Presumed Consent

[DimPrawn]

They can have everything except my corneas. I have no issue with my organs being harvested, but they're not cutting my eyes.

No that would hurt!

[DiscoStu]

No that would hurt!

It's stupid, I know. I have no real reason for objecting, I just don't like the idea of it.

[shaunbhoy]

It's a moot point as far as you're concerened SB coz I can't see anyone wanting your worn and ratty organs,

You'd be surprised SG. I have already had a tempting quote from Sizewell B for my liver!!

although I hear that the Primate Research Institute wants your brain as they're interested in how chimps would behave with a lower IQ

Surely it would be less costly and time-consuming to simply invite you along to give an after-dinner speech?

[SueEllen]

1. The database of opt-outs will not work, will not be availble etc.
2. Your bits will be whipped out 5 minutes after you last breath. No thanks.
3. Gordon Brown wants it, therefore it is a fooking bollox idea.
4. Open to abuse and mistakes.

1. True
2. Doesn't matter most people who would be of any use have a post mortem (chopped up after death) anyway. Least this way they get some use from you and it ain't by sticking one of your organs in a jar without your family's permission. Anyway most people who are of any use are those who ride motorbikes.
3. It's not Gordon's idea. I think some doctors wanted it ages ago and Nu Labour wouldn't consider it.
4. Yep if your family are screaming and crying cos they are against it no doctors going to try and use your bits whatever you wanted, as their own lives are too short.

[sasguru]

You'd be surprised SG. I have already had a tempting quote from Sizewell B for my liver!!



Surely it would be less costly and time-consuming to simply invite you along to give an after-dinner speech?

Can't stay and play unfortunately, I actually have some work for a change

[Ruprect]

I am totally against this. Is nothing sacred any more? Should the government have the right to assume ownership of your body after you are dead? IMO No.

I think that the present donor system should receive more promotion, perhaps as part of some sort of general studies in schools. The decision to donate organs should be a concious choice made by the donor, not a default position that the state can take advantage of.

[DimPrawn]

I am totally against this. Is nothing sacred any more? Should the government have the right to assume ownership of your body after you are dead? IMO No.

I think that the present donor system should receive more promotion, perhaps as part of some sort of general studies in schools. The decision to donate organs should be a concious choice made by the donor, not a default position that the state can take advantage of.

Exactly.

[Dow Jones]

No thanks

I appreciate more donors might be needed, but this should be a matter of personal choice and not for the state to decide by default. This will dissuade (rather persuade) even more people from becoming potential donors.

[BoredBloke]

That is an easy position to take if you or a loved one is not in need of a transplant. Many relatives only think about transplants after the person has been dead too long - if at all.

"This will dissuade (rather persuade) even more people from becoming potential donors. "

No it won't. Many people are open to the idea of donating their organs but they don't do it because they never get around to it. This method uses this apathy. You can opt out if you want. The simple fact is that many people will not bother to opt out in the same way that currently many people do not decide to opt in.

I'd say most people who are against these proposals would quickly change their views if one of their kids developed serious liver troubles and was in dire need of a transplant.

[shaunbhoy]

Well, what a grumpy bunch of old cynics we have here for the most part. I assume that those opposing this scheme would also be in favour of signing up NOT to receive donor organs in an emergency?