Well said Brian
One year survival rates have NOTHING to do with consent. I asked my OH if she knows about Switzerland because that seemed strange. In fact, overall treatments for serious conditions are down. The entire health system is private and very, very expensive which is one reason we cannot afford to live there. In order to lower medical insurance bills people are actually even having the cover reduced in their insurance policies, So, no wonder the numbers have dropped. Greece and Italy, no idea. But again none of that is actually about consent.
I think this is a case of your way or none. Lucy, if you do not like organ donation by presumed consent, which increasingly becomes a minority view in this thread, then simply say that and please stop clutching at any passing straw to tell everybody else they are wrong. As for conspiracy theories and distractions, this kind of whataboutery is only making your attempts look more and more ridiculous. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is the truth. You have every right to an opinion, that is a human right too, but to try to change the view of others with perhapses that many of us do not care about is to attempt to thrust a view that concurs with your own on people which is a breech of the human rights you claim are so important.
One-year survival rates for organ transplant recipients:
Liver 80 percent
Cadaveric Kidney 95 percent
Heart-lung 65 percent
Pancreas 79 percent
Lung 65 percent
Small Intestine70 percent
Heart 85 percent
Multiviscera 70 percent
Presumed consent policies do not necessarily deliver. The significant level of organ donation was observed in Austria, Spain and Belgium. But Switzerland, Greece and Italy observed drop of donations below “voluntary consent” level.
There are other ways of doing it. They are called “mandated choice” or “required response” - simply put two check boxes on the tax form and tell people that the tax return shall not be accepted unless one of those boxes is checked.
High handed - yes – but significantly less so than the passing of the mandatory consent law.
And some physician’s group even advocated financial incentives - give people 500 euro tax credit if they sign donation and the problem is solved without disrespecting individual’s freedoms.
I believe I read that France has a waiting list of 19000 people requiring a transplant, that's a heck of a lot of people...
I suppose most of us have stories of how loved ones have been 'helped' to shorten their pain-ridden lives even though it's illegal but to deliberately accelerate the death of someone to get hold of organs seems a bit OTT but you never know...
My wife was asked by the doctor treating her during her last weeks whilst she was still relatively lucid and before she slipped into a coma if she wanted 'help' to shorten her life. She refused but even if she had passed away a couple of weeks earlier none of her organs would have been 're useable' as i'm sure would be the case in loads of other similar situations.
I am not a medic, but whilst I worked with HIV/AIDS children with WHO I discussed medical ethics with medics often. We simply compared their code of ethics to those of social scientists like myself. It would be very hard in a system that has checks and counter checks to pull off a stunt of the kind Lucy is implying, even in the poorest and most corrupt countries where medics are among the last people to be infected by corruption and their belief in ethics is still strong. So yet again, thanks Liz for your way of putting it. Super, and again thank you. I think some people see conspiracy under every stone, let's leave it that.
Do you have actual proof of this happening ?
If so, please tell us what you know.
In the MANY years I worked in transplant and the colleagues I have worked with I haver never heard such a thing suggested, brain dead REQUIREs criteria to be met, independantly confirmed and protocols followed. You must inhabit a very strange world to think like you do, very sad Lucy, very sad
Yeh right - did someone speed up that brain death to grab that heart? Tempting - isn’t it? That puts it context too.
Bravo Liz. That puts it all in context nicely. Thank you.
That's 100% how I feel about it Liz, well said.
Lucy, no wa is that an opt-in argument, you watch someone you love die for want of a heart when someone in the bed next door is brain dead and their rellies say no…you try living with that, whereas an assumed consent would have allowed that heart, liver, lungs corneas etc to be transplanted. Even more miraculous is that if a heart- lung transplant is required and the recipient has a healthy heart, that heart can be transplanted on…I spent years working in transplant research and am only too aware that the proposed french system is light years ahead of the british
Semantics. Mandate, mandatory - same root.
You missed the whole point of the argument.
Zoe B: To overcome the “general laziness” some countries devised ways: a check box on the drivers application, tax form, voter registration, car insurance, health insurance, at doctors visit, a pharmacy prescription pick-up, etc, there are gazillion ways of allowing people to express their positive selection without making the election for them through laws.
@ Zoe - totally agree with you.
The subject of the topic doesn't appear to be too contraversial as most on this forum seem to be in favour of the basic principal of organ donation which concurs with the french public 80-20 split. It's just the way the law has been angled at the opt-in method.
You will never please everyone of course but maybe the decision will be reversed with the change of government in 2017 ?
A mandate is the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or to govern a country but that mandate must have a law to enable and legitimise it. Legislation is not itself a mandate, but offers the possibility that the responsible person(s) who has been (s)elected may perform an action. Thus, a minister with the advice of lawyers, law makers, medicine, ethics, culture, religion and other contributors can choose either opt in or opt out. The deciding factor is the legal system itself. Apart from international treaty law there is no universal legal system or means of applying laws.
Thus far nobody has put their feet down hard in either option on this thread, simply agreeing to the basic principle. There is no statement claiming opting out is either superior or inferior. Despite it thus far being relatively few contributors, nonetheless the majority do not question the right of organ use where there is no opt out or any specific instruction given by the deceased person. Individual rights are fully respected as long as the 'donor' is consensual if alive and once deceased the remains cease to have/require human rights which are designed to protect life, not what happens thereafter. In that respect there is no slippery slope other than the one that is in your mind that is thus far not shared by others. As a researcher/practitioner in the human rights world it is entirely within your rights to hold that view, but does not warranty questioning the views and values of other people.
All is in the mindset and mindfulness.
Rationality does not imply reasonableness.
Legislature mandating opt-in is incompatible with protection of individual rights.
Lack of respect for individual rights is not good for anyone. Slippery slope always begins with seemingly benign impositions.
I do not understand the legal opt-out superiority - please educate me.
I also read about the "opt out" system. I think it's better, as general laziness prevents many good meaning people from filling in the paperwork to become donors, and now it becomes quite simple... if you DON'T want to donate... then do the paperwork.
I am glad to give whatever is of any use in this decrepit body to a person who could get another few years out of it.
Are you guys kidnemy?
I'll raise it with the 3rd Symphony of Saint-Saëns.