Do you think that the rules on organ donation should be changed so that we need to opt out of the list rather than opt in?
Are people who do not opt in at present just too busy to get around to filling in the form, or it is that they are still not comfortable with the thought of being incomplete when buried?
My mother and father both have Multi-Donor cards which basically means that they are willing to give any part of their body away when they die. They
have suggested that I should get one to, but I am rather superstitious about it and choose to have all parts of my body - 'organs and all' in tact.
Even though they shall all end up in flames once the incinerator goes to work and I get cremated.
I think it's just superstition really that stops people from doing it. Or perhaps lazyness or a 'couldn't care less' attitude - one of the three
I don't really have a problem with opt out rather than opt in as long as one's wishes are followed.
I think it is true that a larger number of people would be donors but haven't got round to, or have a superstition about, actually signing up.
As a community we also need more donors, if for no other reason than to reduce the excuse for genetic experimentation.
However, I will be opting out as I don't trust the medical profession:
An enthusiastic surgeon, who knows that he may well be able to successfully treat a patient with a donated organ, may well justify the shortening of another life (who hasn't long to go anyway) to reach that end.
I already have some difficulty with the medical profession's definition of death.
I don't think that the decision on life or death should be the responsibility of the doctors treating the patient.
All my family know I intend to donate (if possible).
Assuming the intent is only to use when neccessary and not harvest for the sake of it, I see it as a good plan.
But I do wonder how far down the line "use for medical science "will be added to the list.
I'd prefer opt out to opt in, for adults....
When I'm well and truly dead, they can have what they like, I won't need it any more! I believe the "opt out" approach should be the norm. As for your concerns, Simon, if organs, and such, were more readily available, then the issue of "in between" will become moot!
The card in my pocket says you can have my whole body.
But the nurses keep turning me down for some reason...
Like janet I'd go for opt out, for adults.
It sounds a bit Burke And Hareish to me.
Just because people are to lazy to get a card does not mean you should change the law,
More advertising is needed
A radio program discussion of this was playing the audio from the Monty Python skit. It had parts something like:
Doctor--"OK, take his liver."
"But, Doctor, I'm still using it."
"But, he says he's not!"
Does anyone know of a religion which teaches against organ donation?
I remember once being told that some Jewish people keep their body parts, for burial together, in anticipation of the resurrection. The person who related this to me said that if a Jewish man had an arm severed in an accident, he would keep it to have it eventually buried with his body.
I have not verified this. Somehow, when I speak with Jewish people, the subject of severed limbs and burial has never come up.
But that was not related in the context of parts that would be useful to someone else. Sometimes, there is more than one value to consider, if neither is absolute.
My intuition is that Jehovah's Witnesses would have some objection, because some blood transfer would be involved.
The point of the question: If there is a religious group that teaches against organ transfer, and a person is a dedicated member of that group, I don't think the government's presumption should prevail. Ideally, the person would opt out, but we all know people who put off such matters (they don't make a will, either).
Surely it comes under the tenth commandment.
Well, it cant be rule number one.
But, as Simon says, as long as they ask first and I dont answer.
I see your point, Victor. I was thinking in terms of the prospective donor and the recipient.
In the way you present it, it would even be stealing.
I have heard a conservative, Walter E. Williams, argue that one should be allowed to sell body parts, without the state preventing it. He says, they don't belong to the government, they belong to you (or to your heirs, when you are done with them).