Opinion on presumed consent on organ donation

[Guest Ninja Star360]

Hello to all

 

I just want to hear some of the opinion that is out there on the topic of presuming a person's consent to organ donation after death. If the public policy is changed, people will then be opting out of organ donation versus opting in, which the the current Canadian method.

 

Although I see that it will most likely increase the number of organs available, my initial reaction was not receptive. One of the potential problems I see is that the most disadvantaged people, such as the illiterate and homeless, will have nearly no say to what will happen to their remains.

 

I understand that a lot of lives can be saved by a potential new policy, but is it morally right to do so?

[Guest Jochi1543]

It's hard for me to give an opinion on whether it's "morally right," because I think it's "morally wrong" to refuse to have your organs donated, period. Even if you are religious, it seems to me that your concern for the lives of others should prevail over your need for your organs in the grave - but I'm an atheist, so I personally have never faced such issues myself. I think the most prevalent reason why people refuse organ donation is miseducation/media scare tactics - people are convinced that if they are registered as an organ donor, their doctor won't do everything he/she can to save them, because they want to take their organs. We all know it's BS, but you'd be surprised - I know a few extremely intelligent, highly educated, and socially aware people who have refused to mark themselves as organ donors because of this faulty belief. I think at this point a campaign of social awareness needs to conducted by transplant medicine that will not only highlight the dire need for organ donations, but also focus on the donors to ensure the public that this branch of medicine is 100% transparent. I believe that once the public has faith in transplant surgeons and doctors, issues such as the one you outlined in your post would for most part fade away.

[Guest satsumargirl]

Are they really considering this? I have not heard anything about it.

 

Seems a little odd really. They should at least require the family's consent. Where did you hear of this...is there a link to an article or someting you can post? Seems like an interesting topic to read about.

 

I think the issue of transplants has many ethical concerns that surround it beyond the religous ones. For one thing, they are really expensive. How do you justify spending that money to help just one person when that same money could help many. So I suppose there are any number of reasons why a person wouldn`t want to donate their organs....probably alot more than I could think of.

 

That being said, I think I remember reading somewhere that Canada has one of the lowest donor rates of developped countries. So maybe they feel they should do something about that. Not sure the above mentionned approach is the best one. It reminds me of how Rogers Cable used to add services to your package and then have a box that you had to tick and send back if you didn`t want those services. But who reads their bills in that much detail! People were pretty upset when things they didn`t ask for got added to their bill! And I believe companies aren`t allowed to do that anymore.

 

Anyway, on the surface it seems like a pretty insensitive thing to do...in terms of the living family members anyway.

 

Sats

[Guest MDHopefully2005]

I went to a debate about this in Windsor a few months back, a very interesting topic! I think the idea is just that they are going to 'presume' you want to donate unless you otherwise say so. So instead of carrying an organ donor card, you'd carry an 'Anti organ donor card'. One of the issues discussed was that in many cases someone can say they want to donate their organs, but when something terrible happens to them the family changes their mind for the patient last minute because of the grief. With presumed consent, no one has to make that hard decision and the doctor doesn't have to face the family to ask them for their loved ones organs when no one is thinking straight. Of course as mentioned above, it is the homeless, illiterate, new immigrants etc. that may be abused in this system. Those that are religious wouldn't have to donate because they would have an 'anti donor card'. It was also brought up, well what if you don't have the card on you and they can't find family, do they just take the organs??? And I don't think the idea in this case is "sweet free organs" there still needs to be consensus that this is alright. I don't think it would become the organ free for all that many suggest it will.

[Guest HP]

Beneficence would suggest that making the organs available is the best option since more lives could be saved, but that's not the only principle worth considering. I think a large majority of people would argue that autonomy (which is generally the trump principle in modern bioethics) suggests our ability to control what happens with our bodies is more important than the possible benefits that could be obtained through organ donation. Donating one's organs is a great thing, but it is supererogatory, not a duty.

 

I echo the concerns previously mentioned regarding disadvantaged groups being unfairly targeted by this practice. It seems to me that the only reason for this policy change would be to make more organs available, and I'm concerned that the only reason these organs would be available is because norms of autonomy and informed consent are being avoided or circumvented. Being able to help people in need of a transplant doesn't make it ok to con people out of their organs.

[Guest Jochi1543]

Being able to help people in need of a transplant doesn't make it ok to con people out of their organs.

 

You make it sound like they'd attack you on the street, tie you up, and rip out your kidneys or something. :lol

[Guest Ninja Star360]

To those of you who are interested, here's an article from the cbc.

 

www.cbc.ca/news/backgroun...0222b.html

[Guest HP]

You make it sound like they'd attack you on the street, tie you up, and rip out your kidneys or something.

 

You mean they wouldn't? :rollin

[Guest Maltara]

To me the bioethics argument is not cogent in the current environment, where there is a shortage of organs.

 

When demand outstrips supply, price goes up. The government has a safe and effective way of pushing that price back down, meaning that fewer people have to go to developing countries to buy their organs from the black market. These black markets on average are far more brutal and/or unfair than any mistakenly ("unethically") harvested Canadian organ.

 

I am not arguing that consent is irrelevant to this issue, or that it's fair to harvest someone's organs based on an opt-out principle, just that it currently is the lesser of two evils.

 

When you think about it in economic terms, the government has just lifted a "consent" tarriff on domestic organs. That could save a lot of third world kidneys!

 

If you want more information just type "organ black market" into Google and you can choose whatever news service's/academic institution's information you like.

[Guest try2dstress]

Speaking of the organ black market...I just finished watching a relevant movie "Dirty Pretty Things". I'm not saying this is an accurate depcition of what goes on in the black market since I have no idea, but it's worth a watch.

[Guest scooter]

Hey,

I really think this should be brought to debate... France already has this system based on the idea of human solidarity. Many people have opted out. The concern about the underpriveleged being vulnerable, should be studied in countries like France and others to see if this is in fact the case. Perhaps their are safe guards in place? I don:t know.

 

The problem with the current method was mentioned, that often families go against the wishes of the deceased, it is an incrediably difficult time to make a decision and often i think physicians are hesitant to ask a grieving family. These combine to equal people who wanted to donate organs that did not.

 

I once had the idea that if you wanted to be on the organ list, you should be a donor. Ie. you choose to be a donor or not, but if in 30 years you need a kidney, if you weren't willing to give up yours, you don't get to be high on the priority list for those that are available. I think the moment the question is not, would you donate organs, but changed to, would you accept one? the decision is easier to make. Obviously this will never become practice and is completely un-implementable... but somethign to think about.:\

:\

[Guest The Law]

This is an interesting discussion. It sounds like a good idea, if anyone was really offended by losing their organs after death... then they could just opt out, if it was that important to them. If it wasn't that important to them, then there's nothing wrong with harvesting the organs. However, not many people assume that they are going to die... what do you do in cases of car crashes, stuff like that? Lots of people die after being in hospital care for a long time, these people may be more aware of their rights, but what about the general population?