England to consider optout organ donation

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Soft opt-out or Presumed consent

  • Soft opt-out

  • Presumed consent

  • Neither.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Chippy_Tea

Chippy_Tea

Administrator.
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
51,046
Reaction score
19,013
Location
Ulverston Cumbria.
I prefer the Welsh soft opt-out not presumed consent i think families of the deceased should make the final decision.

They are discussing it on 5 live and they are suggesting if you opt-out and become ill later in life you should not be allowed to have a transplant.


A consultation on introducing an optout system for organ donation is to be held in England, ministers say.

Currently anyone who wants to donate their organs after death has to "opt in" through the donor card scheme.

But a new system, whereby it will be presumed an adult's body can be used in transplants in the absence of express permission, will now be considered.

Wales has already introduced an opt-out system, while Scotland has said it will be following suit.

The Welsh system - introduced in 2015 - is known as a soft optout, so if the individual's family objects, the removal of their organs does not take place.

In June, Scotland said it would be introducing a similar system, known as presumed consent.

It came after a government consultation found 82% of people were in favour.

There are currently 6,500 people on the transplant list but an average of three people a day die because they do not get one.

The Department of Health confirmed there would be a 12-week consultation later this year after the policy was mentioned by Prime Minister Theresa May in her speech to the Conservative Party conference.

Mrs May said: "Our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the number of organ donors that come forward.

"So to address this challenge that affects all communities in our country, we will change that system - shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation."

Sally Johnson, of NHS Blood and Transplant, which co-ordinates the organ donor scheme, said she hoped the consultation would "drive a national conversation about organ donation".

Fiona Loud, policy director at Kidney Care UK, added: "This is a truly momentous day."

BBC News.
Click to expand...
 
It should be opt-in. There are bigger problems to solve than the lack of donors. Now, I don't have the UK numbers but I doubt they differ much from the Netherlands.

17 million people, 3 million donors.
Life expectancy 82 years.

Meaning 200,000 people die each year (17000000/82)
17.6% is donor (3/17*100) resulting in 35,000 donors (3/17*100*2000).
That's 70,000 postmortem kidneys.
There are 470 postmortem donations.
Over 95% of the donated kidneys aren't even used.

Let them use the supply they have instead of forcing everyone to give up their bodies, UNLESS opted out.
 
GerritT said:
It should be opt-in. There are bigger problems to solve than the lack of donors. Now, I don't have the UK numbers but I doubt they differ much from the Netherlands.

17 million people, 3 million donors.
Life expectancy 82 years.

Meaning 200,000 people die each year (17000000/82)
17.6% is donor (3/17*100) resulting in 35,000 donors (3/17*100*2000).
That's 70,000 postmortem kidneys.
There are 470 postmortem donations.
Over 95% of the donated kidneys aren't even used.

Let them use the supply they have instead of forcing everyone to give up their bodies, UNLESS opted out.
Click to expand...

What a waste. Think of all those steak and kidney puddings you could make :lol:
 
I'm already a registered organ donor, if I'm dead I'm done with my meat suit. That said, if somebody wants to opt out due to religious beliefs they should be allowed to, surely those beliefs would already exclude them from receiving organs too, otherwise it's bovine gong...

As to relatives wishes, heck no. Only the individual has the right to decide what happens to them post mortem, relatives need to respect this.

Sent from my NEM-L51 using Tapatalk
 
GerritT said:
It should be opt-in. There are bigger problems to solve than the lack of donors. Now, I don't have the UK numbers but I doubt they differ much from the Netherlands.

17 million people, 3 million donors.
Life expectancy 82 years.

Meaning 200,000 people die each year (17000000/82)
17.6% is donor (3/17*100) resulting in 35,000 donors (3/17*100*2000).
That's 70,000 postmortem kidneys.
There are 470 postmortem donations.
Over 95% of the donated kidneys aren't even used.

Let them use the supply they have instead of forcing everyone to give up their bodies, UNLESS opted out.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly the daftest statement I've read on here in a long, long time.
They aren't going to use them if the body is outside the time-limit for transplant or they can't get the recipient to theatre in time.
They can't use them if the organs are from a donor with any number of communicable diseases or cancer.
They can't use them if the organs are damaged through trauma.
They can't use them if the organs aren't a good match for a recipient.

That's the trouble with dead people, they tend to have something wrong with them...
 
And those issues will still be valid with the opt-out system.
But let common sense not get in your way.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
 
GerritT said:
It should be opt-in. There are bigger problems to solve than the lack of donors. Now, I don't have the UK numbers but I doubt they differ much from the Netherlands.

17 million people, 3 million donors.
Life expectancy 82 years.

Meaning 200,000 people die each year (17000000/82)
17.6% is donor (3/17*100) resulting in 35,000 donors (3/17*100*2000).
That's 70,000 postmortem kidneys.
There are 470 postmortem donations.
Over 95% of the donated kidneys aren't even used.

Let them use the supply they have instead of forcing everyone to give up their bodies, UNLESS opted out.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the logic behind these numbers (which I expect is my failing).

What I do understand is that there are over 6300 people awaiting transplants:

  • 4993 need a kidney;
  • 513 liver;
  • 346 lung;
  • 268 heart;
  • 173 pancreas;
In the first quarter 2017/18 there were 1183 transplants. 942 were from deceased donors.


That's based on 24m people registered to be donors (37% of the population).


I'm no expert, but I'm assuming that the people who know their stuff think that a greater supply of donors will make significant gains in the availability of usable organs, suitable at the 'moment of need'.


It is a bit puerile to say it, but I will - my 'moment of need' will have passed. It would seem selfish to deny others the chance of a better life once mine has passed.
 
I think it’s criminal to be willing to accept a donation of a body part (which the majority of people would) and not accept other people benefiting from the same by donating. Should be compulsory. So many needlessly wasted lives could be saved.
 
MarkBowie said:
Should be compulsory. So many needlessly wasted lives could be saved.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree more your body belongs to you not the government if you have strong feelings about being buried/cremated with all your bits that is your decision not the governments.

.

.
 
If you care that much then you opt-out, whilst you're at it opting out of receiving donated organs too, as it would be hypocritical to receive organs from another when you're unwilling for your own to be used to save the life of somebody else in the same way. Besides, if you want to be buried/cremated with all of your own organs in your body, you surely wouldn't want somebody else's in there instead, as if you did then yours have already been cut out and chucked away, which means it wouldn't be your organs you'd be getting buried/cremated with inside you? lol

I do agree though that it shouldn't be compulsory, as people should always have that choice. Agree or not (and yeah, for me it's not) plenty of religions teach that your organs etc are sacred etc etc, and it's wrong to ignore beliefs end of the day.
 
Chippy_Tea said:
I could not disagree more your body belongs to you not the government if you have strong feelings about being buried/cremated with all your bits that is your decision not the governments.
.
Click to expand...

But at that point, "you" no longer exists, on account of "you" being dead.
 
Chippy_Tea said:
I could not disagree more your body belongs to you not the government if you have strong feelings about being buried/cremated with all your bits that is your decision not the governments.

.

.
Click to expand...

And if you have strong feelings you can tick the box. Otherwise one of the alcoholics on this site can get a new liver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chippy_Tea
England to consider optout organ donation
Replies
0
Views
374
Chippy_Tea
Chippy_Tea

Latest posts

Back
Top