Organs - Opt In/Out

Talk of changing the donor scheme so that you're automotically on the register and have to opt out.

I've heard this mentioned several times and think it's a good idea.

Seems like some are against it though.

Opinions?

 

I think everyone should be in by default and there should be no opt out.

 

Well, there has to be an opt-out if everyone is automatically assumed to be a donor. Everyone has the right to determine what should be done to their body. This already applies while alive - you have the right to accept or reject any medical procedure (the right of informed consent) - so it should also apply after death.
Some people have deeply held beliefs regarding disposal of their body, and this must be respected by any reasonable and civilised society.

I have a properly executed 'advance medical directive' which details my wishes in several areas in the event that I am unconscious or otherwise unable to express my wishes at the time.

 

When Im gone, all my bits are up for grabs. Just dont resell on ebay

 

*sigh*

I don't understand why they propose things like this whilst refusing donations from people who want to help.

 

They do?

 

In blood and organ donation there's open discrimination against homosexuals, despite the fact that blood and organs are tested for HIV and other infections regardless.

The fact that they'll accept those same organs from that same person should they die in the closet is rather odd, don't you think?

 

Yes it is ironic, but I used to donate blood and I was given the reason for this. IIRC, the chances of spreading HIV is something like 300 times greater with anal sex than other forms.

 

i'm all for opt out, it's crimnal that people don't donate, but understandable that fraught relatives don't make the right decision.

however the current law is wrong, if you choose to donate and go on record, currently your relatives get the last word, and that's wrong.

 

I think it's a great idea. I'd be more than happy for my organs to be used to help someone when i'm gone although my liver probably won't be much use :guiness:

 

Dev - I understand that line of reasoning, yet heterosexual women can also be a receiving partner in anal sex without the same discrimination being applied to them. That line of reasoning becomes rather tenuous, especially considering the number of gay men who don't.

If the risk of HIV is the worry, then perhaps young black women (the group with by far the largest growing incidence of HIV) should be excluded also? Can you imagine the uproar in the press?

Using Nucleaic Acid Test screening for HIV, the window between infection and possible detection is less than 12 hours. Since all donated blood is screened for HIV regardless of donor, I fail to see that this policy is reasonable.

Coming back to the organ thing, assume a gay man is closeted for his entire life and dies in hospital after a car accident. Would you want his organs if they could save your life? If, with appropriate screening, there was a 1 in 2000000 chance that you might contract HIV (source: FDA 2006 workshop) from the transplant would you take that risk (given that your chances of contracting MRSA from the operation are thousands of times higher, etc)?

My personal view is that organ donation should be much more strongly promoted and encouraged, and relatives should not be able to override the wishes of the deceased. I'm undecided on whether the presumption of consent should be made. However, I think that all people, regardless of background, should be able to make that contribution and that all contributions should be screened to the highest levels.

 

Andy - so you've signed up for a donor card?

 

I did so in my late teens Isaac, although i haven't seen the card for years and had all but forgotten about it until i saw this thread.

 

Well, in that case I'll take this opportunity to point out to people that it's easy to sign up online: http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/signup/

This also places your details on a central register, which means that even if you do not carry your card, they know your wishes.

 

Any idea if they kept a similar register 10-12 years ago, or would i need re-apply?

I do feel strongly about this-used to work in the NHS and know how frustrating it can be for doctors not being able to help patients. The opt out idea certainly seems like the way forward.

 

I should have added that heterosexual men and women are also asked if they have ever had anal sex or sex with a (male or female) prostitute or with someone who may have had anal sex with another male. I understand that HIV can take months to surface. I wonder if they store blood for that long before testing.

 

That's only if antibody tests are used. NAT testing will show HIV within 12 hours of infection and is the form of testing that has been used on donated blood since 1999.

 

In which case I can't see any reason for not accepting donations from the people mentioned above.

 

According to the report on BBC news, the situation where relatives could override the wishes of the deceased was addressed a year or so ago in Parliament, and it was decided that relatives would have no power of veto. So that aspect seems tp have been settled.

Considering the amount of surgery I have had, and the amount of medication I have been given (which I know has had a deleterious effect on my liver, at least) I am not so sure that my organs would be such a sought-after commodity! Perhaps my corneas?

I plan of donate my body to medical science-fiction.