Presumed Consent, Could This Be Considered Anything But A Good Thing?

[sandyRoe]

Organ donation law 'revolution' starts in Wales

[mikey4444]

I have read what you have posted Woofy, and there is no need to shout !

Its just that I don't agree with you, and no amount of shouting is likely to change my mind !

[woofgang]

I have tried not shouting and you don’t seem to be able to understand me when I type in lower case. Its fine by me if you have a different opinion from me, its when its evident from your response that you either haven’t read, or haven’t understood, or are ignoring what I have said.

[woofgang]

and you still haven’t posted any quote or link to refute my concerns about this.

"If families knew their loved one did not wish to be an organ donor - even if they had not opted out - they will still be able to tell doctors and donation will not take place"

[mikey4444]

Woofy...we have been debating this subject for most of the day and its unlikely that we will agree.

But as I said at 11:56, that I would respect your opinion and I still stand by that. But I'm not sure I can add anything new here today.

[woofgang]

Its simple, you believe that this is a protection
"If families knew their loved one did not wish to be an organ donor - even if they had not opted out - they will still be able to tell doctors and donation will not take place”
I think that even I could drive a bus through it.
You believe that an opt out system is acceptable.
I think its a gross infringement of my (and others) personal freedom.

My views would be unchanged if we were discussing the contents of someone’s wallet or their body.

[woofgang]

Final comment from me without the emotiveness of the transplantation issue (I hope)
To me the underlying statement of this legislation is as follows

“We, the State have decided that you, the people, have got something that we think, under certain circumstances, is useless to you and that we, the State, can make better use of. Therefore, acting on the belief, if you don’t register with us, that we can’t take this thing from you, then we are going to go ahead and take it.”

That’s why IMO its wrong

[viv41]

woof - I totally agree with everything you say, but you should know by now that mickey is ALWAYS right !! Having to 'opt out' is wrong, if we don't want to donate for whatever reason that should be enough without having to be seen to 'opt out'.

[woofgang]

viv, i do see that the two issues here, saving life with transplants, and personal freedom have become entangled...its the old thing about hard cases making bad law and its really easy for an emotive issue to cloud judgement.

[viv41]

Yes I know.

[New Judge]

“Sorry Mikey but a check on Google reveals that Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Gypsies are among those who believe that the body should be buried intact.”

Well that’s that, then. There will have to be opt out clauses based on religious differences and so will enter onto the statute books another law which provides exemption for some minorities.

“I'm merely trying to offer a workable alternative to 'presumed consent'…”

There’s no need for one, dave. The plight of your friend (and anybody else in a similar situation) is tragic. However, the current system provides a way for those who wish their body to be used after their death to give their consent. Any other system, be it “presumed consent” (which actually presumes that the body is to be plundered unless the owner opts out) or “required decision” (which forces people to make a choice that they may not wish to make) is contrary to common decency in that it forces an issue upon people which it is totally unnecessary to force. The needs of the proposed recipients are being placed above the sensitivities of the donors.

I don’t quite see why people who have not consented to their organs being used after death should be denied a transplant should they need one. No other conditions are attached in other fields: you are not denied an infusion of blood if you have made no donations; the RNLI do not confine the people they pluck from the drink only to those who have contributed to the Lifeboat Fund. Where’s the difference? In any case such a condition will immediately fall foul of discrimination on religious grounds. The scenario will go something like this:

“I am a Muslim and I need a heart transplant”
“Sorry, they are restricted to those who have agreed to be donors and you have not”
“But I cannot be a donor. My religion forbids it”
“Sorry, them’s the rules”
“Then you are discriminating against me on the grounds of my religion”

(Sounds of cash registers are heard in the background).

The BBC report is very telling:

“From Tuesday, adults will be regarded as having consented to organ donation unless they have opted out. More than one million people - 34% of the population - have registered to opt in already and 86,000 have opted out. A person will become a potential donor either by registering their decision to opt in - as they do currently - or by doing nothing at all, in which case their consent may be deemed”

If one million people have opted in (presumably under the old rules because there is no opt in necessary under the new system) this means 2m people (minus the 86,000 who have opted out) have been “assumed to have given their consent”.

I must say I had not heard of this until today. The more I read of it the more outraged I am. The whole thing is an absolute scandal. Essentially the Welsh Assembly is laying claim to the bodies of two thirds of its citizens unless those people tell them otherwise whilst they are still alive. I believe it goes a little beyond the remit of “devolved powers” and the issue should, at the very least, been debated at Westminster. I cannot believe that anybody who considers this a good idea has properly thought it through.