Great Britain: Organs to be taken without consent (PM Brown favors "presumed consent" )

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | January 12, 2008 | Patrick Hennessy and Laura Donnelly

[Stoat]

Organs to be taken without consent

By Patrick Hennessy and Laura Donnelly
 

Last Updated: 9:21pm GMT 12/01/2008

 

 

Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.

• 	There are more than 8,000 patients waiting for an organ donation

  Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister says that such a facility would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year.
  
  The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.
  
  But patients' groups said that they were "totally opposed" to Mr Brown's plan, saying that it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.
  
  There are more than 8,000 patients waiting for an organ donation and more than 1,000 a year die without receiving the organ that could save their lives.

  The Government will launch an overhaul of the system next week, which will put pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more "potential organ donors" from dying patients. Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they "convert" into donors and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor co-ordinators as patients approach death.

  But Mr Brown, who carries a donor card, has made it clear he backs an even more radical revamp of the system, which would lead to donation by "presumed consent". The approach is modelled on that of Spain, which has the highest proportion of organ donors in the world.

  "A system of this kind seems to have the potential to close the aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant surgery in the UK and the limits imposed by our current system of consent," Mr Brown writes.

  He voted against such a system in 2004 - but sources close to the Prime Minister said last night that the measure proposed then was a much harder version of his latest plan, without families having the final say.

  Patients' groups said that they were appalled by Mr Brown's intervention. "They call it presumed consent, but it is no consent at all," said Joyce Robin, from the watchdog Patient Concern. "They are relying on inertia and ignorance to get the results that they want." She said that the

  Government had made little effort to get people to register to give up organs after death. "Where is the big media campaign, where are the leaflets? Why, when I go to see my GP, doesn't he ask me about organ donation? These are the things they should be doing - not taking away our right to decide what happens to our bodies."

  Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association charity, agreed. "We don't think a private decision, which is a matter of individual conscience, should be taken by the state. If people want to give the gift of life, that is their right, but it must be something that is a voluntary matter. "

  While polls show 90 per cent of Britons are in favour of organ donation, 40 per cent of relatives refuse consent for the organs of their relatives to be donated, a figure which rises to 75 per cent among black and ethnic minorities. To solve this, the organ taskforce plans measures to boost donation, including putting pressure on doctors to identify patients as potential donors before they have died.

  The taskforce report - to be released on Tuesday - calls for a senior doctor to be appointed in every hospital as a "champion" of donation, along with a lay person to spread the message about the importance of donation locally.

  The force, which is to publish a report on "presumed consent" this summer, hopes its 14 recommendations will lead to 50 per cent more donations in five years.

  It admits to a possible "conflict of interest" between medical staff, trying to save lives and those keen to ensure every possible organ is harvested. Dr Kevin Gunning, an intensive care consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, and a member of the UK Transplant's advisory group, said the measures could put doctors and relatives under pressure. "If, as a doctor you have turned your thoughts to your patient being a donor when they are still living, that is a real conflict."

  Dr Bruce Taylor, of the Intensive Care Society warned that early indicators of death were not reliable. "The only way to be sure is to do all the tests which show brain stem death; anything in advance of that is only a prediction."

  But Chris Rudge, of UK Transplant, the authority in charge of organ donation and transplant, insisted patients would not be considered as donors at any point where survival was possible.

[MarkL]

"We're here for your liver"

Mark

[patton]

If you don’t own your body, what do you own?

Drug laws, anyone? Anyone?

[Stoat]

How scary is it that they would rather go this route instead of having a public information campaign on being a donor. Instead of even trying the non-totalitarian route first, they go straight to the STATE KNOWS mode as their default.

A public information campaign involves unpleasant expenses such as for the printing of brochures and the filming of TV ads,  and also that pesky business of an informed patient exercising refusal which can play havoc with donation target quotas.

This plan is so much more streamlined and cost-effective don't you think?

[devere]

England is the native land of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the author of “Frankenstein”, so this story makes macabre sense.

[Stoat]

So. Can we 'ave your liver then?"

Only if I can have my guns back first.

[Stoat]

What happens when the medical schools need more cadavers, will the government just take your carcass?

If they project a need for thousands more, all they need to do is to massage the stats pertaining to acceptance to kidney dialysis treatments a half-percentage point or so.

They would all have died eventually anyway, what difference does a decade or so either way make?

[Stoat]

And it’s not a very bg jump to go from there, to LIVING donors without thier consent..

And who are you to suggest that The State should be deprived of your organs if they are needed?

Are you suggesting that The State does not have your best interests at heart and would act in a cavalier manner?

After The State has educated you and brought you along through every facet of your life, this is how you repay The State's benevolence?  What an ungrateful slob you must be, after all you have been given.  You should be completely ashamed of yourself.

Your lack of gratitude may cause us to reconsider your Grandmother's application for kidney dialysis treatments.  You will be informed of our amended decision via form letter and postal mail.

[theDentist]

Thanks! I have been considering branching out into organ dealing, as I already have the donors strapped into the chairs, and can knock ‘em out in short order. I’ll just say the stitches and pain is due to deep roots!

[Stoat]

LMAO!

I see know what became of those three feet of my colon that mysteriously went missing after my last root canal......

[gracesdad]

Gosh, I just knew somebody like you would show up.

Transplants are too expensive? Well, so is saving a child born months too early. Millions sometimes. Many families are either bankrupted by it or you end up helping pay for it. Are you also in favor of letting that child go or doing an abortion? If not, what’s the difference between that and your objections to transplants?

Quality of life is low? You know, most people in comas or vegetative states have an even lower quality of life, and their care also bankrupts families or puts a burden on other folks. So should we just cut off all that expensive equipment or maybe starve them to death? If not, what’s the difference?

Remember that both of the above situations also generate BIG bucks for select people.

The woman who got the pancreas of a dear relative of mine has since had a child, something she couldn’t do before. She could reject the pancreas and die any time now, but she has a child. You would deny her and her husband that? I never heard about the folks who got the kidneys and liver, but can only hope they had similar good results.

[gracesdad]

BTW, I do NOT support forcing anybody to donate organs.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Gosh, I just knew somebody like you would show up.

And I, in turn, knew that a self-righteous twit like you would show up, who is oh so generous when it comes to other peoples' money.

People like you are going to see to it that we are all slaves to the health care industry.

[theDentist]

You’d be surprised how much sausage could be packed into that 3 feet of your colon.

[Fiona MacKnight]

>> I see know what became of those three feet of my colon that mysteriously went missing after my last root canal......

Now you have a semi-colon.

[ThanhPhero]

One result will be that the practical definition of “death” will be eased up a bit, maybe a lot, for lots of folks.

[Billthedrill]

"But I'm not dead yet!"

[MARTIAL MONK]

Now you have a semi-colon.

Go to your room!

[tcrlaf]

“Your lack of gratitude may cause us to reconsider your Grandmother’s application for kidney dialysis treatments. You will be informed of our amended decision via form letter and postal mail.”

Relax comrade...
That can be cured with a simple “donation” to the right Apparatchik at the DNC Politburo, and a couple of extra Vodka rations...

The more corrupt the Democrat, the cheaper they are to buy...

[Floyd Rivers]

Ethics abuse potential?

[Fiona MacKnight]

>> Now you have a semi-colon.

> Go to your room!

Can't claim originality for that one, but I couldn't resist.