The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Attero Dominatus on January 12, 2008, 08:29:34 PM
-
Organs to be taken without consent
By Patrick Hennessy and Laura Donnelly
Last Updated: 9:21pm GMT 12/01/2008
Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister says that such a facility would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year.
The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.
But patients' groups said that they were "totally opposed" to Mr Brown's plan, saying that it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.
There are more than 8,000 patients waiting for an organ donation and more than 1,000 a year die without receiving the organ that could save their lives.
The Government will launch an overhaul of the system next week, which will put pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more "potential organ donors" from dying patients. Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they "convert" into donors and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor co-ordinators as patients approach death.
But Mr Brown, who carries a donor card, has made it clear he backs an even more radical revamp of the system, which would lead to donation by "presumed consent". The approach is modelled on that of Spain, which has the highest proportion of organ donors in the world.
I thought this only happened in China
More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GK0FARS1NQKNTQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/13/norgans113.xml
-
I actually don't have a problem with this. When you are dead, you cease to be a "person" and have no "rights."
If you have religious objections (which I personally find immoral when your otherwise useless body could save someone else), you can opt out.
But this looks like the UK -- people here in the US get the heebie jeebies on this kind of thing.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
At that point it is an empty meat sack. Might as well use it most effectively.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
At that point it is an empty meat sack. Might as well use it most effectively.
It is a slippery slope. At one point Gordon Brownshirt might sign some legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug on people who are on life support and their organs will no doubt be harvested.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
I agree. And if Hillary becomes elected, she will probably have hospitals do something similar here as part of her hillarycare bullshit.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
I agree. And if Hillary becomes elected, she will probably have hospitals do something similar here as part of her hillarycare bullshit.
We can hopefully prevent that next Nov.4.
-
No, stupid idea.
What if the medical staff look the other way and withhold treatment thus letting the patient die because they need someone's colon?
Or any other organ for that matter.
The government has no business determining where my organs go without my approval.
If they try it I may just give them a piece of my mind....
-
It won't fly here but the politicians in the UK do pretty much what they want regardless of puplic opinion. :mental:
-
It won't fly here but the politicians in the UK do pretty much what they want regardless of puplic opinion. :mental:
With all its nanny-state laws, socialist policies, political correctness, increasing surveillance, etc etc etc the UK is becoming more and more like 1984 faster than you can say double-plus-ungood.
-
I'd be OK with a simple "opt-out" database. Assume everybody is a donor unless their ID/ Med records say otherwise. Seems like there'd be a lot less deaths while waiting for organs/ and people that have serious problems with it are protected.
-
It won't fly here but the politicians in the UK do pretty much what they want regardless of puplic opinion. :mental:
With all its nanny-state laws, socialist policies, political correctness, increasing surveillance, etc etc etc the UK is becoming more and more like 1984 faster than you can say double-plus-ungood.
Becoming? It's already there. The only thing that worries me about this in practical terms is the temptation to declare people prematurely dead in order to achieve a donation (and there was previously such a scandal here quite some years ago). As for it being a policy, I don't agree with it, my body does not belong to the state by default.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
At that point it is an empty meat sack. Might as well use it most effectively.
So are the DUmmies but we can't harvest them either. :)
Make an opt out database and I'm there.
-
No, stupid idea.
What if the medical staff look the other way and withhold treatment thus letting the patient die because they need someone's colon?
Or any other organ for that matter.
The government has no business determining where my organs go without my approval.
If they try it I may just give them a piece of my mind....
Yep, I don't want to be considered to be an organ mine for the elite. For instance, I don't quite receive the proper medical diagnosis and treatment I need, because, Teddy Kennedy has his heart set on that brand new liver.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
At that point it is an empty meat sack. Might as well use it most effectively.
So are the DUmmies but we can't harvest them either. :)
Make an opt out database and I'm there.
That was my underlying point. Implied Consent is NOT blanket consent. And for those who argue that the gummit should not be able to step in when you are dead, ever hear of an autopsy? The concept is already in place.
-
It should be the patient's decision. I don't care if I'm dead. If I haven't given permission to take my organs, the government shouldn't presume to have free access to anything about me.
This kind of stuff makes me sick.
My dead body will not be a buffet sanctioned by the government.
I'll decide what can be used.
At that point it is an empty meat sack. Might as well use it most effectively.
So are the DUmmies but we can't harvest them either. :)
Make an opt out database and I'm there.
That was my underlying point. Implied Consent is NOT blanket consent. And for those who argue that the gummit should not be able to step in when you are dead, ever hear of an autopsy? The concept is already in place.
Big difference. An autopsy serves the dead and brings closure and/or justice to the deceased and their loved ones. Removing organs that aren't being used any longer crosses over into a much different area. While technically you are just a "meat sack", the govt has to respect your last wishes and those of your family. Even if that means being "selfish" and taking all of your parts with you into the great beyond.
-
Big difference. An autopsy serves the dead and brings closure and/or justice to the deceased and their loved ones. Removing organs that aren't being used any longer crosses over into a much different area. While technically you are just a "meat sack", the govt has to respect your last wishes and those of your family. Even if that means being "selfish" and taking all of your parts with you into the great beyond.
How can you serve the dead? They're dead. The important provision is the opt out. As long as that is their to protect your precious otherwise useless remains, what is the problem?
-
You gave an autopsy as an example of govt already intervening. I pointed out the difference. An autopsy serves the dead by determining the cause/manner of death which brings closure not only to the family but may also bring justice if the death was unnatural. So, yes, it serves the dead. Removing organs does none of these things.
I think I said I wouldn't have a problem as long as the opt out provision was in place.
-
You gave an autopsy as an example of govt already intervening. I pointed out the difference. An autopsy serves the dead by determining the cause/manner of death which brings closure not only to the family but may also bring justice if the death was unnatural. So, yes, it serves the dead. Removing organs does none of these things.
I think I said I wouldn't have a problem as long as the opt out provision was in place.
I think we are seizing on different aspects of the law. But I think we generally agree.
-
Perhaps. They are not comparable though. My opinion is based on my professional background in law enforcement/forensics. I have no problem with the govt performing an autospy even when it's against the wishes of the family (which may sometimes be to cover up what really happened). Obviously there are exceptions and family wishes are honored. We're getting into a very broad area and a bit off topic....but yes, we generally agree.
-
Big difference. An autopsy serves the dead and brings closure and/or justice to the deceased and their loved ones. Removing organs that aren't being used any longer crosses over into a much different area. While technically you are just a "meat sack", the govt has to respect your last wishes and those of your family. Even if that means being "selfish" and taking all of your parts with you into the great beyond.
How can you serve the dead? They're dead. The important provision is the opt out. As long as that is their to protect your precious otherwise useless remains, what is the problem?
The problem is the "implied consent" (which is not real consent at all). As well as the potential for abuse (what bijou mentioned: the temptation to declare someone dead prematurely).
-
Three doctors and a former hospital administrator are facing murder charges in Thailand in connection with an alleged organ transplant scandal.
Thai police say they have collected strong evidence to suggest the accused misdiagnosed patients as brain-dead in order to extract their organs.
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/702296.stm
For this reason, organs for transplant usually come from patients with brain injuries so severe that brain death is determined before the life support that keeps their hearts and lungs functioning is removed, enabling their organs to be kept in good condition until the moment they are harvested. Such organs are in critically short supply.
Now, however, this situation is changing. In June, Ottawa Hospital in Canada announced its first organ transplant in recent history from a patient who hadn't been classified as brain-dead, but whose heart had stopped - so-called "donation after cardiac death" (DCD). By switching to this definition of death for transplant purposes, doctors hope to increase the number of healthy organs available and the number of potential donors from which they can be harvested.
...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125633.400
Here are a couple of links to other stories on this issue.