 0845 606 0400.

[samingram_uk]

I signed up today for the donnor card. Glad to know something i give when im gone will be used to help someone else.

[Rincewind]

I think this shows the power of the messageboard and word ofmouth. I know that I for one would not have signed up at this time if it was not for the online link and this thread.. How many have signed up through this thread?

It would be nice if the link was posted on other messageboards that people use. Also instead of putting ads for remortgages on websites put something about a donor card.

Unfortunately this still may not be enough as the demand is so high. That is why the opting out option is desperately needed. A person may be more inclined to have one or tell their family that they do not wish to donate than the other way round. Partners usually have the same views and relatives will be aware of this.

I don't think assumed consent will mean that relatives will not be informed just that the process will be quicker and easier for the doctors that have to ask or inform relatives.

PS an afterthought. could we have the link in a sticky or in somebodys sig?