Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Victory in organ donor campaign as Brown backs opt-out

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
13 January 2008
GORDON Brown has swung behind a "presumed consent" system of organ donation in a bid to help the thousands of sick patients whose lives depend on a transplant.
Join the NHS organ donor register by phoning the Organ Donor Line on 0845 60 60 400
Join the NHS organ donor register by phoning the Organ Donor Line on 0845 60 60 400
In a major victory for Scotland on Sunday's campaign to change the laws governing organ transplants, the Prime Minister has declared he believes the time is right to move to an 'opt-out' model on donations.

Under such a scheme, only those people who explicitly say they do not want their organs removed after their death will not be considered as donors.

Presently, donors have to 'opt in' by carrying consent cards or doctors have to gain the permission of relatives.

Brown's dramatic announcement now looks set to pave the way for reform once an independent taskforce studying the reform reports back later this year.

The Prime Minister said: "A system of this kind seems to have the potential to close the aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant surgery and the limits imposed by our current system of consent."

He added: "Many of us will have friends and family members who have benefited from transplant surgery or, tragically, who have endured the agonising wait for a life-saving organ that did not become available in time. That is an avoidable human tragedy we can and must address.

"A different consent system, more like the one used in Spain, could serve to increase donation levels significantly."

The Spanish scheme has led to a greater number of organ donors per head of population than anywhere else in the world, figures show.

The Prime Minister's announcement comes six months after Scotland on Sunday launched a campaign to move to a presumed consent law, after shocking figures showed that waiting lists were growing in Scotland, forcing desperately ill people to search abroad in the hope of an available organ.

Parents also told of their agonising wait for their sick children who needed a new organ quickly to save their lives.

A total of 9,000 patients across Britain – 600 of them in Scotland – are currently languishing on waiting lists. It is estimated that 1,000 people a year in Britain die while waiting for a new heart, lung, liver or kidney which could save their life.

In the wake of Scotland on Sunday's campaign, Scotland's leading politicians, including First Minister Alex Salmond and Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon, and the country's leading doctor, chief medical officer Dr Harry Burns all declared that they too backed the reforms.

Last night, Brown's stance was backed across the political spectrum in Scotland and England.

Sturgeon said: "I want to repeat that I am sympathetic towards the idea of introducing a system of presumed consent".

Labour MSP Lord Foulkes, who has put forward a private members' bill at both the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords to introduce a new law on presumed consent, said: "I know people who would not be here today if it weren't for a transplant. My aim now is to try and speed this process up and get presumed consent in as quickly as possible."

The law change also received support last night from Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer for England. He said: "We have 1,000 or more patients dying on the waiting list each year, and there is a lot of suppressed demand, with doctors not even referring patients on to the list because there is no hope for them. That is a lot of patients dying."

But the Prime Minister was attacked by patient groups who said that a presumed consent law would strip patients of their right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association charity, said: "We don't think a private decision, which is a matter of individual conscience, should be taken by the state."

Brown's call comes as an independent taskforce will recommend major changes to the way hospitals organise donations in order to boost take-up this week.

The report, written by an independent panel, will call on ministers to recruit hundreds more 'transplant co-ordinators' to liaise with families and medics.

It is hoped these measures alone will lead to another 120 transplants taking place every year in Scotland, a 50% increase.

Mother's agony transformed donor debate

GARETH ROSE

Life on hold: Gillian MacCormick, whose wait for a donor organ we highlighted in our campaigning reports, below. Photograph: Julie Howden
Life on hold: Gillian MacCormick, whose wait for a donor organ we highlighted in our campaigning reports, below. Photograph: Julie Howden
IT WAS the heartbreaking story of Gillian MacCormick that launched Scotland on Sunday's campaign for an opt-out system for organ donors. It was the only thing that could save her life and an estimated 500 other Scots every year.

A change in the law, as signalled today by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would mean everyone is considered a potential donor unless they object in their lifetime.

MacCormick, a 39-year-old mother-of-two from Livingston, West Lothian, suffered from an inherited autoimmune disease and her liver was beginning to shut down. She was too weak to do anything but sit in her home and wait. Without a transplant, she would die.

Like thousands of people, MacCormick had been waiting longer than doctors hoped for the life-saving operation. With the waiting list growing, her chances of survival were, at best, uncertain.

"I am trying to live as normal a life as possible," she told SoS. "It would be easy to curl up in a ball and give up. The prospect of a transplant is frightening. It's a major operation and I don't know if it's going to work. But I am only 39 and I have a long way to go yet, hopefully. My kids need their mum.

"I definitely think we should be going down the same route as the countries that have introduced presumed consent. It's a shame that so many people want to donate their organs but just don't ever get round to it. There is such a shortage of organs, something needs to be done."

Senior doctors and politicians became embroiled in a row that had the power to change not only MacCormick's future but those of the 7,317 patients on the UK's growing organ waiting list.

A week before our campaign was launched on July 22 last year, Sir Liam Donaldson, England's Chief Medical Officer, recommended a change in the law to halt the organ crisis by introducing an 'opt-out' system under which it is presumed everyone will donate unless they expressly object during their lifetime.

But his Scottish counterpart, Harry Burns, decided against, prompting the Labour MSP George Foulkes to attempt to introduce the move through the Holyrood parliament and the House of Lords.

It also emerged that a total of 6,414 patients, or almost 90% of the NHS transplant list, were awaiting a kidney.

UK Transplant, the organisation which ensures organs donated for transplant are fairly matched and allocated to patients, revealed that their desperation was leading to people travelling abroad to spend thousands of pounds on risky operations in Asia and Africa. Since 2000, 170 British patients, including 22 Scots, had gone abroad for the surgery.

Other heart-breaking human stories ensured the issue was kept in the public eye. As the mother of a teenager who died in a tragic fire, Christine Phillips approached the debate from the position of a grief-stricken relative who had to decide whether her daughter's organs could be used.

Phillips backed the campaign and spoke of her difficult decision after 18-year-old Josie died in a fire when a lit candle started a fatal blaze in her home in Fife, along with her 19-year-old boyfriend, Lawrence Vaughan.

The teenager's organs saved the lives of four strangers.

Her mother said: "I think it is so good that she was able to help so many people and she would have been happy to know that she did. She carried a donor card, although I did not know this, so it is what she would have wanted."

Sheila McLean, director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University and chair of the Committee of Inquiry into Retention of Organs at Post-Mortem, was next to back the campaign and went even further, calling for the introduction of an opt-out system where organs could be taken even if relatives objected.

As public opinion in favour of the opt-out system swelled there was a U-turn from Dr Burns, who said he was now "completely behind" a change in the law.

In October the Scottish National Party met in Aviemore for its annual conference with organ donations high on the list of topics for debate, and with Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon said to be seriously considering the idea.

At the same time, Nicola Hughan, 25, made a heartfelt plea for a change in the law to presumed consent - her daughter Aimee had endured an agonising eight-month wait for a life-saving liver transplant.

She said: "There are a lot of people out there who would love to donate organs but have not let their relations know or have not put their names on the list. There's no hassle involved because people can opt out if they want."

Then in November, her hopes, and those of thousands like her, received a boost following talks between senior health officials from Scotland and England.

UK Health Secretary Alan Johnson said he was "sympathetic" to the idea of a change in the law to an opt-out system of presumed consent, laying the groundwork for today's announcement by the Prime Minister. For the campaigners, including this newspaper, it was the end of a long road - and the start of a new journey of hope.

• To read more stories about organ donation, click here.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 January 2008 12:22 AM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 02:01:46
would you donate Chairman Gordon?
2

Tom More,

Canada 13/01/2008 02:06:23
Big Brother has arrived. Just hope you are actually dead before they take your organs. A lot of older folk, and many others not fully tuned in to government regulations, won't know any more about refusing consent than they did about giving consent, and will have their organs taken whether they wanted it or not. Pretty horrible.
3

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 02:11:18
# 4 if the answer is NO I hope your nearest and dearest needs a transplant one day.
4

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 02:13:02
...... and that a donor is found and you are made to be ashamed, and thankful
5

Charles Linskaill,

.Edinburgh 13/01/2008 03:23:44
Come on, everyone! NO Problem with the concept, BUT!,
Its the 'Abuse'.. that WILL take Place..!!

'Trigger-Happy-Doctors'.. 'Response',.. will Be.!!

'Just let them Die'..."we need the organs"

Don't say it wont!., IT WILL..!!

Your Dead Child or 'Loved-One'., will be a 'Mutilated Body' after you are told,..'They-are-Dead'.!!
You wont be asked,.. to how you want to be asked,
'Can we use your 'Loved ones'.. Body for Donation.?

It will be,.. 'Here is your Loved ones'.. 'Mutilated Body'

"We dont care"., Its the 'Body-Organs'.. that we want!
6

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 04:18:39
OK then if you opt OUT you also declare that YOU WILL NOT ON ANY CONDITION ACCEPT any organs if you need them.

7

donald,

glasgow 13/01/2008 07:00:33
Will the Tame unions allow their members to s scrub their opt in Clause to HM Lumpen Party, or do they want their organs as well?
8

donald,

glasgow 13/01/2008 07:01:01
Will the Tame unions allow their members to s scrub their opt in Clause to HM Lumpen Party, or do they want their organs as well?
9

nabodican,

Portree 13/01/2008 07:44:58
Ross Fyffe seems to be missing the point here, it is not the principal of organ donation that in question as the word "donate" implies freedom of choice. It is the fact that the government now want your body when you die as well as what they steal with inheritance tax.
I have carried a donor card for the last 20 years or so and nominated which organs they could have(not sure if my liver would be much use though) - however if and when this body snatching legislation comes in I will tear up that card and opt out.
A far better scheme would be for when people visit their doctor that they are asked face to face to sign up for donation on the spot.
10

an interested party,

13/01/2008 09:30:11
the way the labour party view any form of donor tells the story well enough.


the idea of presumed consent wouldn't fly in a rape case so why should it in a matter of life and death
11

Ubi,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 10:24:21
If the state obtains these powers it will simply be a matter of time until two things happen as a result of the state's incompetence and corruption: Your organs will be removed prematurely, hastening your death; The government of the day will deem it necessary that you involuntarily offer up your organs because meeting the need of some apparatchik of the state is deemed to be in the national interest.

Wild conspiracy theory ? Think about this. Assume we had had this medical capability in WWII, and the state had awarded itself the power to expropriate your organs. Churchill needs a new liver and the only suitable matches are happily alive and well. Would it surprise you if one of those unwitting donors succumbed to a fatal road accident?

Fancy entrusting a decision on your organs to Peter Hain? Or David Blunkett or Peter Mandelson or Neil Hamilton or Geoffrey Robinson or Tony Blair, advised by Alistair Campbell?
12

commonsense,

Nearer Death ,than Birth 13/01/2008 10:25:00
Any decision of this importance,is difficult.
However,perhaps we could make it like a Club.If you are in it,you get the priority for donations from other members,however, should you die,your fellow club members would get priority on your organs.
Membership would be free,and open to all.
13

J.M.,

Cupar 13/01/2008 10:25:46
"Lord" George Foulkes can promote this bill in the assumption that his organs will probably be completely unsuitable for re-use. The serious issue in this discussion is that the state will lay claim to ownership of all dead bodies. Such an Orwellian concept creates a huge moral problem for many.

The promotion of organ donation could be done much more effectively by local health centres and GP's. At this local level individuals could be made aware of the choice they have to actively participate in such a program. The draconian measure of "presumed consent" can alienate public opinion by its very nature.
14

OLD GIN,

METHIL LEVEN 13/01/2008 12:19:43
WELL DONE GORDON. BETTER YOU USE THAN BURN. OPT OUT IF U DONT WANT TO HELP/. SO NOW I HOPE DONT NEED CARD TO SAY HELP SOMEONE GET IT PASSED. AND YES I HAVE BEEN IN ICU / HDU .MY FAMILY NEW IF I HAD DIED TO USE WHAT THEY CAN.
15

jkr,

Lochwinnoch Greater Glasgow 13/01/2008 12:28:51
I object to 'presumed consent'. Almost like Burke and Hare!! Far better to encourage those who wish to consent to do just that.
16

Mr Lahey,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 12:54:28
A morally repugnant decision and a breach of human rights.
We will become pieces of meat to be carved up to those deemed more worthy of life by the state.
'let hime die, we need his liver for a leading lawyer, prime minister etc..'
We should have the right to decide what we do with our bodies after death. Will this law only apply to christians ? I see a backlash in the Muslim etc communities if this goes through. ?

We should start a campaign for 'donor opt out cards'... in the event of my death I'd like ot decide what happens.
On a related matter, Gordon Brown also wants the state to take all your retirement funds should you die before using them up. We are a few steps a way from Stalin's Russia ...
17

wee-me,

13/01/2008 12:56:13
Well there's been a lot of wild theirs put forward here. I would suggest if the posters genuinely believe they will be 'killed off" for there organs, before their time, then they opt out to avoid any possibility.
Personally I think it's a much needed reform, after all what use are your organs to you after your dead. Better for someone to get some quality to their life, from your organs, rather than them simply rotting!
18

Gothic Rose,

13/01/2008 13:11:26
DRINK UP FOLKS.Ensure that your organs are fit for nothing but the furnace. DILEMMA.???
19

nolimits,

NW Alberta, Canada 13/01/2008 13:31:34
No mention here of the ones under the age of informed consent, namely children. Are parents supposed to stand idly by, while their children's bodies are butchered to harvest organs. This whole scenario of presumed consent STINKS of government and its minions teetering on the edge of sanity. So what else is new?
20

Regret,

US 13/01/2008 13:47:25
Sorry to hear of "presumed consent" for you. Do you know that they don't want your organs unless they come straight from a fully living body full of 100% oxygen? Think about it - if organs come from "dead people" there would be no lack of supply, because people die every day. No, they want them fresh, extra fresh, go to: www.myfoxny.com and search video using words: organ donation controversy. And know this young man did NOT have strokes. Get the picture? And he was cut on 29 minutes BEFORE being pronounced dead. Organ transplantation was created by lies. What do you know about a transplant? You should find out. The word "brain death" and its definition was CREATED just for organ transplantation. And within the past 30+ years, criteria to pronounce "brain death" has changed about 30 times getting easier and easier to pronounce. They will talk about children, but about only 10% of all organs go to children. The big push is for the baby boomers. 60% of organs go to 50-70 year olds and that number is growing. These older people get someone elses parts (usually young men 18-25). Unless people know the absolute truth about the entire transplantation, and make a truly INFORMED decision, the taking of human body parts will NOT be a gift. But they know if they tell you the entire truth of transplantation, you will not want to donate - your article is right in calling this a scheme.
21

Inverie,

Fife & Toronto 13/01/2008 14:54:26
Right on #11. I've had a donor card for 40 years and give blood very regularly. I support the whole process financially and theologically. But the day it becomes compulsory, giving them the right to steal what I would gladly have given, I will opt out.
22

Pa broon,

13/01/2008 14:56:42
Sorry but it will be my decision if and when I decide to donate my organs. It will not be through default. The fact that a majority think its the right thing to but are to lazy to complete the paperwork shouldn't mean we change the law. We need to give people more opportunities to sign up if thats what they want to do.
23

JimC,

Kilmarnock 13/01/2008 15:12:45
'OK then if you opt OUT you also declare that YOU WILL NOT ON ANY CONDITION ACCEPT any organs if you need them.'

That statement misses the point entirely, and the point is, the donor decided to donate and the recipient decided to accept. In law assumption of the position is no legal basis for to do anything. Reminds me of the junk mail opt-out, the easy way would be to opt-in but no, Labour decided to take the green option and kill more rain forests - hypocrites.
24

MIC,

Moray 13/01/2008 15:31:20
The way the system works just now is that, if you have a donor card, consent is still required for release of organs - therefore, effectively, the cards are not worth the paper they are written on. A distressed spouse, parent, etc whose views differ could refuse to honour your wishes. I would far rather have a system where organs were available to those who needed them - it is not like you don't have a choice, with the opt-out being in place.
25

glaswegian at heart,

Florida USA 13/01/2008 16:26:22
THERE IS A CHOICE FOR ANYONE TO DONATE AN ORGAN HERE IN THIS STATE.THAT IS IF YOU HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE OR AN ID .IF ONE CHOOSES TO DONATE IT IS PRINTED RIGHT ON THE CARD.IN THE CASE OF A MINOR THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN IS ASKED TO CONSENT BUT THERE IS NO PRESSURE TO DO SO.
26

expat33,

le teich 13/01/2008 16:38:16
N° 13 "a case of life and death" I hope not.
27

Sanny,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 16:45:57
I fear that Huxley's "Brave New World" is upon us. The proposed system is so prone to abuse that it should not even be considered.

The current voluntary system has been grossly miss-managed. Whilst I have been around longer than transplants, at no time have I ever been asked, or even been provided with information, on being a donor. Although I was a blood donor for many years until health problems intervened.

There are many reasons, ranging from religious to philosophical, why one may not wish to become a donor. For instance what would be the position of a Jehovah’s Witness? Presumed consent would give the State the right to override religious or moral objections. Yes we know there is an opt-out process, but I expect that would be even less effective than the present opt-in system. In the event that an organ is taken then it is discovered that the person had opted out what is to be done? Do you return the organ???

No! No! A properly run opt-in system is the only safe way to operate. Is it beyond our capability to determine if an individual is on the register? Or shall we go down the road of the Chinese, where the organs of executed criminals are harvested. Having the wrong tissue type may determine your guilt.

It is past time to get rid of Mr Brown’s Stalinist State.
28

Kipling,

13/01/2008 16:57:56
See film, 'Coma' (1978).
The best review is at
http://www.mooviees.com/2094-coma/movie
But principally about how there is a high incidence of coma patients at a hospital. The heroine uncovers "a secret corporation specializing in organ transplant experimentation and sale for profit".
29

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 13/01/2008 17:03:18
#1 I totaaly agree. I will be signing the opt out Immediately. Unlike you I am clear on the fact that I will never donate by choice or otherwise. If I am unfortunate enough to fall ill enough to require a transplant I would rather die than have some dead persons parts inside me.
30

Exiledlassie,

13/01/2008 17:15:27
SO has anyone got the answer to the question posed right at the beginning?
How do we opt out?
31

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 17:20:48
# 36 yes the answer is if you opt out from being a donor you opt out from being a recipient.

Also if a parent opts out they negate 100% the right of ANY of their children to have organs from a donor.

These children at the age of 18 can then make up their own minds.

So opt out means opt out from the donor programme 100%

32

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 13/01/2008 17:29:10
Gordon Brown is man without a heart and his colleagues don't have two brain cells between them, so there's not danger of them being needed for transplants, unless of course for skin grafting as it well known that politicians have thicker skin than rhinos.
33

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 17:37:10
I suppose I better write it out fully for CG

If you have a child under eighteen you are the gaurdian you make its decisions for it. when it reaches 18 guess what GC it becomes an adult and can therefore choose to either be a caring individual and opt in or be a heartelss soul and opt out.

your arguement re massive discounts on NI conts is at best disengenuos and at worst verging on ignorance.

Would you sign up a consent slip for a kidney to save your daughters life knowing that you opted out?

34

Pilrig.,

Livingston 13/01/2008 17:51:26
8 - utter nonsense. I suppose if a person doesn't donate blood then they shouldn't get a blood transfusion either? Which means the vast majority of the population wont recieve blood from the NHS for an operation.
Utter b*ll*cks.
If a person has paid his NI then he is due whatever treatment he needs from the NHS, whatever the politicians, office wallahs and the like say.
35

OLD GIN,

METHIL LEVEN 13/01/2008 17:53:25
I HOPE NONE OF U BL***Y MONANERS OR YOU FAMILY NEED HELP .!!!!!!!!!! PITY HELP U. GIVE A LIFE HELP SOME ONE WHY BURN OR PUT IN HOLE IN GROUND. GIVE A CHANCE OF A BETTER LIFE TO SOMEONE,
36

Pilrig.,

13/01/2008 17:57:56
37 - well done Ross Fyffe - you've shown that the opt-out is the thin end of the wedge towards what you're suggesting.
37

Pilrig.,

13/01/2008 17:57:57
37 - well done Ross Fyffe - you've shown that the opt-out is the thin end of the wedge towards what you're suggesting.
38

Pilrig.,

Livingston 13/01/2008 18:04:36
42- dont worry auld gin, the state will soon have the rights over our carcasses whether we like it or not.
Big State rules ya bass.
BTW, AULD GIN, if people would give up knockin back the gin and other booze there wouldnae be such a demand for liver transplants.
39

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 18:09:53
No its very simple ethics if you do NOT agree with organ doning FINE let it be understood it works both ways, you dont give you dont get.

40

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 18:13:54
The one sad outcome from organ doners, specifically from those who are "family" members coming forward, is that in a SIGNIFICANT % the father or brother or sister has been found to NOT be a match because the mother was doing her margerine impression with another man and the spawn are not who the father thinks they are :-)
41

bradders1888,

fife 13/01/2008 18:23:04
40,42

I think you two are completly missing the point here or have some vested interests in your views regarding donation.Ask most people and they would give you the same answer that they would be willing to give up their organs after their death,however this is very different in that under the new plans the choice would in fact to a point cease to be theirs.I feel that the goverment and medical profession to a point has not been honest or fair on these matters in the past remember Alder Hey etc.I honestly think that this new system would be abused in some way.For instance could it come to a point that organs would be given to the people who do not necessary merit it anymore than someone else but due to their position in society or money in their bank.I for one would be very much against this new plan and not for 1 minute would feel guilty about it.If they are looking for more donors pay for costs towards funeral etc you bunch of skinflints your quick enough to take our taxes.opinions please
42

Pilrig.,

Livingston 13/01/2008 18:29:01
46 - If I've paid my National Insurance I do
43

Pilrig.,

Livingston 13/01/2008 18:29:01
46 - If I've paid my National Insurance I do
44

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 18:33:34
This is a very dangerous proposition. In effect, it means that our bodies belong to the state and the state can do what it likes with them without our permission. What next will the state want to requisition?

There's a vital principle at stake here and the proposal should be resisted strenuously.

(BTW, I've carried a donor card since I was old enough to do so.)
45

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 18:34:14
My point is that I have made it perfectly clear in my will and other documents that I wish any and all useful organs to be used after my death, even if they went to lowlife like George Best. I give blood regularly and am on the Nolan Bone marrow donor list.

People like CG and Linsksdale etc. who are full of conspiecy theories should then also believe that if a powerful person found out that theirs was a match for what the powerful (or rich) person needed then the "accident" would happen and no matter what was said their organs would be harvested.

46

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 18:42:12
#52, I agree entirely with your first paragraph. I carry a donor card, I give blood and I would be glad for any or all of my useful organs to be used after my death for whoever needed them - "worthy" or not. All those who need transplanted organs are human beings, which is all that matters to me.

However, IMO to concede ownership of our bodies to the state is extremely dangerous. In effect, we cease to be individuals and become robots or zombies under the control of others. It would be a perilous step towards a totalitarian society and I dread to think of the consequences if it were implemented.
47

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 18:48:57
# 53 of course it is ethics, either ethically correct or ethically abhorant.

OKAY now that is clear the ethical arguements take two lines.

The person should opt out of a scheme to prevent the opportunity of someone living longer by using organs that you no longer need.

OR

You say nothing thus giving consent. This makes it impossible for "grieving" relatives to quash your wishes.

The ethics are also if a doctor needs a specific set of organs and a patient presents that could provide them they make the ethical choice of whether to "kill" of the worse one to save their best one. Whether that decision is monetary or medical is neither here nor there it is an ethical decision.

As I have said, if the "state" wants you dead you will die. No conspirecy theory just fact.

The UK has had some hamfisted attempts, the Isrealis are very good at it the USA .... well...... they had some pretty high profile examples.
48

yockel,

Green Hills 13/01/2008 18:51:58
Isn't this what they do in that other socialist state China?
49

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 18:54:36
#55, I can see no reason why anyone would *not* want his or her organs to be used to help others after death. To be an organ donor seems to me a clear ethical imperative.

However, the even bigger ethical question raised by the present discussion is that of the relationship of the individual to the state. Is the state the servant of the individual, or is the individual the property of the state? To accept "opt out" rather than "opt in" would mean accepting the latter. Where do we draw the line against the growing power of the state? Requisitioning of our corpses now - what might the state requisition in the future?
50

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 19:01:23
yes in china it goes like this , you read the Bible, you become a Christian, the chinese government word for Christian is organdonor. thus their arrest and subsequent bullet to the head .22 cal as this only destroys the brain and onto the harvesting.


51

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 19:09:00
mostly this arguement is settled in ones own mind as they look down on their child in pain who needs a eg kidney.

Then all the ethics and "state owning" my body is IRRELEVANT you PRAY or beg that the docs and tranplanting authorities find a donor, basically you are praying for some-one to die to save your child. How ethical is that??
52

MIC,

Moray 13/01/2008 19:11:18
#52
Is everyone who needs to know your wishes in this respect aware of what is in your Will, and willing to comply with your wishes? Otherwise, what is in your will may have no relevance - as by the time they read the contents of your Will it will be way too late.......
53

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 19:14:06
#59, is it ethical to stand by and see the state requisitioning people's bodies? Allow the state to do that, and what will it requisition next - organs from living people? (We all have two kidneys, after all.)

To grant the state more and more power is a sure recipe for human misery. We are free individuals, not cogs in a machine.
54

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 19:15:15
60 yes, they are, I should have been specific sorry ............ my medi-alert has a living will in it .......... all my relations concur with my wishes,

55

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 19:19:02
# 61 I am sure the time may come when what you imply becomes fact.

on the other hand it may not.

At present there are many bodies buried or burnt whose living soul wanted to donate their organs but the next of kin said no .......... what right did they have over "your" body?
56

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 19:24:48
#63, they have less right over "my" body than I have, but more than the state has, or should have. The risk involved in conceding such power to the state seems to me even greater than the undoubted benefits that "opt out" would bring. It would be selling our liberty for a practical benefit - tempting, but dangerous.

We are all free individuals, and therefore are free to make the wrong choices sometimes. Isn't that better than being the property of the state, which makes all our choices for us?
57

yockel,

Green Hills 13/01/2008 19:29:06
#58 fair use policy for christians?
58

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 19:32:52
I really don't know what your concern is ....... you opt out, end of problem, if there is conspiracy worries now then the system now is being abused.

there are umpteen chances to "steal " organs already, say you are in a rta, they try their best but your guts re just so mauled you die on the table, nothing to stop someone whipping out a bit of you before they sew up the cadaver, how many relatives as to see inside daddies corpse to make sure all the bits are there. As I said before if the state (or Mr Richie R Rich) needs a part of you then you are toast one way or thye other.
59

yockel,

Green Hills 13/01/2008 19:40:05
#66 Opt out, end of problem? Micro chip anyone? How else is anyone going to know whether the deceased or soon to be deceased opted out? It's testicles (more suitable word censored) and it is nationalisation of the human meat supply.
60

westview,

"Cash for "Honours" ? Next it'll be "Cash for Orga 13/01/2008 19:46:59
You are allowed to "opt out" of paying political donations to the Labour party according to the law. I hope you folk that want to "opt out " of donating your organs to the highest bider ,have an easier time than me when I tried to stop my trade union from "donating " part of my wages to a political party. 'I canny find the right form, 'The man who looks after that is on holiday', etc etc. Good luck in undonating ANYTHING to government organisations. Or satelite TV companies.
61

wee-me,

13/01/2008 19:47:23
48
The choice is still there. You are not being made to do it!
For anyone NOT wishing to donate they opt out

As for bodies belonging to the state, that would only be the case if there was NO opt out!
THERE IS STILL CHOICE
62

Regret,

13/01/2008 19:52:35
#64 - YES.
Everyone should know - your body is not anywhere near death when organs are removed - otherwise, they would not want them. In other words, many of these people could recover. Organ donation makes death.
63

msspurlock,

Reality 13/01/2008 19:56:32
Enjoy the Communism you have voted into place.
Just remember that human organs bring a lot of money on the Black Market and in China, they kill prisoners and babies just to get tissue and organs.
They'll let you die (pretty easy given your socialized medicine), carve you up and sell your bits for a nice profit. The people you're supposedly saving will die, too, for lack of the organs stolen. Their corneas will still be profitable, even if their livers or whatever are useless. Have fun living under neo-Stalinists.
64

Friar Tuck,

Port Perry, Ontario, Canada 13/01/2008 20:29:58
We have a similar problem in Canada. A person can sign as many donor cards as they want but when that person dies, the donor card is not valid! The relatives have the final say and many times refuse to allow the organs to be used even if the deceased has given permission! In my opinion, a "presumed consent" (or making the donor cards irrevokable so that relatives cannot overrule the wishes of the deceased) would be a much better solution.
65

bradders1888,

fife 13/01/2008 20:30:53
If the number of organ donations is falling short why not give some sort of incentive for the cost of funerals etc.

I guarantee most people would be behind a plan similair to this but on the whole distrust the goverment and cerain medical advisors on these matters as past experiences have shown that the systems would be open to abuse with a list for the poor and another for the wealthy.

Think about this why would someone who has struggled to get by all their life be happy about giving up their organs to someone who has been born into money and yet gives nothing back.
66

girnie wifie, Okanagan, BC,

BC 13/01/2008 22:35:27
An excerpt from The Telegraph 23/12/2005:

"Relatives of Alistair Cooke, the late broadcaster, have spoken of their revulsion after it was found that his bones were cut from his body by a criminal gang and sold for transplant tissue. His body was chopped up for profit by rogue morticians in Brooklyn. His remains were then returned to the family for cremation." So perhaps someone should be watching over the undertakers too!
67

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 22:44:30
undertakers have been at that for years, if there is a market there will be a provider,............
68

John Blackley,

Austin, TX 13/01/2008 23:09:46
When I read the headlines today, I guessed this story would provoke the most ignorant, uninformed comment of all. I wasn't wrong.

Gordon Brown is 'backing' opt-out (as opposed to opt-in), not mandating it. Any legislation to change the rules for organ donation will have to be written, proposed, debated and voted-on and your elected representatives (for those of you who can be bothered to vote) may be 'whipped' into a party-line vote or may get a free vote. The result may or may not apply in Scotland, depending on the terms of devolution.

Now, for those of you who violently object to using your dead carcass to save the life of another human being, you're going to have to go to all the trouble of putting a mark in a box on a card. Knowing how onerous this can be, I'm prepared to offer a deal. When and if (and it's by no means a certainty) the legislation to require opt-out is passed, I will publish my address here. Each of you who is too scared, too lazy, or too ignorant to donate your organs may write to me and I will complete an opt-out card and mail it to you, free of charge.

Each year hundreds of Britons die because of a lack of donor organs. These Britons range in age from children to the elderly. Granted, there are many people whose objection to donating organs is either based in religion, fear or personal choice. Nonetheless, my offer, above, applies to them as it applies equally to the morose, lazy and ignorant.
69

Char91,

Knutsford 13/01/2008 23:18:16
My sister and I have been fighting the system for more than three and a half years, since my father was murdered, in his own bed, using the resources of three NHS Trusts - doctors, nurses and drugs, from across all three. (proof: ralphwinstanleyofwath.blogspot.com)

It is obvious that no-one intends to do anything to keep anyone else safe.

We have found the people in charge of the system to be totally untrusworthy. Why should anyone trust them to decide to take organs.

Would all old, ill, single-living and vulnerable people be 'up for grabs' before they were due to die? I'm sure there's loadsadosh to be made in furnishing organs to the rich, where needed.

If there were too many, they could be sold abroad, as is the case already with the organs of many living people, from other countries.

Safe in the hands of the NHS? Pull the other one.
70

Isabel,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 23:30:12
Good morning all. Let us start with lot No.1 what I am I bid for this liver?

I totally disagree with the opt-out scheme. My body does not belong to the State and I shouldn't have to lie dying whilst people are straining to get their bids in for the various organs. I believe that a beating heart must surely mean that people are alive. there is also a difference of opinion as to whether you are dead when the brain stops registering or the heart stops beating.
71

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 13/01/2008 23:38:01
Who gained (and if you can say by how much) from your fathers death and who lost out, ............ I really don't have time to read all your hard work.

An executive summary would be useful

72

Char91,

Knutsford 14/01/2008 00:00:27
#81 Reply to Ross Fyffe. His second wife, Nina Clayton, had him killed. She had comprehensively fleeced him (Yes, believed to have been millions), before she told the lies to an on-call doctor, who prescribed the drugs which killed him - without ever seeing the patient. He prescribed 'Terminal Care' to a man who the records prove, had not been dying.
For no apparent reason his own GP had already had him on morphine for 4 days and nights, before the nurses and their needles arrived.
For the last three days of my father's life, having realised that he had not been dying, my sister and I asked desperately for help. We even called the police out (South Yorkshire); all to no avial.
We now have the records.

I have placed a large number of medical record extracts and doctors letters on the web site. There is also a great deal of other information about the people who comprehensively covered-up this murder. Many threats have been issued by these people and their overpaid legal people in Leeds. (Beachcroft Wansbroughs)

Dear man, it is precisely because no-one will read, that we are constantly overrun by rules which take away our rights. It is precisely because where one person/family provably has a problem with authorities, no-one will stand by their side until the problem is solved, which allows these so called democrats to take our rights.

Shape yourself. Pleased read ralphwinstanleyofwath.blogspot.com
73

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 14/01/2008 00:08:33
Why do you not take out a civil action?

if the state won't it's up to you to do so.

74

Char91,

Knutsford 14/01/2008 01:06:08
Yeh! Right! Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Are you offering to put up the money? If so I'd happily accept.

What is certain is that I do not have the money to waste in a Court system such as we have. My sister and I are fighting with what we do have. The Healthcare Commission has just sat on this for three and a half years. Senior officials now admit that in spite of us givng them the evidence on a plate, they have not bothered to pass it on to the 'expert' advisors. How can anyone advise, if they're not given adequate information? We know there has been incompetence, that is shown in the documents which we have claimed under Data Protection Act. Has there also been corruption?

We are fighting the incompetent South Yorkshire Police Force; one coroner and his mate; and three NHS Trusts and their fee-charging legal team; not to mention numerous doctors and so-called experts. This has been for Judicial Review permission and three times been refused. Therefosal Judgements show that not one of the three Judges has bothered to look adequately at he documents.

Yes, I could go bankrupt, if I were that stupid. However, there are other ways of dealing with such people. What is cewrtain is that my father had not been dying. What is also certain is that he has been dead since 23rd April 2004. The proof of who killed him - and why - is on a web site which this crew have not yet managed to remove. When they do, it has already been placed on a series of other sites.

All the 'doctors' and nurses' are still practicing on just such patients as my father. I wonder how they are faring?
75

Haggis MacBagpipes,

Central Canada - ex Perth & Glesca' 14/01/2008 04:03:05
I'd let them tak' onything they need, ma legs widny be much use to onybody, they've been nae use tae me.
Wan stipulation I'd make, Ma Third Leg MUST be retired, it's gein me guid service fur 74-years, so far, and it deserves tae be retired and no cut aff tae gie some ither daft lout mair service...it sure saved me frae wettin' ma shoes! God Bless It!!
They hae a donor service here in Central Canada and if ye donate everything, they wull tak' whit they need, then pay fur the burial o' whit's left!
Cheers,
Haggis MacBagpipes™©
76

Kramek,

New York, USA 14/01/2008 11:10:19
Positively ghoulish. We have a form on our drivers license in NY. I’ve overwritten mine with a big “NO” . Nor will I accept someone else’s organs. The concept is disgusting. Taking is not a “Donation” it is theft.
77

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 11:32:20
#76, I don't "violently object to using [my] dead carcass to save the life of another human being". This is why I've carried a donor card ever since I was of an age to do so.

What I object to is the principle that all dead bodies will belong to the state unless there has been a specific opt-out. This changes the relationship between the state and the individual in a dangerous and potentially disastrous way.
78

barnaquine,

14/01/2008 11:50:14
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE SCHEME OPT OUT.
There is your choice. I'm not judging anyone who wants to opt out, it is up to each indidvidual to make that choice, but I think we should HAVE to make the choice. there seems to be a lot of freaking out about conspitacies and the like, I say, fine if that is what you fear, OPT OUT, but at least you are thinking about it and now people are talking about it. Too many people don't think about it until it's too late, and toomany relatives are not aware of people's wishes
79

Madamecitron,

Camborne Cornwall 15/01/2008 06:49:34
I sincerely sympathise with Gillian MacCormack and would not fully understand what she is going through unless I were in her position. It was just the sinister implications of our Health Minister the other day in her statement, "we are determined to address the issue" or put another way -"You will give us your organs!!!"

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.