I am afraid that your original post about polls did not make it clear that you were being light hearted, and therefore I responded to it in earnest as a serious post. You most certainly did suggest that the people who were polled were not telling the truth. It is therefore unfair of you to accuse me of souring the debate. I also did not say that you said people on this post were lying, merely that they had chosen to post, and that I believed that they were likely to be honest, and that you could draw a reasonable conclusion about the proportion of those who were for or against donation. I also accept that polls are not gospel, and that there is margin for error, but i cannot believe that all of the 60 % would change their minds,  and choose to do something different to what they originally intended. Some maybe, but not all of them. I cannot understand why you feel that the opt out system does not give you the "ultimate right to choose"......opt in or opt out, the individual still gets to choose, and there is nothing that I can see in the new system that implies or states anything different. I genuinely do not understand why you feel that changing the system will deny anyone choice. 
"I'm just concerned that people should have the absolute right to choose what feels right for them in this respect without being judged or criticised for it." I think you will find that I have not criticised your choice. Merely holding a view that I would like to donate does not mean that I do criticise your choice.

Ok, sorry I didn't make it clear I was being lighthearted about the polls - thought most people took them with a pinch of salt whatever the subject. :)  I do absolutely believe that people often do not tell the truth when polled so I'm not trying to twist results towards either viewpoint.  

I personally think there is a huge difference in choice between an opt-in and an opt-out system but again, I feel we have both already made our viewpoints clear so see little point in continuing down this route.  Let's agree to disagree shall we? :)

Mmm...have to say I'm not too keen on the 'opt out' system either.

One problem I think is that a lot of people may fall into it by default, it's what usually happens with such a system, some don't know about it, some don't think about it and others don't really think about what it means to 'opt out'.  So would it be fair to say that everyone is making an informed decision about what happens to their bodies when they pass on? 

Could be very distressing to the families too.

There is something I find very distasteful in the 'right to take' unless stated otherwise when it comes to personal bodies.

>I do absolutely believe that people often do not tell the truth when polled.

Well, yes I would agree with that, some people may find it easier to say what they think others want them to say to avoid disapproval, others say nothing.

Out of interest, and PLEASE dont let this get into a discussion aboiut the ifs and buts of talking to the other side. But
Has anyone copntacted a relative through a psychic thats has donated???????? If so, were they happy?? PM me if you want!!!!
I have that I will be a donor on my driving licence, but I havnt let my parents know. Yes I am a bury my head in the sand, and I feel once dead they can do what they like, but I do feel that I would want an organ donated to me, so I cant be a hypocrite and not donate mine!!!!!
I give blood whenever I can and I am on the antony nolan bone marrow, But I am a bit half and half as I dnt believe this is the end!!!!
Lea :)

And as for the opt out. I agree with it,. As if people are that dead (sorry!!!) against donating their organs than they would opt out. I know I wouldnt if I was given a choice, but I havnt opted in totally either!!!!
BUT it would only work if it was ghiven a good advertising campaign AND the call centres to cope with teh amount of calls!!!!

First posted by Spender :-D but now I've discovered cut & paste it has more effect than just writing "DITTO" :-D

>Mmm...have to say I'm not too keen on the 'opt out' system either.

One problem I think is that a lot of people may fall into it by default, it's what usually happens with such a system, some don't know about it, some don't think about it and others don't really think about what it means to 'opt out'.  So would it be fair to say that everyone is making an informed decision about what happens to their bodies when they pass on? 

Could be very distressing to the families too.

There is something I find very distasteful in the 'right to take' unless stated otherwise when it comes to personal bodies.

>I do absolutely believe that people often do not tell the truth when polled.

Well, yes I would agree with that, some people may find it easier to say what they think others want them to say to avoid disapproval, others say nothing.

Teri ;)

Hi 'Fred's Mum'

I have certainly never come across eggs being taken. I understand that if you want to have this done then you must actually consent in life; it is certainly not something that I have ever heard the Donor Co-ordinators ask for. The same applies to Sperm, it can be harrowing when a young man dies and his wife wants sperm taken but unless he has consented in life, it is not allowed. The Human Tissue Act is very strict and everything has to be signed and accounted for. I wont bore you with it but I have been here 7 years and the changes in the system (for the better) have been phenomenal!

Another useful bit of information is that if you want to donate your body to medical science (you would be amazed at the amount that do) unless you have contacted an anatomy department and gone through the screening process and signed up in life they wont take you.
Rx

the important thing to remember is that there is really little chance of someone accidentally taking your organs against your will in an opt out system. Organs are not whipped out of people the instant they die. out of all those who die, only a small proportion are suitable to be donors.....people who hae cancer cant donate, neither can those with even simple infections, and there are multitudes of tests to be done prior to donation. In 99.9% of cases there will be relatives or friends of the donor fully aware of the situation who can inform the hospital of the patients wishes. This performs a back stop for those who for some reason do not find out about the new system. Provided there is  a huge campaign to give people the opportunity to find out and opt out, this should not be a frequent occurrence. When you are admitted to hospital, or go to a gp they ask you questions about your  life, religious preferences etc, so there is no reason why this could not become part of that process. Most people have gp records and see a gp, and any hospital would have access to those records, so there are plenty of protective mechanisms in place. This system works well in other countries.

To pinklilies

>In 99.9% of cases there will be relatives or friends of the donor fully aware of the situation who can inform the hospital of the patients wishes.

Really?  Is that set in stone, studied, published and verified somewhere to set at ease the minds of those who have concerns?  Or would that be anecdotal?  Nope, I've just re-read and see it's your personal opinion in the form of a prediction .......

> Provided there is  a huge campaign to give people the opportunity to find out and opt out, this should not be a frequent occurrence

As I already pointed out, IMO, >> further down the line when things are not in public discussion etc and the situation is no longer to the forefront of anyone's mind in those circumstances someone may well be "harvested" from who would not, for whatever reasons *personal to them*, wish to be included in the donor system <<

>the important thing to remember is that there is really little chance  .........

I believe the *important thing to remember* is that we are each entitled to personal opinion without undergoing blatant efforts to convert or undermine those views :)

In a reply to the OP further up the thread you say

>You seem to be having a problem accepting that a certain proportion of others do not feel the same way as you

er, ditto!

Pinklilies: I think theres every chance your organs could be accidently taken. How many blunders do the doctors make when patients are alive? Let alone making mistakes when theres no one there to question it.

Be interesting to know how organ recipients would view the change to an opt-out system.  I realise they must be desperate to get a new chance at life but would it perhaps worry them that the organs they receive might not have been truly donated as in the current system?

Interesting point Annie ns

Interesting point Annie ns

It came to mind because I read a letter recently from an organ recipient and she was opposed to the opt-out system, saying she wouldn't have been able to bear not being certain that the organ had been genuinely donated.

Hi Freds Mum

Thanks for replying to my earlier post.  :-)

Please take 15 mins and listen to a wonderful friend of mine speaking on the radio 4 moal maze last Sunday evening.  Here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml.  Press listen again, she is the first on to talk, Emily Thakray.  I emailed her this morning to ask her to confirm that eggs would not be removed from a womans body.  Here is her reply -

I can guarantee that this is NOT the case. Eggs have nothing to do with organ donation - for a start they are not organs!

The organs that can be removed in organ donation are: heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas and small bowel. Corneas can also be used. However when someone signs up they can stipulate exactly which organs they would like to donate.

This page http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/questions/questions.jsp has some fantastic clear cut answers.

Hope that helps, feel free to ask away if any more random questions come up!

Jax x :-)

Thanks for that Jax. I will have a listen later when im free from distractions and let you know. This has been such an interesting debate!

It certainly has been interesting, and I'm sure you will find the discussion on the moral maze very interesting.  As I said in the beginning I do not mean to upset anyone but I also get very passionate about this subject as I know that one day in the future I will more than likely need a new pair of lungs. :-)

Hi Jax

Thanks for the link - I've just been listening and found it fascinating.  I have to say it hasn't changed my concerns  about an opt-out system at all though - in fact the witness Janet Radcliff-Richards horrified me with her views.

My impression was that the majority were strongly opposed to an opt-out system, but maybe that is just me putting my own spin on things. ;)

I would agree with you that this programme is well worth listening to by anyone interested in the subject. 

I work for the Coroner

Oh Yipee drlmiddleton, nice to have someone with first hand experience.

To be honest I am on the fence, I really don't know what to do, I know I should want to give my organs if needed and not worry about it, but I'm one of those people who just doesn't want to think of my death ever coming, I don't think I would never have signed a form for my organs to be donated as it is clarifying that I'm going to one day die, I don't like it! And I guess there are many just like me. Same as many keep putting off their will.

I'm also worried and if you can give some facts pleeease.... lets say I was in a car accident and internal injures etc brain or body meant I will not make it, would organs need to be removed before my last breathe? They wouldn't necessarily wait until I was pysically, (not mentally) dead would they? I just can't bare the thought of that for some reason still being alive and having organs taken. I know it is silly, but I do worry would people work as hard to help me to live, if they knew there was little chance, when someone could use my organs?

All silly I know as when you are dead you are dead! But we grieve for our dead we keep them alive in our memories and we talk to them, the thought of our dead not being whole and being interfered with, I find distressing too.

Unfortuantley we are not like the animal kingdom, we have faiths and believe in heaven, re-incarnation whatever, we don't let our dead just be dead, if they were it would be easier I think, I then would not be bothered about my dead decaying body.

Still on the fence. :-)

I am merely stating my point as a person who has at first hand witnessed on many occasions the organ donation process, and I base my beliefs on things that i have personally witessed. I would prefer to believe my own eyes rather than media hype about potential raiding of body parts.

Carrington I am with you!!!!! I am on the fence!!!
BUT when someone is brain dead it means that they are dead. If the machines that are keeping them alive are turned off, then they would die. Being brain dead means that they dont have any feelings, as feelings come from the brain. The organs are being kept alive by a machine, but the brain is nothing anymore, only an organ. I am sure someone will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can only keep someone 'going' for a few days of being brain dead before your body starts shutting down even tho the life support system is still on.
So what I am trying to say, is, if you are brain dead, then you are dead :(
Dont know if I have explained that well bvut hope so.
Lea :)

Move up Carrington! Make me a space on the fence!  I am following this thread with great interest- at the start I felt wary of the 'opt-out' idea and I still feel the same. I know we need some method of increasing the availability of organs, but I do not feel comfortable about this idea. Like many on here, I have children and grandchildren, and it would really worry me if this method went ahead, that youngsters would be the most vulnerable to any abuse of the system. They are probably the group least likely to act on 'opting out' and equally possess, in all probability the most sought after, healthy organs. Hence my earlier comment about the 'definition of death'

Yes, should any of my family need an organ, I would be the first to think it should be available!!

A true moral dilemma.

Linda

I don't think anyone knows where consciousness derives from, some say the brain, some say the whole body, and some think it's an external field.  There are so many different conflicting opinions about consciousness.  If brain-death meant death then why not just call it death, but it's not full body death thou, is it?  I think we just don't know enough about life and death. 

You may find this interesting; the extract on Mon, Sep 1, 2003 gave me the shivers...

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html

A number of interesting contributions there, as you say, that one in particular worries me too.  On the other hand, a lot of information to counterbalance it!!

I think you are right, we don't know enough about death, also as a society it is something we shy away from, and don't discuss enough. Maybe an 'opt out' system would have more people talking about these things, which could be a good thing.

Best wishes
Linda

loki's mum, that was lovely and totally how i feel :)

> Most people have gp records and see a gp, and any hospital would have access to those records, so there are plenty of protective mechanisms in place. This system works well in other countries.

yes! why not have it well marked on a patients records if they do or don't want it, we do it with DNR case's (Do Not Resussitate (sp)?) why not organs? as long as the opt out is as was said earlier well staffed etc why not?

> one of those people who just doesn't want to think of my death ever coming

i think this is why the opt out system is a good idea...most people are so sufficiently perturbed by their own mortality that they won't think about it to plan ahead (though we all should for the reasons i'm about to discuss...)

> lets say I was in a car accident and internal injures etc brain or body meant I will not make it, would organs need to be removed before my last breathe? They wouldn't necessarily wait until I was pysically, (not mentally) dead would they?

why not have a living will? if they know that you are willing to donate but have stipulated that it MUST be post mortem they can wait till they are ready to do the surgery as soon as you died. respect your wishes, save a life. sounds good to me.

To Astarte

>loki's mum, that was lovely and totally how i feel

It was a very moving and thought provoking piece, however it's origins should have been credited (doubtless an oversight on Margot's part :) ) "To Remember Me" was penned by Robert N Test and can be found on this pro-donor website

regards, Teri

>if they know that you are willing to donate but have stipulated that it MUST be post mortem they can wait till they are ready to do the surgery as soon as you died.

I thought it was too late by Post Mortem, I understood that the organs have to be still alive and preserved by the body at the time of removal. 

I believe the corneas can be donated after every organ has ceased functioning. But if you stop the heart lungs etc they can not be harvested????

>I thought it was too late by Post Mortem, I understood that the organs have to be still alive and preserved by the body at the time of removal

My understanding too - that the organs were harvested while the donor was being preserved on life support systems.  Reckon I'm as as you Spender!

Having had a relative pronounced dead but kept on life support and "come back" many months later I think this subject while interesting carries a wider range of understanding from all angles and, for those of with religious, cultural or personal moral stances / fears of the worst happening I think it will take those who have been through experiences similar to myself a huge leap of "*no faith*" to waive all hope of "Divine intervention" :)  Admittedly this was many years ago and technology has moved on but then with it has moved on the need for a greater supply of donor organs ......

I wonder how much weight that fence we're shuffling along on can be expected to hold LOL.

Hi Carrington

lets say I was in a car accident and internal injures etc brain or body meant I will not make it, would organs need to be removed before my last breathe? They wouldn't necessarily wait until I was pysically, (not mentally) dead would they? I just can't bare the thought of that for some reason still being alive and having organs taken. I know it is silly, but I do worry would people work as hard to help me to live, if they knew there was little chance, when someone could use my organs?

XX
Organs do need to be taken whilst technically your 'body' is still working. Remember though that prior to this you would have been extensively tested to make sure that there was no coming back, and not just by one Doctor either. We all hear horror stories about waking up again but to what quality of life?

I think the fence is the best place to be :-)

Lets not forget that this is a 'personal thing' and no-ones opinion is the right one, its only right for that individual.

I do understand all the reasons for people not wanting to donate, but my personal opinion is that if you don't need them then why should someone else miss out on the chance of life, or in the case of tissue (ie heart valves) a better quality of life. You wont need them. The majority of people and cremated and, well frankly, what a waste.

Rx

>however it's origins should have been credited (doubtless an oversight on Margot's part <

My apologies - I cut it too short.

That is correct as my Dad's cornea's were donated :-)

We had no issues at all about donating anything of my Dad. (In the end the cornea's were the only organs they could use ).

It was really comforting to realise that some part of my wonderful Dad went on to give sight to somebody ;-)

It is shame more people do not feel this way. Once you know somebody is dying and there is nothing else they can do then why waste the chance of helping other people in need ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/886947.stm

Do they now do it with anaesthetic?  How do we know they don't feel pain? 

From my understanding, Organ replacement is not a natural phenomenon and the body will reject so the patient has to be on immune suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives, not ideal either.  They are making good headway on mechanical hearts and LVADs these days.  I think if it was me, I'd prefer that if I had to, and that's debatable because I'm rather squeamish with this sort of thing.  :-D

Scrunch up that fence Teri, I'm shuffling further along LOL......

OK dokey - just read that link Spender and have vacated the fence so you can cancel the RSJ :-D  I'm most definitely OUT - there was once a school of thought that babies didn't feel pain either hmmmmm, can't see them settling this argument to my personal satisfaction in the useful lifetime of any of my bits and bobs so apart from a life or death situation arising within my immediate family I think I'll be hanging on to what I've got ;)

There was a case a couple of years back making national headlines and televised news of a woman who was in a permanent vegetative state and was kept alive by machines with the addition of tube fed fluids and nutrients.  As I recall there was a court involved and a petition to bring about her final demise by withholding the fluids and nutrients so in effect (from my interpretation at the time) she was basically to be starved to death ............. sketchy recollection here and doubtless someone will find a link to a more accurate account of all circumstances etc but at the time I was horrified and it left a deep impression on me :(

I don't know of the one you mean Teri but I found this http://www.nysrighttolife.org/Life%20support/coma_recovery.htm

Can you imagine that if these poor people were potential donors in an 'opt out' system where they never 'opted out' and if there was recipients lined up, would they have ever been given the chance?  What happen in the case of a disagreement where the family refuse to give up hope in such a situation?  Who would take precedence in an 'opt out' system, the family or the doctors with intent to extract organs? 

If the body was as dead as dead could be at the time, then I think I would be more in favour.  As it is at the moment, I'm off the fence and definitely OUT.

Dear Lord (I haven't upped your status Spender, it's a genuine prayer!) - that's just taken my fears from mentioned recollections to a whole different level and as far as I'm concerned if the "experts" can't agree I'm most definitely not going to be persuaded by any government rep come do-goody spouting the virtues of this scheme :(

Science has moved on at a fair rate within all of our life times and in the main that can only be for the greater good but IMO it must never be given higher credence than personal values and beliefs, whether borne out of religion or otherwise.

In the greater scheme of things it does not make one person bad and another good to hold opposing views in this debate - just different and hopefully we all respect that.

Teri

Right, that's it!! Read the links, I'm also OFF the fence and I would prefer we keep to the status quo.  Frankly, these articles confirm my worst fears. This has been a very interesting thread, and I think all aspects have been very well debated; I have to say that the spokesman with the weight of Addenbrookes behind him, is good enough for me. I too will keep my bits!!

Best wishes
Linda

to be honest not certain. any doctors about? i'll try find out ok.

ok, apparently you can have then taken after you are off support but it is not the normal practise. instead two consultants must seperately conduct tests on your brain stem activity to check that you are completely dead. no brain stem activity means NO chance of coming back. in this case you are kept on support simply to keep the organs fully functional for as long as possible and make them more likely to be effective. this given the team time to get you you as well. if the practise became more widely spread i'm sure it could be arranged in advance to do. hope this helps folk.

Mmmmm....you find this interesting http://www.geocities.com/organdonate/aninventeddeath.html

that was very interesting. anyway, the jist of it is that they do it when your definately dead. while the tests don;'t exactly sound like they are i suppose particularly 'respectful' best to be certain. i think some people might disagree but frankly if your brain is not doing anything by itself anymore then your body is dead, your not coming back from it.

What does it matter -  you're dead!
Unless you believe that you'll be sitting up there on a fluffy cloud looking down.
It will save my relatives struggling with any hard decisions, let them have it all, I will neither know nor care.

Hmmm, I'm inclined to think the gist of it is you're dead by some experts standards, which varies by opinion, tests and location, and not quite so dead by others .....

Personally I'm quite happy for my Maker to decide when life has left my body and, on the off chance He should change his mind at some stage, I'll keep everything I may need :)

But my though is, if you are that comotosed that you dont respond to such extreme treatment, then if you wake up what would you be like??????
I have told p[eople to shoot me if I become a vegetable!!!!
I dont want to live if I am not mobile and most people that end up a vegetable, would have died if there wasnt life support.
Lea.

Teri,
If I'm that far gone I don't think I would want to live in the unusual senario that I'm roused from my death bed.
The miracle of coma victims blinking, sitting up and then going onto a full and normal life is sadly rare, most live a poor quality of life ,often mentaly impaired and in need of constant personal care.
No not for me. I want a quick dispatch then it's up to others what happens to my 'bits'.
I sure won't care.

Lea
You beat me to it.
Ditto

In response to tooolz & Lea :)

IMO which is partly formed from personal family experience "how far gone" someone may be is down to opinion only - yes, some of it based on accepted (by some) scientific sources and others less so :)

Everyone is free (or should be) to make their own personal judgement on who if anyone to believe and while in the wider scheme of things recovery for most coma patients may be rare, I hold the belief that where's there is life there is hope :) 

I respect that you would be happy in the circumstances to have life support withheld on the basis that you each *believe* that recovery (or at least to a degree which by your standards was acceptable) is unlikely/impossible.  Whereas OTOH I *believe* differently and should be respected for that too :)

Just because miracles appear rare does not, to someone of faith, negate their existence.  Just because science "can" does not, by definition, mean it "should".

regards, Teri  

Quality of life is far more important to me than length but I certainly don't want to be aware (on whatever level) of bits being cut out of me.   Yeeeooch.....

>Quality of life is far more important to me than length

I completely agree with you there Spender - I would rather not be resuscitated if I had an illness or injury which would seriously compromise the quality of my life and make me a burden to my family but then, on that basis alone, I would also be of little use as a donor because I'd be gone and "truly dead" bodies are of no use to them :)