Because I don't want to be cut open and used for spare body parts . It's my choice and it does not make me selfish . It is something i find revolting to be used like that .
At the very least it makes you unreasonable (and also selfish).
It's actually a very personal choice whether you want to donate your organs or not and no one has the right to have a go at someone who doesn't want to donate, it amounts to bullying and guilt tripping. That is also why I don't agree that you should have to opt out, it's a person's body and they can do what they want with it. Many people may not realise they would have to opt out either.
My Mum has a habit of guilt tripping me about not giving blood, I won't give blood because of a phobia I have of needles thanks to being in and out of hospital and monthly blood tests as a child. It's bad enough when I go for jabs so the whole idea of giving a pint of blood just isn't one I can entertain.
I would hate to be approached at the deathbed of a loved one, and to have to make that decision.
The family still have to be approached. They can't just tell the family to clear out and start cutting up the body because someone is a registered donor or because it was opt out!
That's why people should talk about donation with their next of kin. Ultimately it's up to them as most humans are too understanding to want to upset anyone who is already distraught.
Don't think there are any demands made? I appreciate some may feel under pressure but if you've already made your wishes clear this would be very helpful to them.?
They are not 'demands' in the exact sense but 'requests with a sense of moral entitlement' and delivered as such, and if there are 20 assorted bods showing up variously asking if you would consider donating some/all of the remains and obviously the various self-appointed self-righteous passers-by offering their 'advice' (look at me, I'm doing my bit aren't I so wonderful) but quite frankly if you are at someone's death-bed then the rest of the world can fck off until we are done here and you with the white coat and clipboard if you aren't about to announce some miracle cure, you can fck off too...
Although I'd be sub prime now I am registered. More importantly my son's know of my wishes and I theirs. All our bits are up for grabs.
But, I do strongly feel this should be an opt in scheme. Otherwise it is the state, not your loved ones, with autonomy over your corpse/brain dead body. Can you imagine the distress to a grieving parent being told that their still warm child, still with a heart beat is now being taken away for compulsory organ harvesting against their wishes? Could you do that to a parent/spouse/child/sibling? Could you ask medical staff to do it?
It is reducing a loved person to a bunch of spare parts.
The way things operate currently means that a donation is a gift given that can help the grieving process. Regardless of registration, if a person is suitable the NOK will be approached by trained persons. A gentle and sensitive process and many people do agree. I would be surprised if compulsory 'opt in' would significantly increase the 'pool' but it would cause significant heartache to those affected. Unless, of course you give the NOK the final say in which case it isn't really any different to the current system. NOK can over-ride the donor's wishes even if they have registered and can donate even if they haven't.
Indeed, a registered 'opt out' could see a drop in available organs as those who previously hadn't made their wishes know (or the family didn't think they felt strongly) register to opt-out and the family respect those wishes now they are known - or they are not even asked
It's actually a very personal choice whether you want to donate your organs or not and no one has the right to have a go at someone who doesn't want to donate, it amounts to bullying and guilt tripping. That is also why I don't agree that you should have to opt out, it's a person's body and they can do what they want with it. Many people may not realise they would have to opt out either.
My Mum has a habit of guilt tripping me about not giving blood, I won't give blood because of a phobia I have of needles thanks to being in and out of hospital and monthly blood tests as a child. It's bad enough when I go for jabs so the whole idea of giving a pint of blood just isn't one I can entertain.
Completely agree, its personal choice and noone should feel pressured. I think the problem is getting people to make the decision.
Perhaps an alternative to an opt out would be something like registration for in or out at a certain birthday ?
I've been a blood donor and and a registered organ donor since the day I was old enough to do it and my daughter wil be encouraged to do the same.
I think it is extremely selfish not to do either and the 'phobias' nonsense does not wash, we all have 'phobias' we deal with on a regular basis. Whilst I find donating blood involves very little pain I don't consider it a pleasant experience but I persevere, I've had bad experiences at the dentist that were very painful but I still go back.
There will never be a valid excuse for not donating organs imo other than being 'not suitable', you will be dead, you won't feel it and you won't need them.
The family still have to be approached. They can't just tell the family to clear out and start cutting up the body because someone is a registered donor or because it was opt out!
That's why people should talk about donation with their next of kin. Ultimately it's up to them as most humans are too understanding to want to upset anyone who is already distraught.
I would hate to be approached at the deathbed of a loved one, and to have to make that decision. Far better or the family to know your wishes then and provide them with an opportunity to help you in achieving you last wish. That's at least one positive in the situation.
Perhaps an alternative to an opt out would be something like registration for in or out at a certain birthday ?
Certainly getting a decision made well in advance would be a good thing - but should the decision be public at that point or should there be a privacy time limit? Otherwise there will be undue pressure from both 'sides'.
There should also be the chance to change one's mind in either direction, say e.g. at 30, I understand from a documentary a certain Mr Logan had to run away because the system was fixed and rigidly enforced though from memory I'm not entirely sure that was necessarily a matter of recycling spare parts.
It's actually a very personal choice whether you want to donate your organs or not and no one has the right to have a go at someone who doesn't want to donate, it amounts to bullying and guilt tripping. That is also why I don't agree that you should have to opt out, it's a person's body and they can do what they want with it. Many people may not realise they would have to opt out either.
My Mum has a habit of guilt tripping me about not giving blood, I won't give blood because of a phobia I have of needles thanks to being in and out of hospital and monthly blood tests as a child. It's bad enough when I go for jabs so the whole idea of giving a pint of blood just isn't one I can entertain.
If you wanted to overcome your fear you could use giving blood as a good motivator. You don't have to look and the pain is very very slight. I've never had any phobia other than a natural aversion to being punctured and just for my own amusement I long ago got to the point where I closely watch the needle going in.
Don't like being controlled by irrational things.
Certainly getting a decision made well in advance would be a good thing - but should the decision be public at that point or should there be a privacy time limit? Otherwise there will be undue pressure from both 'sides'.
There should also be the chance to change one's mind in either direction, say e.g. at 30, I understand from a documentary a certain Mr Logan had to run away because the system was fixed and rigidly enforced though from memory I'm not entirely sure that was necessarily a matter of recycling spare parts.
Don't quite understand the public / privacy time limit, please explain
Doctors are far more scared of malpractice accusations than hopeful of getting a viable organ, I assure you.
Good!! I should think so
There's always exceptions though, the medical profession are human too. Then there's Harold Shipman getting his personal ego boost from deciding who lived or died.
The way things operate currently means that a donation is a gift given that can help the grieving process. Regardless of registration, if a person is suitable the NOK will be approached by trained persons. A gentle and sensitive process and many people do agree. I would be surprised if compulsory 'opt in' would significantly increase the 'pool' but it would cause significant heartache to those affected. Unless, of course you give the NOK the final say in which case it isn't really any different to the current system. NOK can over-ride the donor's wishes even if they have registered and can donate even if they haven't.
Indeed, a registered 'opt out' could see a drop in available organs as those who previously hadn't made their wishes know (or the family didn't think they felt strongly) register to opt-out and the family respect those wishes now they are known - or they are not even asked
What you have posted is very true. At the moment, it doesn't matter if a patient appears on the register or not because anybody considered suitable is referred to the Transplant CoOrdinator who approaches the NOK for consent, in a sensitive and sympathetic manner. Having an opt out system would remove the option of approaching everybody, even if family would perhaps be willing following discussions.
I believe, even with opt out, the consent of the NOK would still be imperative. No health professional would ever wheel a patient into theatre for organ harvesting against the wishes of a grieving family. This country will never have that sort of Big Brother approach as doctors and nurses are human beings who empathise with the grief felt by bereaved families. In ITU, we provide a lot of support to families going through the most difficult time in their lives and it would be completely unethical to go against their wishes, regardless of the wishes of the deceased patients.
As for ulterior motives by medics in not trying hard enough to save a patient in order to gain an organ, it really doesn't work like that in practice (maybe in movies). The doctors and nurses involved in the resuscitation and treatment of seriously ill patients have no vested interest in the transplant process. The transplant teams are sent from various transplant centres to the referring hospital to retrieve organs - they are completely independent and we only find out weeks later who received which organs, expressed in very general terms, eg'' a 25 year old male received a kidney and is doing well'' etc.
In any emergency situation, the goal is to provide the best possible care and treatment to the patient under our care, nobody even considers the needs of some nameless patient awaiting an organ until all hope is gone for our patient. At that point, 2 independent, suitably qualified medical practitioners must perform a series of brain stem tests in order to verify brain death - these tests can take up to an hour and are very thorough indeed, following a rigid protocol.
What you have posted is very true. At the moment, it doesn't matter if a patient appears on the register or not because anybody considered suitable is referred to the Transplant CoOrdinator who approaches the NOK for consent, in a sensitive and sympathetic manner. Having an opt out system would remove the option of approaching everybody, even if family would perhaps be willing following discussions.
I believe, even with opt out, the consent of the NOK would still be imperative. No health professional would ever wheel a patient into theatre for organ harvesting against the wishes of a grieving family. This country will never have that sort of Big Brother approach as doctors and nurses are human beings who empathise with the grief felt by bereaved families. In ITU, we provide a lot of support to families going through the most difficult time in their lives and it would be completely unethical to go against their wishes, regardless of the wishes of the deceased patients.
Difficult time for the family.
In that situation I would choose to do what I thought my loved one wanted. If they had never said they wanted to donate and hadn't registered either, I would assume its because they didn't want to and try to respect that.
That's only true for the major internal organs.
Bone, joints, skin and corneas can all be harvested well after death as long as the body has been kept in good condition.
There was an excellent documentary on BBC recently showing the work of the donor team based in Liverpool.
Tissue donation is very important and can help improve the life of many people. As you say, there is no sense of urgency regarding tissue donation.
Organ donation is another matter, organs are life saving. There is a real urgency in removing the organs while they are still viable. The heart, in particular, needs to be still beating up until its removal and the other organs need to be removed as quickly as possible following a ''non heart beating'' death.
Most acute hospitals have a resident Transplant Co Ordinator in place whereas we only need to give families information leaflets on how to contact the tissue transplant teams.
Don't quite understand the public / privacy time limit, please explain
Before and after, perhaps having the decision due on a randomised date, otherwise the victim is crushed in an avalanche of begging letters from Kidneys-4-u and Spleens-R-us and those wishing to preserve your soul or sanctity of the husk and family members just wanting to have a go at you on principle because you didn't take a turn to do the dishes.
Or possibly don't have a specific date but make sure there are proper awareness campaigns that stay clear of deserving to feature in the 'worst ad on TV' thread.
I've been on it for a few years. As far as I am concerned they can take what they need. It's not just organs that can be used, but other tissue too. Maybe I'll be more useful in death than life
My feelings exactly. When we die our body is just so much rotting meat. Recycling should be compulsory. There should be no opt in or out. Using the NHS should be dependent on a contract to donate your organs and/or your whole body when it is no longer useful to you.
My feelings exactly. When we die our body is just so much rotting meat. Recycling should be compulsory. There should be no opt in or out. Using the NHS should be dependent on a contract to donate your organs and/or your whole body when it is no longer useful to you.
How would you feel if your loved ones refused to donate your organs if approached?
Comments
At the very least it makes you unreasonable (and also selfish).
That could be due to us having an opt in system.
If that makes you feel better to think that but it's not "proven" . The facts are that you are in the minority by the records shown .
My Mum has a habit of guilt tripping me about not giving blood, I won't give blood because of a phobia I have of needles thanks to being in and out of hospital and monthly blood tests as a child. It's bad enough when I go for jabs so the whole idea of giving a pint of blood just isn't one I can entertain.
I know many who would but when we chatted hadn't got round to registering.
Let's have a little poll, would you donate your organs yes or no.
That's why people should talk about donation with their next of kin. Ultimately it's up to them as most humans are too understanding to want to upset anyone who is already distraught.
But, I do strongly feel this should be an opt in scheme. Otherwise it is the state, not your loved ones, with autonomy over your corpse/brain dead body. Can you imagine the distress to a grieving parent being told that their still warm child, still with a heart beat is now being taken away for compulsory organ harvesting against their wishes? Could you do that to a parent/spouse/child/sibling? Could you ask medical staff to do it?
It is reducing a loved person to a bunch of spare parts.
The way things operate currently means that a donation is a gift given that can help the grieving process. Regardless of registration, if a person is suitable the NOK will be approached by trained persons. A gentle and sensitive process and many people do agree. I would be surprised if compulsory 'opt in' would significantly increase the 'pool' but it would cause significant heartache to those affected. Unless, of course you give the NOK the final say in which case it isn't really any different to the current system. NOK can over-ride the donor's wishes even if they have registered and can donate even if they haven't.
Indeed, a registered 'opt out' could see a drop in available organs as those who previously hadn't made their wishes know (or the family didn't think they felt strongly) register to opt-out and the family respect those wishes now they are known - or they are not even asked
Completely agree, its personal choice and noone should feel pressured. I think the problem is getting people to make the decision.
Perhaps an alternative to an opt out would be something like registration for in or out at a certain birthday ?
I think it is extremely selfish not to do either and the 'phobias' nonsense does not wash, we all have 'phobias' we deal with on a regular basis. Whilst I find donating blood involves very little pain I don't consider it a pleasant experience but I persevere, I've had bad experiences at the dentist that were very painful but I still go back.
There will never be a valid excuse for not donating organs imo other than being 'not suitable', you will be dead, you won't feel it and you won't need them.
That was the point I was making in the post ;-)
Would like to but can't (for people with medical conditions ect)
There should also be the chance to change one's mind in either direction, say e.g. at 30, I understand from a documentary a certain Mr Logan had to run away because the system was fixed and rigidly enforced though from memory I'm not entirely sure that was necessarily a matter of recycling spare parts.
If you wanted to overcome your fear you could use giving blood as a good motivator. You don't have to look and the pain is very very slight. I've never had any phobia other than a natural aversion to being punctured and just for my own amusement I long ago got to the point where I closely watch the needle going in.
Don't like being controlled by irrational things.
Doctors are far more scared of malpractice accusations than hopeful of getting a viable organ, I assure you.
Don't quite understand the public / privacy time limit, please explain
Good!! I should think so
There's always exceptions though, the medical profession are human too. Then there's Harold Shipman getting his personal ego boost from deciding who lived or died.
What you have posted is very true. At the moment, it doesn't matter if a patient appears on the register or not because anybody considered suitable is referred to the Transplant CoOrdinator who approaches the NOK for consent, in a sensitive and sympathetic manner. Having an opt out system would remove the option of approaching everybody, even if family would perhaps be willing following discussions.
I believe, even with opt out, the consent of the NOK would still be imperative. No health professional would ever wheel a patient into theatre for organ harvesting against the wishes of a grieving family. This country will never have that sort of Big Brother approach as doctors and nurses are human beings who empathise with the grief felt by bereaved families. In ITU, we provide a lot of support to families going through the most difficult time in their lives and it would be completely unethical to go against their wishes, regardless of the wishes of the deceased patients.
As for ulterior motives by medics in not trying hard enough to save a patient in order to gain an organ, it really doesn't work like that in practice (maybe in movies). The doctors and nurses involved in the resuscitation and treatment of seriously ill patients have no vested interest in the transplant process. The transplant teams are sent from various transplant centres to the referring hospital to retrieve organs - they are completely independent and we only find out weeks later who received which organs, expressed in very general terms, eg'' a 25 year old male received a kidney and is doing well'' etc.
In any emergency situation, the goal is to provide the best possible care and treatment to the patient under our care, nobody even considers the needs of some nameless patient awaiting an organ until all hope is gone for our patient. At that point, 2 independent, suitably qualified medical practitioners must perform a series of brain stem tests in order to verify brain death - these tests can take up to an hour and are very thorough indeed, following a rigid protocol.
Difficult time for the family.
In that situation I would choose to do what I thought my loved one wanted. If they had never said they wanted to donate and hadn't registered either, I would assume its because they didn't want to and try to respect that.
Tissue donation is very important and can help improve the life of many people. As you say, there is no sense of urgency regarding tissue donation.
Organ donation is another matter, organs are life saving. There is a real urgency in removing the organs while they are still viable. The heart, in particular, needs to be still beating up until its removal and the other organs need to be removed as quickly as possible following a ''non heart beating'' death.
Most acute hospitals have a resident Transplant Co Ordinator in place whereas we only need to give families information leaflets on how to contact the tissue transplant teams.
Or possibly don't have a specific date but make sure there are proper awareness campaigns that stay clear of deserving to feature in the 'worst ad on TV' thread.
My feelings exactly. When we die our body is just so much rotting meat. Recycling should be compulsory. There should be no opt in or out. Using the NHS should be dependent on a contract to donate your organs and/or your whole body when it is no longer useful to you.
How would you feel if your loved ones refused to donate your organs if approached?
I'd say they were fools.