Should organ donation recipients be donors to recieve?

[Paul1]

Should healthy adults (18+) have to be registered organ donors to be able to receive organ donations?



My opinion: Yes. If one of your organs packs up, you would want to receive an organ. It's therefore hypocritical if you thus don't want to also be an organ donor for others (after your death). People of any age can donate, of almost any health state (there may be organs and tissue unaffected by illness, including cancer).

The regulations should be such that you need to register before being diagnosed with an organ failure, unless the diagnosis occurs before you're 18, or if you contract CJD or HIV (in which case CJD/HIV positive organ donation could be a possibility, but that's another consideration altogether). I would hope most organ recipients would remain registered after receiving an organ, but ultimately you can't force someone to give up their organs.

Three people in the UK die each day waiting for an organ. It seems utterly selfish not to register.

[toker]

Convince me that my remains won't be in a medical freezer for students to play with, but that my organs will help those who need, and I'll sign up.

[Xero]

^^^ this.

[MattShizzle]

I think it also should be "opt out" rather than "opt in."

[Xero]

why? Just out of curiosity.

[MattShizzle]

So that the norm is to be a donor and have it take effort to not be one rather than to be one.

[Xero]

I see, I don't agree but I understand.

[MattShizzle]

Convince me that my remains won't be in a medical freezer for students to play with, but that my organs will help those who need, and I'll sign up.

Medical research does indeed eventually help those in need. And even if there's a chance they go to "useless" research rather than being used as a transplant it's still better than having them wastefully buried/cremated with your body. I also believe you can specify they be used for transplants.

[Xero]

So is the human body then anything more than a commodity? (asking, not accusing)

[neilstone40]

I think it also should be "opt out" rather than "opt in."

I must admit that I agree with this completely. So many opportunities are missed because


Potential donors don't always make their views known ahead of time or carry a donor card
Some medical staff are reticent to approach grieving relatives to ask if their loved on was/wished to be a donor (for obvious reasons).
Delays can render organs non-viable so if it was a case that 'consent' was already presumed, this would lessen any such delays.
Waiting lists for transplants are huge and significantly larger than the numbers of people who have registered as donors (as opposed to those would donate but have never got round to registering).


Anyone who did not wish to be a donor could still opt opt for whatever reason, religious or otherwise (I would never suggest removing this right).

I've known two people close to me who have died while on the transplant list. We have the ability to save so many of these people, all we need is the legislation to make it happen.

[Xero]

I can understand what you guys are saying.. About the opt-out though, wouldn't that mean that people who hadn't made their views known ahead of time, and opted out, would end up forcibly having their bodies hacked up and distributed? (the opposite of the reason for the opt out)

[MattShizzle]

Hey, if for whatever irrational reason you want your organs to be wasted it should be up to you to say so.

[Xero]

Umm.......ok. Except that is a matter of opinion.

[David B]

I can understand what you guys are saying.. About the opt-out though, wouldn't that mean that people who hadn't made their views known ahead of time, and opted out, would end up forcibly having their bodies hacked up and distributed? (the opposite of the reason for the opt out)

Well, sort of - except that 'they' wouldn't end up forcibly having 'their' bodies hacked up, because after death 'they' and 'their' are not appropriate words.

I wouldn't have my body hacked up after death, there being no I at that point.

Which reminds me- I should get a new donor card, since my old one got lost.

David

[Barefoot Bree]

Convince me that my remains won't be in a medical freezer for students to play with, but that my organs will help those who need, and I'll sign up.

Medical research does indeed eventually help those in need. And even if there's a chance they go to "useless" research rather than being used as a transplant it's still better than having them wastefully buried/cremated with your body. I also believe you can specify they be used for transplants.

Personally, I'd rather new surgeons be able to practice on a cadaver or six before going to work for real on live people. Even if it's me - on either side of that equation.

[Wizofoz]

So is the human body then anything more than a commodity? (asking, not accusing)

After death? Yes.

What do YOU think it is?

[Ozymandias]

I would be fine with this. Basically just make the organ donation card a card that says you would be happy to donate or receive an organ, and assume if someone doesn't carry the card, they wouldn't want someone else's organs.

Maybe we could even have an exchange policy. If you want a new liver, you have to give up that spare kidney, or spare retina.

[Xero]

So is the human body then anything more than a commodity? (asking, not accusing)

After death? Yes.

What do YOU think it is?

I don't know. NOT a commodity for starters. (personally I think that viewpoint is deplorable, but that's just me.)

Even if it was, why should the state get default ownership of it? That doesn't sound right.

[Xero]

I would be fine with this. Basically just make the organ donation card a card that says you would be happy to donate or receive an organ, and assume if someone doesn't carry the card, they wouldn't want someone else's organs.

Maybe we could even have an exchange policy. If you want a new liver, you have to give up that spare kidney, or spare retina.

So the sale of human organs becomes legal, but only if you want another human organ?


Whoops, didn't mean to double post.

[Wizofoz]

So is the human body then anything more than a commodity? (asking, not accusing)

After death? Yes.

What do YOU think it is?

I don't know. NOT a commodity for starters. (personally I think that viewpoint is deplorable, but that's just me.)

Even if it was, why should the state get default ownership of it? That doesn't sound right.

No, you're perfectley entitled to feel that's deplorable. A reasoned argument as to WHY you think it is deplorable would help if you want to be persuasive, but an unfounded belief is fine if you just want to keep it to yourself.

By "the state", you refer to my allution of "Public ownership"? Well, this will depend on the particular political make-up of the state in question- but my concept is perhaps better encapsulated by the idea of a "Responsible Agency" rather than just "the state".

[Ozymandias]

So the sale of human organs becomes legal, but only if you want another human organ?


I wouldn't advocate the "but only" part. As long as no-one is forced into it...

[BioBeing]

Should healthy adults (18+) have to be registered organ donors to be able to receive organ donations?


My first question here was why would a healthy adult even need an organ transplant? ;)

But I agree that an opt out clause is preferable to an opt in one. I certainly don't need my organs after I'm dead. And I, too, would rather a newly minted surgeon had practiced on a cadaver or two before cutting into me.

I have heard people say that they don't want to be organ donors as they fear that, if you are a donor, the doctors won't try to keep you alive after an accident, other than to use you as a donor...

[MattShizzle]

Which is absurd as the doctor likely wouldn't even know you were one before you were dead - and in any case allowing someone to die in order to use their organs would be very much against medical ethics.

[LoneWolf]

I agree with making the opt-in the default. Though I don't think "commodity" is a good word to use for it. It implies the buying and selling. When you donate blood is it a commodity? I look at it just like donating your blood, except that it is something you can do even if you are afraid of needles. :)

[Free in Freeport]

Makes sense to me.

[fed_up_philosopher]

That's how I always looked at. When you get yor driver's license, at least in the States, they ask you if you're willing to be a donor. I said yes, because the way I see it, I'm not going to use them when I'm dead, might as well get some good use of it. That being said, I think as a human being your most primitive inalienable right is that to live, and that it is part of the social contract to ensure everybody has equal access to life, regardless of whether or not they help out through organ donation.

[Paul1]

What better way to end one's existence knowing that you have helped to save lives? If I ever receive a donation, the organ will be more than just an organ, it will be, to me, an important symbol of someone else's humanity and a gift.

So is the human body then anything more than a commodity? (asking, not accusing)
In my view it has nothing to do with my body being a commodity, it's totally the fact that I can act now to help save lives in the future. There's nothing more noble than acting knowingly to preserve life. And there's something "spiritually" satisfying about knowing that my death could spur on life.

I would be sad if my body was no use after my death. If I end up dying slowly, I would consider donating any organ whilst dying, or committing suicide, if it meant someone else would survive.

FUBG: Why do we need an exchange system? If you're dead it may as well all be given up.


The most common reason I hear for not donating organs is that people want to "die completely". I used to feel like this, but after reading stories I realised that it's massively selfish not to become a donor in the face of people deaths as they wait for a compatible organ; given that after my death I won't be needing my organs anyway.

[Ozymandias]

FUBG: Why do we need an exchange system? If you're dead it may as well all be given up.


Why do you have to be dead? Plenty of organs have spares. And even the ones that don't could be traded if the money went to loved ones.

[DanB]

There's always the consideration of a deceased donor's estate.

[dancer_rnb]

Who profits from it?

If it is simply a transfer from me to another patient and the only expenses are those involved in the actual operations, I have no problem. But if someone is
taking my donated body parts and then selling them for profit I want no part of it.

Add: Maybe that should read a relatives body parts to get around the "but you're dead" comments.

[Paul1]

FUBG: Why do we need an exchange system? If you're dead it may as well all be given up.


Why do you have to be dead? Plenty of organs have spares. And even the ones that don't could be traded if the money went to loved ones.

Sure if people want to give live donations, then they should. About a 1/3 of kidney donations are from generous living donors. Live donors are not analogous to dead donors because giving an organ whilst alive carries risks and can impact on your quality of life. Dead donors are dead, so it's risk free and impact free. Therefore the ethics of opt-in and opt-out don't apply equally to both. Not sure what you're saying about money there.

dancer_rnb: I agree, profit is a no. The only time I would agree with profit is if, for example, I was a compatible donor for someone in another country, the NHS could sell my organs to buy compatible organs for a recipients in this country, or to afford life saving treatments for ill people in this country.

[Evilbetty]

So is the human body then anything more than a commodity? (asking, not accusing)

not a commodity so much as a resource. In my opinion recycling should be mandatory. Regardless of whether I am helping someone in an educational form or replacing a body part so long as it is being used in a beneficial way I am happy. I would even go for being composted :)

The "for profit" scenario just opens up some very scary doors in my mind.

[Xero]

At least thats consistent of you :)

[frazier]

To the OP: no. I dislike the idea of a tit-for-tat system.

If someone needs help, and I can help, I'll do it. If someone is stuck on the side of the road with a flat tire, I'm not going to ask them to fill out a questionnaire. Same with organ donation. I give blood not because I want a blood donor to get it, but because I want someone who needs it to get it. That's all.

[Xero]

The same reason I give blood

[DanB]

I'm curious as to the concern for profiting by the donor?

[Paul1]

To the OP: no. I dislike the idea of a tit-for-tat system.

If someone needs help, and I can help, I'll do it. If someone is stuck on the side of the road with a flat tire, I'm not going to ask them to fill out a questionnaire. Same with organ donation. I give blood not because I want a blood donor to get it, but because I want someone who needs it to get it. That's all.

It's not a tit for tat in my view. It's about being fair and not a hypocrite.

[frazier]

Who said life was fair?

[The AntiChris]

To the OP: no. I dislike the idea of a tit-for-tat system.

If someone needs help, and I can help, I'll do it. If someone is stuck on the side of the road with a flat tire, I'm not going to ask them to fill out a questionnaire. Same with organ donation. I give blood not because I want a blood donor to get it, but because I want someone who needs it to get it. That's all.

It's not a tit for tat in my view. It's about being fair and not a hypocrite.I see it more as an incentive to make oneself available as a potential donor.

I'd be in favour of an opt out system. In my view, the potential to save lives unquestionably trumps any irrational concerns over one's dead remains.

Chris

[Xero]

The utilitarian views around here are stifling lol. I don't agree with any of this especially "irrational concerns over one's dead remains". I guess it's just because of my beliefs. I think a persons remains deserve respect and I don't believe forcing them to be hacked up is respectful at all, and not to the family/friends either, which is where I believe most of the concern is rightly placed. I may not care where my remains end up, but I think it is essential for our families and friends to be able to grieve properly and have some sensitivity paid to them. Burying me, or cremating me is more for their benefit, not mine. (I am talking about people who died but had neglected to opt-out, out of laziness or whatever. I am not talking about people who choose to remain donors)

But what about a child? Just like a will, it is unlikely that most children will have opted out. (Unless we made it so that when a person is born the parents can right away opt out, like on the birth certificate form or something. But then, what is the point of changing the current bureaucracy? Just to hopefully "catch" some more donors because the parents neglected to opt them out, or they didn't realize the ramifications, wanting the child to choose for him/herself at a later date?) Let's for argument sake say an unexpected death happened to your child, or one of your relatives (nephew/niece or something) and you hadn't opted your child out, or their parents hadn't opted your niece/nephew (or whatever) out. What would you say when they told you your child was to be hacked up and traded off and you/the parents have no say otherwise. I vehemently disagree that any of you would be ok with this, and call bullshit on anyone who says otherwise, as you probably don't know how you would react unless you were in that situation. As it is easy to postulate for the sake of appearing consistent in your views, when it doesn't affect you. At the very least, even if you don't mind the idea of helping other children, I sincerely doubt (considering the attitudes and strong wills of everyone here) that you would just go along with it, relinquishing any say as the child's parent. And I think if many of you had children and seriously sat down and thought about what would happen to your child's body, I'm willing to bet bullion that the idea would start to alter your reasoning. Especially if you knew that their body was just to be hacked up and used for training props, their heads poked at, laughed at, played with. I'm willing to bet that a large number of cadavers end up in the incinerator without any serious learning ever being accomplished from them. Even if it does help educate the next best pediatric surgeon on the planet, I still think you would have a problem with it. And if you did just go along with it because "oh well, guess I should have opted them out" or something else, then all I can say to you is "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaa"

[The AntiChris]

I don't agree with any of this especially "irrational concerns over one's dead remains".I know you don't.
I guess it's just because of my beliefs.Yup. That's the problem.I think a persons remains deserve respect and I don't believe forcing them to be hacked up is respectful at all,Whereas allowing people to die who might otherwise have lived if they'd received an organ donation is ok.

It's beliefs like these that don't deserve respect.

Chris

[Barefoot Bree]

Xero, when you can wrap your mind around the idea that not everyone shares your gut reaction reverence for the human body, maybe you'll begin to understand why I can stand here, a mother of two lovely daughters, and not only have signed my donor card but approved their signing theirs, as well. And should the worst happen and one of them die before me, if any of their organs can save another's life or sight, I will be honored to let them go. My daughter will be dead, but part of her would live on in another. That's the best possible outcome of a tragic situation.

And yes, I feel the same way about donating their bodies - or mine - to science. It's part of the whole "no afterlife" thing, ya know? I do not share your reverence for corpses - though I would not just toss them out in the garbage, I don't think they need to be handled with reverence and kept intact - especially not at the cost of providing needed organs to others.

[Ozymandias]

I don't think anyone should mind it you just change it from opt-in to opt-out. After all, they can still get whatever they want.

However, it is important that people should not be forced into opting-in by societal pressure. Both choices are equally valid and should be respected.

I would consider opting out since I wouldn't necessarily want to help a random person live without knowing a little about them, and when you are dead you have no ability to make restrictions on who can use your organs.

[Notta]

People are not 'hacked up' when they're organ donors, either. It's the same as if they'd had an autopsy, and many people still look 'whole' while lying in a coffin who have left major organs, or parts of them, in the autopsy room.

It's not as if you'll get Grandma or Junior back in a jar. Only certain organs are surgically removed from the body immediately after death or while the heart is still beating but the brain is mostly dead. The body is sewn back up (just like after an autopsy), and unless you UNDRESSED your dead Grandma or Junior, or tried to OPEN UP THEIR EYES, you wouldn't know that anything was missing.

No one gets 'hacked up' because they're an organ donor. Even the bodies for medical students are treated with respect. Med students who joke around and goof off with body parts can be sanctioned or expelled (or so my cousins & their kids who are MDs tell me).

[Barefoot Bree]

I would consider opting out since I wouldn't necessarily want to help a random person live without knowing a little about them, and when you are dead you have no ability to make restrictions on who can use your organs.

When you're dead you don't care. There's no you TO care anymore.

[Ozymandias]

When you're dead you don't care. There's no you TO care anymore.

You can care before you die about what happens after you die. For example, leaving money to charities, self-sacrifice in war, or just generally devoting your life to goals that only come to fruition after your death.

[Xero]

I don't think anyone should mind it you just change it from opt-in to opt-out. After all, they can still get whatever they want.

However, it is important that people should not be forced into opting-in by societal pressure. Both choices are equally valid and should be respected.

I would consider opting out since I wouldn't necessarily want to help a random person live without knowing a little about them, and when you are dead you have no ability to make restrictions on who can use your organs.

Hmm interesting point. I never even considered who would be receiving the organs.

No one gets 'hacked up' because they're an organ donor. Even the bodies for medical students are treated with respect. Med students who joke around and goof off with body parts can be sanctioned or expelled (or so my cousins & their kids who are MDs tell me).

This may be what you've heard, but I've seen otherwise. I'm sure it varies from school to school.

You can care before you die about what happens after you die. For example, leaving money to charities, self-sacrifice in war, or just generally devoting your life to goals that only come to fruition after your death.

Agreed.

Xero, when you can wrap your mind around the idea that not everyone shares your gut reaction reverence for the human body, maybe you'll begin to understand why I can stand here, a mother of two lovely daughters, and not only have signed my donor card but approved their signing theirs, as well. And should the worst happen and one of them die before me, if any of their organs can save another's life or sight, I will be honored to let them go. My daughter will be dead, but part of her would live on in another. That's the best possible outcome of a tragic situation.

And yes, I feel the same way about donating their bodies - or mine - to science. It's part of the whole "no afterlife" thing, ya know? I do not share your reverence for corpses - though I would not just toss them out in the garbage, I don't think they need to be handled with reverence and kept intact - especially not at the cost of providing needed organs to others.

Do not assume this is some gut reaction, that's quite the assumption, and seems aimed at only creating a conflict. Good for you that you think blah blah blah, but as you pointed out, not everyone shares that view. My point is not "I think this therefore you should do X"; it is, "why should it be changed, from the current system?" The benefit of having more donors, is only at the expense that someone has unwittingly forgotten to opt out, and is forced then to be a donor. Or organs from lazy people, who do not care to even make a choice and in doing so have have in effect, made a choice. I mean, sure you would get more organs, but something doesn't pass the smell test there. Then again, I do believe that people who are apathetic to X deserve anything they get in regards to X, so in that respect...

And why should the state/individual hospital gain ownership of your body? There's no feasible way you could set up some bureaucracy where your family/estate would get to decide where the organs go based on the viable time of the organs. Unless the person has also somehow stipulated where they will allow their tissues and organs to go after their death, though this too would have to already be known at least shortly after death. I haven't been able to find anything on that with the current system though.

I am not against organ donation, but I see no reason to change it from the current system. I mean some states as fed_up philosopher stated and in the UK they are going to (or have already) implement a system where when you apply for a drivers license you must decide about organ donation. Sure, this wouldn't apply to people who do not get a license, but the point is that there are already programs to accomplish the same goals. (more people donating organs)

My examples were to provide, wait for it, examples of where you might find yourself in a position where this system becomes a problem for you, now, when you are alive.