I have been reading the previous threads on organ donation and was reminded of an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey carried out for the organisation Australians Donate late 99/early 00 (that’s the best cite I can do, the report is not widely available and as far as I know isn’t on the Net) finding that 43% of Australians would not be an organ donor (ie said no when asked if they would). Reasons ranged from legitimate (have disease precluding donation), to religious, to irrational (doctor may let me die for my organs). 40% of the Australians surveyed had NO reason for stating they would not be an organ donor (or at least no reason they felt comfortable sharing).
What about a tit-for-tat? Anyone who has not registered as an organ donor would not be allowed onto the transplant waiting list, with exclusions for people with legitimate reasons. I don’t count religion as a legitimate reason because it would become an easy excuse for people who won’t donate but want the benefits of it. But anyway, any religion that prohibited organ donation would surely prohibit the receiving of a transplant, so that’s all right then.
Should a person who would not be an organ donor be allowed to receive organs from other people? Would such a prohibition (not that it would ever happen) force a non-donator be an organ donor or would you make a stand against big brother tactics? Would current organ donors withdraw in protest or give a hearty cheer?
(Apologies if this has already been discussed but I couldn’t find it if it has been - give me a link if you like)
I already thought about that, but I see two issues :
1)Surely, everybody would have to make this decision (being an organ donor/receiver or not) at adult age. But shouldn’t they be allowed to change their mind? If so, what would prevent them from refusing to give their organ until the day they actually need a transplant themselves? Or until they reach an age when they are more likely to need such a transplant?
2)We usually consider that we must provide the necessary healthcare to everybody, irrelevant of their morality or behavior. If a mass murderer/baby raper/old woman killer/cat skinner receive a transplant when needed, it’s difficult to argue that someone who isn’t an organ donor shouldn’t
Mind you, I amongst these people seriously pissed off by people who wouldn’t donate their organs but would happily accept their live to be saved by a transplant.
I am willing to be an organ donor. What business is it of Scorpio’s to tell me that I cannot give my organs to somebody who has made a decision of which Scorpio disapproves?
Can a doctor (or a hospital or a medical organisation or a Department of Health) say that he/it will not perform a transplant to a patient who has made a decision of which he/it disapproves? Ethically, I think not. Medical treatment should not be withheld on the grounds that we don’t like the patient.
A much more interesting question is whether I, as a donor, should be allowed to stipulate that my organs are only to be transplanted to persons who themselves are willing to be donors.
How about you don’t refuse to treat non-donors - you just treat donors first?
The effect will be the same, but you are no longer saying “I will not treat the non-donor”, you are saying “I only have one spare heart, but two people in need of it. Therefore I will have to prioritise somehow”.
I think the prioritisation has to be on medical grounds (“which of these two operations has the best chance of success/offers the recipient the best prospect of an improvmement in his quality of life?”) and not on the grounds of whether we approve of the choices made by the recipient. Only where the choices made by the recipient bear directly on the medical question (e.g. choosing between a non-smoker and a smoker for a heart transplant, or considering whether to offer a liver transplant to a suicidal person) is it a relevant consideration, and my choice as to whether I offer my own organs for donation has no implications for the success of any transplant which I receive.
Not counting religion as a legitimate excuse would lead to race/culture discrimination. That doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
A slightly off-topic point, but I know that as a blood doner in South Africa, I get one pint of blood free for each time I have donated (or 10 pints which ever is greater) in the case of my need. A non-doner would have to pay for all the blood they use. This is NOT why I donate blood, but it is a nice way of saying “Thank you” to the donors.
Gp
Perhaps this should be viewed in the context of ‘the greatest good for the greatest many’. Rather than seeing this as a purely ethical question, maybe it’s really a question of persuading the fence-sitters to decide positively that they would become donors (whether by organs-to-donors-first, or organs-only-to-donors).
If the end result was that more people signed up to be potential donors (and by consequence, more people would be able to receive transplants over time), wouldn’t that in some way justify it?
I personally had never considered the question (and I’m not a card carrying donor btw) but would definitely consider carrying a card if this was in force.
Good question, imho.
The big problem with organ donors is that there just aren’t enough of them. There are lots of reasons for this - but one major one is that a large amount of people just don’t bother (at least in the UK) to get donor cards or sign onto the register. Those that do often don’t remember to tell their relatives. Or they may not be carrying their card when they die.
What would make more sense is organ donation by default, then conscientious objectors could opt out. This would also prevent relatives going against the deceased’s wishes, either for emotional reasons or ignorance of the deceased wishes.
For those under sixteen, it could be up to their parents to put them on the refusal list if they were against donating their child’s organs. As the death of a child can be extra painful, perhaps they could be given a second chance to refuse after the actual death occurred.
And I do agree that anyone who actively refuses to donate their own organs should be deprioritised from a donor list. (Not on it at all, in fact). Because if nothing else - the threat of not getting a kidney yourself when your life depended it might just inspire more people to consider donating their own organs.
Exceptions to this rule would obviously be people who couldn’t donate for medical reasons (eg hepatitis/HIV carriers) but could still receive.
Otherwise, how can you justify expecting someone to save your life when you are not prepared to save theirs?
The assumption here is that organ donation is all benefit to society, and no detriment, and therefore that those who decline to be donors are, except in specified cases, acting unreasonably or (from the point of view of society) undesirably, and we are therefore justified in “punishing” them by refusing to allow them to receive organs donated by others.
I do not accept the underlying assumption. I have seen at first hand the distress caused to family members by the prospect of a post mortem which will gross damage to the deceased’s body. The removal of organs for donation would have the same effect. I became a donor only after discussing the matter with my spouse, and asking if she would be disturbed by and upset by the damage which might be done to my body after death. If she had indicated that this would distress her, I would not have become a donor. Would that be a selfish act on my part? Should I be punished for it? Am I now justified in deciding that, although I am an organ donor, my organs should only go to people whose family are as unsqueamish as mine?
Similarly if I decide not to become an organ donor because I cannot face the prospect of my own body being mutilated after death. This may be on some level irrational, but it may be a very strong feeling stemming from my desire to assert ownership and control over my own body. Does that disqualify me from receiving the organs of others who do not share my feelings?
The whole point about organ donation is that it is an act of generosity, not a social obligation. This is my body, I control it and I can decide what happens to it both before and after my death. If I decide to be an organ donor that is a good thing, but it is an act of generosity on my part. The act is devalued if my organs are donated only to people of whom I (or someone else) approves, or if my organs are “traded” for the consent of others to become organ donors.
Though I find the poetic irony irresistable in deprioritizing candidates who’ve elected not to donate their own organs, I can’t go along with it. Although it isn’t a social obligation, I do think the excuses most* people posted in the Organ Donor thread to be selfish, petty, and trivial (squeamish? Please :rolleyes: ) in the grand scheme of things. If you were alone in this world, with no family or offspring, would you want all your money and material possessions buried with you rather than given to someone who might benefit from it? To me, there is absolutely no difference.
But ultimately, the Golden Rule says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, not “Do unto others as they would do unto you.” Donation is a gift and a gift should not have any conditions (at least none more than are already standard medical practice).
[sub]*naturally, I’m excluding medical reasons[/sub]
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is more a religious stance. A social contract is actually along the “do unto others as they would do unto you” line. So, I’m not convinced the golden rule is relevant…
What’s keeping someone from circumventing this rule by agreeing to be a donor and then changing their minds right after they get their life-saving organ? Would we then go in and take back the “gift”?
I could seriously see this happening, unless we establish a rule that requires you to be an organ donor if you have been an organ receipient (that is, if the organs are salvalable). This is a little different than the rule stated in the OP.
Sadly, I think the only way to increase the number of organ donors is to make it profitable for the families. Penalizing people for selfishness (by depriving them of life-saving organs) is not going to do much but make people mad.
grimpixie, that’s an interesting idea (discounts based on previous blood donations).
istara, the Western Australian government floated the idea of making organ donation the default (right now we tick a box on our licence renewal to say yes to donation). Oh, the outrage, oh the cries of big brother. Anyone would think it’s a violation of basic human rights to have a tick a box to opt out rather than opt in.
Maybe organ donation should be a social obligation, like not driving while drunk has become a social obligation (in Aus anyway, not sure about the rest of the world).
I am a supporter of organ donation, and a blood/organ donor myself. However, I would not support such a scheme. Though I consider many of the reasons for not donating trivial, ignorant, and just plain selfish, I do believe that a person should have some control over his/her body, even when they’re no longer occupying it.
By the way, UDS, apparently the process of donation does not deface the body - at least according to every FAQ listing I’ve read.
Check it out here. There’s also a downloadable organ card available for those in the States - you need Adobe, but you can get it there too.
I don’t really care who my organs go to, after I’m gone - I’m just pleased to think that my leftovers will be of some use. And if they go to one of the “I’m not gonna donate 'cause the docs’ll let me die” crowd, I’ll just consider that a delicious irony.
I suspect that those FAQs are exercises in public relations. A leading authority notes that "an organ harvest is one event where neatness is not a priority, at least when it comes to opening up the body. "
At the same time, “You get stitched back together for the funeral, same as with an autopsy.”
-fb, who keeps his donor card in his wallet.
Unless your face is one of the organ you’re donating.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I stand (partially) corrected. However, as the deceased is usually dressed for the funeral, I don’t suppose it really matters that they’ve got stitch marks on their belly. 
As far as the FAQs: I imagine they put the best face on it they can, but I doubt there’s much (if any) factual misinformation.
How can anyone be squeamish about giving up their own organs after they’re dead, but not getting a corpse’s organs shoved in their own body while they’re still alive?
It’s just crazy and selfish.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by “deface”. I find it hard to imagine that the heart and lungs could be removed without fairly profound surgical intervention. I could understand how people would be profoundly distressed at that happening to the body of someone they loved. It may not be entirely rational, but it is a profound emotional response which we have to respect.