Presumed Consent

With respect, I think I've been misinterpreted here. I am quite happy to donate and for others to gift in a positive way. It is the presumption I'm against.

PECS I am with you, I don't understand why people are objecting to this. As you say, if someone doesn't want their organs used they can opt out. I know someone who carries an organ donation card and has also made it clear in her will that if any member of her family objects to her organs being donated they forfeit any inheritance, although I'm not sure how binding that can be (she wrote the will herself)

Is it "the state" though? Or just desperate people who will die without the good will of others?

am I wrong? ... if you do not wish for your organs to benefit someone else after death you will be able to opt out of donation.

If that is the case those that feel strongly will opt out and their potentially useful organs can be burned or rot after death.

If people don't care what happens it won't matter. If people want any useful organs used it is ok too.

The only "problem" is when family challenge the wish of the deceased & object to organ donation when an individual has said they were ok to donate.

I do not see that as state control.

I am also not happy with the state having those powers.
Unfortunately aspects of state control are already in evidence.
Look at the mass medication by fluoridation of the water supply for example. Even if you want fluoride in your water you can probably see that putting it in the water does remove other people's options.
I Think the benign state is not always necessarily thus.

My misgivings are only around the state presuming they own my body.

I think the problem with how my views are being perceived, although they are no different to others , is that I have openly said I will not donate organs and I do not believe in it. My misgivings are both on the medical front and the legal front with this. Clearly I can see that as a trigger. Most have said , I agree in principle but dont like deemed consent etc.

In fact around two thirds of people have good intentions and say they will donate organs but when the crunch comes permission is gained either by donor card or relatives consent ( no matter how much they seem to agree with it) only 31% or 32% actually donate.

I understand how I can be a target for the disagreement as opposed to others who hold similar misgivings.

I might continue the discussion with others but for you - well whatever floats your boat. Clearly as someone who has been on all sides of the transaction you have an agenda
No Abbey I do not have an agenda, but I do have some experience. And I also have feelings which you have disregarded in your broadside.
Our teenage god daughter was knocked down in a hit and run accident nearly 30 years ago - her organs including cornea, liver, lungs, heart and kidneys went to dramatically improve or even save the lives of several people.
My DH would not have lived to see his 50th birthday, 21 years ago without a liver transplant. I am grateful that he went on to live for another 19 years, seeing his daughters grow up, marry and to know and love our 4 grandchildren. .
So, no agenda, but nor do I share your apocalyptic view of the future .

When my daughter first started her nursing training, the group of trainees were invited to see organ donation in action.

My daughter has organ donation cards for her still young children.
I was rather surprised. But I can see why she did it.

NotSpaghetti Thank you, we may disagree but that was a polite and considered way of putting your point across.

When I defected from Mumsnet I expected to find a lack of hyperbole, more properly researched opinions and more polite but still passionate debate. It seems that I was misled, it does not seem to be the Gransnet I joined when it first started.

abbey the bbc article you quote (which seemed to be directed towards me perhaps?) says they put the rise down to specialist nurses discussing organ donations more. But regarding consent and the idea that it should be a gift, you aren’t a lone voice - I’m still unhappy with presumed consent. And think it’s wrong that you have to opt out. I’m with you (and Jane10) on opting out.

paddyann and jura, please don’t lump all funeral directors together. Whilst you may have this negative experience it is not true of everyone. Furthermore, these days there are alternatives to the traditional approach which people can investigate if they wish.

These are just my thoughts.

Maw Brown. Sorry but I cannot be bothered to make any discussion with someone who has to rant at me and find any manner of mistake to use as ammunition.

I might continue the discussion with others but for you - well whatever floats your boat. Clearly as someone who has been on all sides of the transaction you have an agenda .
I have simply said what I think. I am not impressed much with you either.

Thanks Jane. I understand exactly what you are saying. I have the same approach but my final decision is that I will not give because I take into account other considerations which I have not discussed here.

I think we should have a responsibility for others. That builds a strong society."

At that point we disagree philosophically . I believe in individual freedom of choice. I do not think there should be any kind of collective responsibility. Such collectivity does cause pressure by definition. However, I also think that as things are now changing policies to opt out rather than opt in may well see donation figures drop a little as they did in Wales. Many joined the opt out register in protest at being collectivized.

In countries where there are high rates of donation there are other factors pushing the rates, not presumed consent apparently according to most of the papers I have read. Its more cultural.

But it also explains why you would donate and I would not. We have a basic philosophical difference there.

Abbey your highly emotional and intemperate post based on wildly pessimistic projections with an admixture of fiction did you no favours.
As it happens I do know more than some about organ donation and acceptance and I have had lengthy discussions with the professionals regarding the ethics of organ donation. With personal experience at both “ends” of the transaction I am acutely aware of the ramifications of this area and the need for calm rational discussion. Yours was not. I do not need anything to be “nice” - I have had, as I said personal experience and there is a huge difference between “passion” and hysteria. Do not presume to lecture me anbout organ donation.
PECS furnished you with a very reasonable counter argument which goes some way to redressing the balance of your hysterical tone.
Your paragraph about piles of bodies and removing “jelery “ (sic) and gold fillings was highly offensive to those of us with German or Jewish forbears and frankly , beyond ridiculous.
And by the way, your non-fiction reading list doesn’t impress every much either.

abbey I understand your points. Under the new system you're not under pressure to agree. If you don't specifically disagree then they can take what they want! I'd rather choose to give than choose not to. As I've said umpteen times. I have no problem with organ donation but I don't like the presumption of agreement to it.

I think we should have a responsibility for others. That builds a strong society.

Oh FGS Abbey calm down

I am quite calm thank you. What you seem to mean is that you do not want any argument to be approached with any passion. You want it nice so you do not have to really think about what it entails. Besides using such a phrase is an attempt to discredit me - why? You have no counter argument?

but you have no need to overreact in this way. Emotive terms such as “rape” have no place in a mature and rational argument, which yours certainly is not.

Actually it was a genuine typo that turned reap into rape. I was typing fast ( I was heading to work and wanted to get it in before doing so) hence my letters crossed and reap turned to rape.

That said rape is probably a more accurate term. After all when you take something ( usually sexual assault of course) without consent, it is rape. We rape the land in the same way - taking away all that it has to serve us. Its not that emotive a word.

Further, it is a word I have seen others in this thread use without comment being made on their over emotional state. Its also a phrase often used by academics and others in debates and papers which have discussed the for and against of presumed consent. So I am not somehow out of line with that - although you want to suggest it. Again, do you have no counter argument to offer vis the actual subject? Not that it matters. You have your opinion and I have mine , as I said several posts back - whatever floats your boat. It doesnt however float mine. I gave my view. I may appear to be a lone voice, but I certainly am not alone in having misgivings about this new bill and the change from opt in to opt out.

As for the books I commented on - again, I see you chose to lok at the fiction but failed to look at the philosophical/sociological list. hmm a pattern emerges maybe?

As for my examples. All were taken from fact. It is not fiction that we now have more babies aborted ( and closer to term) than ever. It is not fiction that often they are used to harvest tissues, stem cells etc. It is not fiction that new research has looked at using female sexual reproduction organs as a source. It is not fiction that faces have been transplanted from dead people to those with disfigurement. It is not fiction that we are moving closer to "Voluntary" euthanasia of those sick and elderly or even disabled. In some countries this is happening and has brought about misgivings - including a case in Holland where an old lady was held down whilst they gave her a lethal injection on the "consent" of her family. Same is happening in Belgium with disabled people. These are not fiction but they beg the question where are we going to end up with this presumed consent?

How long before we are all treated as a commodity ( no it wont happen just as abortion on demand was never going to be so well used as it is ).

Of course it is all voluntary isnt it? I can opt out. Yes I can. I am a strong person. I know what I believe. What about those who may feel that they really do not want to give their bodies and organs away ( dead or not) but feel pressured to agree because after all, as has been suggested here, I am a most awful person for not wanting to agree to organ donation.

It should be a choice and the organ given as a gift. Not as it now seems to be a responsibility to give up what is ours for others.

Meant to add that I agree termination should not be considered a form of birth control. But if other birth control fails I think it is ok.

The greatest number of abortions happen before 14 weeks. ( over 90%)
Of the few carried out late in pregnancy well over half are because of foetal abnormality.

As for abortion- I truly have mixed feelings here, and I have to say I am hugely saddened that in the 21st century, almost 60 years after women and men were provided with very effective birth control methods- it should still be such a massive problem. Of course things can fail for some reasons- but the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies now are the result of no contraception used, willingly and with full knowledge and full access.

And that is tragic.

abbey, thank you for your reply. I totally disagree, but thank you for taking the trouble.

As for bodies- that is all they are, just bodies- so in a pile or not- makes no idfference to me. Much better ecologically- as for the gold, when you think how people suffer and are still literally slaves in gold mines- shame to waste any.

As someone else who has read a lot of books and understands history I have a very different opinion to Abbey
I am not certain which aspects of history Abbey feels have been changed to make it "politically correct" . Other than the appalling atrocities carried out by Nazi " doctors" in WW2... which as far as I am aware details have not been changed.. what history impacts on consent for organ donation?
There are of course modern day trades in some parts of the world where body parts are a commodity & some places where prisoners are used as guinea pigs for drug trials. But still nothing to do with giving or not giving consent in UK for post- death organ donation.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguru is a great book about this subject. Enjoyed the book but still happy for organ donation

I agree there are some very negative aspects of modern life abbey but, in my view, "the good old days" were never as good as they are painted.

Young single women were forced to continue with unplanned pregnancies only to then be pressured into having those babies adopted, children could be physically assaulted by their teachers with no comeback, people died from conditions and diseases which can now be put right, most people got their old age pension and then died a few years later, etc, etc.

In my view, organ donation is a great thing. You obviously feel differently and that is your prerogative. I tend to be rather pesimisstic too but your level of pessimism far exceeds mine and you seem to be extremely judgmental about all manner of people.

Oh FGS Abbey calm down.
All those books you name are fiction (yes, possibly prophetic) but you have no need to overreact in this way. Emotive terms such as “rape” have no place in a mature and rational argument, which yours certainly is not.