Starmer Claims First Job Was On A Farm...
News0 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by Drusilla. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.i support the opt out system, as it obviously (with a little luck) gives you time to make it clear if you really do not wish to donate - i feel this is a lot safer as people being people will through laziness and an attempt to avoid discussing the inevitable will often fail to "opt-in". I don't think families could sue in any case as it is a statute of the land that is in force and if the individual involved cared strongly they would have taken action - you can't sue statute (very easily)
I'm with the opt out - the Scottish ruling strikes me as a bit of a silly 'middle ground'.
It would be easy for a next of kin to say, yes he carried one, 'but he said he was going to get rid of it', or 'yes he said his heart could be used but that was all' etc
If someone wants to opt out, then all well and good - but it would be a far simpler system if this was in place (as well as allowing more transplants to ake place)
I think it's a very difficult situation that you cannot begin to understand unless you've been there. Instead of strengthening the legality of the card, I think people should be encouraged to speak to their family about the situation and explain why they feel it is important that they donate their organs. It's a very emotional situation and difficult to judge.
I carry a donor card, but I seriously couldn't say that I'd condemn someone for refusing to allow their loved ones organs to be used.
A difficult situation with a difficult answer.