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.

[MarMema]

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

AN OLDER POST

[Stoat]

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

 

[Stoat]

>> 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.

 

 

>> 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.

[Stoat]

Ethics abuse potential?

Naw! Never!

The last of The State's subjects who had the temerity to suggest malfeasance on the part of The Glorious State discovered an 'adjustment' in his living conditions.  You would be well advised to recognize the crucial and delicate work performed on your behalf and adopt an appropriately high regard for it.

[Stoat]

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

I'm guessing that it will be tied into your productivity and subsequent taxpaying abilities.  If you're lying sick in bed, you aren't generating any tax revenue and so how useful are you?

[lowbridge]

bump

[Stoat]

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

And since this story is about the UK (for the moment, at least....we will probably be seeing it in the USA one day) I would imagine that it would involve a "donation" to a local mosque.

You object to supporting your fine, peace-loving Muslim Brothers?  You are a racist and will be prosecuted for hate crime violations!

[Stoat]

Ah, tissue-typing patients ... will that change the level of care a patient receives?

Only if the patient's tissues are judged as being substandard.  Old people in particular...we can't very well make use of their old, infirm organs and tissues, and so it's rather pointless in expending scarce National Healthcare monies to extend their lives, isn't it?  What possible value would this provide to The State?

. Shades of Coma

And other things as well:

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[torchthemummy]

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.

Surely if such a position were taken here in the US it would come from the Democrats. Of course the Dems would respond to any resistance to such legislation by saying that people can opt out before the fact but if they didn't, "Oh well - they should have."

With that presumption made, compare that to the documented resistance by the Dems and subsidaries of the idea of showing a valid government-issued photo ID before one can vote by claiming that it is too hard/intimidating for the "most vulnerable citizens".

It is my impression that UK doctors would have strong government support if they disregarded "opt outs" or feigned ignorance or a breakdown in the info from a patient's database that contained the opt out.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

The darkness deepens in once “Great” Britain.

[hinckley buzzard]

Next step is the Peking healthcare model.

[B Knotts]

This is what happens when you devalue the human person through abortion, euthanasia, etc.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

THat's what I was thinking.

If this happens, in what way are the Brit govt and the Chinese govt different?

[gracesdad]

“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.”

I see you have no answers to my questions. All you can do is call me names. My position is no more self-righteous than yours. Please tell me how transplants are any more generous with other people’s money than keeping preemies or vegetative people alive, both of which conservatives support?

Once again, in case you have trouble reading English, I do NOT believe the government should have any role in whether or not somebody donates an organ. It should be a private matter. Your post makes it sound like you don’t think it should happen at all. Should the government ban organ donation because it’s too expensive?

[Pinkbell]

There are many problems with this. First of all, it needs to be the choice of the person dying or their family’s if they want to donate their organs upon death. Secondly, with socialist medicine, there is a very good chance that, in order to save money, they will decide certain people would be better off dead. Therefore,they will either rufuse to take steps to prolong or save those people’s lives, or, if euthanasia becomes available, they will euthanize.

As far as the idea of selling one’s organs, that’s morally repulsive. It could lead to a black market for one. Mainly, you can’t put a price on a human life. It devalues and degrades it.

I told my family they can donate my organs when I die, as long as efforts to save me have been exhausted and I am completely dead.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

My answer is that, whether you like it or not, health care will ALWAYS be a limited resource, just like food, water, energy, etc.

When you make the decision to spend whatever it takes to save your favorite class of person, you are also making an unintended decision to deprive some other class of person that you don't care for so much of even minimal health care.

Even if we confiscated every penny of every person's paycheck to pay for health care, there would still be some people you could not save, and there would be a lot of people committing suicide because they cannot make ends meet.

[gracesdad]

OK, so exactly who are deciding to save? The preemie? If the family doesn’t have the cash do we just abort or throw the baby in the trash? Somebody like Terry when there’s no family cash?

Tell us.

[Stoat]

I told my family they can donate my organs when I die, as long as efforts to save me have been exhausted and I am completely dead.

I agree with your expressed points on all counts, except I would only wish to politely suggest that FReepers are never 'completely' dead   :-)

[Stoat]

This is what happens when you devalue the human person through abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Agreed, and Socialism accelerates that devaluation like pouring rocket fuel on a fire.

[Stoat]

Next step is the Peking healthcare model.

If you're referring to a Government-imposed limitation on the number of allowed children and mandatory abortions, I would suggest that, sadly, a large number of people in the West already support that, and their sick rationale is all tied in with Socialist / Militant / Environmentalism.

A very unpleasant example of this is one that I ran across just before Christmas.  There was an article in the UK's Daily Mail which told the story of a British family of I think 12, and it told of the particular steps and challenges that they deal with every year at Christmastime and other special events as relating to their large family size.  It was actually a very nice, warm article that showed the tremendous love that they all had for one another and how they all worked together to help out and to make things work. It was also quite interesting to me because I come from a very small family and learning how this family undertook various logistical issues was eye-opening.

Anyway, after the article is the area for reader comments, and I was truly disheartened by the large number of people who took the time to write in and rip this fine family apart, mainly on the basis of because their family was so large they are consuming so many of the Earth's resources, they are consuming far more than they need, the Government should limit all families to one or two children, the family is so thoughtless and reckless, etc. etc. etc.

There are an awful lot of people out there who would enthusiastically support a Peking healthcare model.  They are loud, shrill, inarticulate and, apparently, without any love for God in their hearts.