Organ donated 'nudge' for drivers in new DVLA process

[Rodbouy]

Spot on.

Couldn't agree more.

[TheCoder]

Education ? What is there to educate? Your body parts are no longer of use to you. They will save some ones life.

Lesson over.

Its a lot more compex than that and I think you know it !

Belief, religeon, fear, apathy - there's a lot of different reasons why people dont sign up but, end of the day the matter should be solely for either them or (at worst) their relatives to decide. It should not be mandated by the state !

I'll tell you a story - I signed up to be a donor back in 1970 something or other. It wasn't because of a question on a driving licence but because I saw an article on the subject and I chose to educate myself and then made an informed decision. If I had to of made a spur of the moment decision because of a driving licence question then I almost certainly would of said NO.

What it would do is eradicate the failing of human mindset to say "I will do the tomorrow" Or "Oh I, I meant to do that"

Why spend money on that?

I'm sure thats pretty much how robbers/burglers/muggers feel. Take what they want when they feel like it rather than actually having to work to get what they want !

As I said, the only sane way to do this is to educate. Persuade people to WANT to do it by all means but DONT force them into it just because its convenient.

Anyhow the line that they took is a fair route and should suit all parties

If it saves a life or extends a life then it would be all the while worth it.

Opting somebody into anything without their permission is never a fair way to do do things, regardless of the consequences.

Your likely going to say "what difference does it make - they're dead" but you have no idea what their personal beliefs or wishes were. We should never view people simply as potential spare parts !!!

[TheCoder]

alive / dead is a very gray line, its not black and white unless of course there is someone wanting your organs, this may speed up the decision.

A very good point and, interestingly enough, one of the main fears of people who dont sign up. Its amazing how many people fear the thought of being kept 'alive' after death so their organs can be harvested 'fresh'. People find the thought that there may be a 'spark' of comphrehension left absolutely terrifying !

[Rodbouy]

I'll tell you a story - I signed up to be a donor back in 1970 something or other. It wasn't because of a question on a driving licence but because I saw an article on the subject and I chose to educate myself and then made an informed decision. If I had to of made a spur of the moment decision because of a driving licence question then I almost certainly would of said NO.

What did you educate your self on? What did you learn? Its a decision based on, would you like to save a life when you die?

Simple answer

A driving license is used purely because of the mass demographic it will cover. But because of this you would say NO? I don't get that.

I'm sure thats pretty much how robbers/burglers/muggers feel. Take what they want when they feel like it rather than actually having to work to get what they want !

So you analogy of compulsory opting in of a organ donor program to people stealing?

Are you serious ?

As I said, the only sane way to do this is to educate. Persuade people to WANT to do it by all means but DONT force them into it just because its convenient.

Watching young children die due to lack of organs, watching mums, dad, brothers and sisters die because of lack of organs is not convenient.

A simple tick of the box if you want to opt out is nothing in comparison to what families go through when their loved one dies.

Opting somebody into anything without their permission is never a fair way to do do things, regardless of the consequences.

Your likely going to say "what difference does it make - they're dead" but you have no idea what their personal beliefs or wishes were. We should never view people simply as potential spare parts !!!

Your right I am going to think that, because its true.

For one I cant stand religion, I am Catholic but I have my own beliefs and at no point would a religion tell me that I cant do something that would stop me giving my body to save others, and if there was such people then as said before they should be refused a donor or blood transfusion.


Why should these people be entitled to it, but they would not do it for others.

So simple solution as snowy said, opt in you get, opt out you at the bottom of the big list.

[TheCoder]

What did you educate your self on? What did you learn? Its a decision based on, would you like to save a life when you die?

Its not particularly hard to educate yourself on such subjects if you are motivated to do so. The process can remove a lot of the 'fears' and 'predjudices' that many people have on the subject and, believe me, those fears and predjudices DO exist.

A driving license is used purely because of the mass demographic it will cover. But because of this you would say NO? I don't get that.

Then you dont get how people make decisions. When people are given a spur of the moment decision to make then they almost inevitably opt for the 'safest' percieved option. In this case, without further information, the safest thing to do is say no !

The association of a driving licence with 'death' is also a very negative thing in itself. Organ donation should NOT have anything to do with whether you choose to drive a vehicle or not. The two topics are not associated in any way !

So you analogy of compulsory opting in of a organ donor program to people stealing?

Are you serious ?

Extremely serious. A large chunk of the population see the compulsory opting in to such a scheme as akin to legalised body snatching, a crime which is considered far more heinous than simple stealing.

Its all about perception. If you push things too far then you may end up destroying any goodwill you had and achieving the exact opposite of what you wanted. As I say, its a very complex subject and nowhere near as black and white as you would have us believe with your very nieve posts.

Watching young children die due to lack of organs, watching mums, dad, brothers and sisters die because of lack of organs is not convenient.

Indeed not, but you cant expect a simple solution to such things and you certainly cant expect to be able to harvest organs from others for the sake of convenience

A simple tick of the box if you want to opt out is nothing in comparison to what families go through when their loved one dies.

As I mentioned, faced with this situation I would probably of opted for 'NO' simply because i'm not being given the option to research the subject for myself and also, quite simply, I would resent the implication that my parts belong to the state by default. The choice to organ donate is mine and mine alone (or, at worst my close relatives choice).

A simple tick to opt-in is nothing, for those that actually want to do so !

Your right I am going to think that, because its true.

That all depends on your belief's doesn't it. Different people are entitled to believe different things.

For one I cant stand religion, I am Catholic but I have my own beliefs and at no point would a religion tell me that I cant do something that would stop me giving my body to save others, and if there was such people then as said before they should be refused a donor or blood transfusion.

That is indeed your choice and I defend your right to make those choices but I also defend others rights to make other choices and to not have decisions (which they may not wish to make at that time) forced on them.

Why should these people be entitled to it, but they would not do it for others

So simple solution as snowy said, opt in you get, opt out you at the bottom of the big list.

That really is an entirely different issue and nothing really to do with whether you have a default opt-in or default opt-out.


Generally, I think people should make a decision one way or the other but it should not be a quick decision on a driving licence application. A more proper place for it would be as a seperate mailing or perhaps as a seperate part of something like the census form. There should be no time limit or compulsion on its return and the default, if not returned, should be no. People are then allowed to make there own decisions in there own time and you maintain the goodwill of the scheme without making the state look like bodysnatchers.

[Rodbouy]

Senior Ding Dong !!!!!!

Its not particularly hard to educate yourself on such subjects if you are motivated to do so. The process can remove a lot of the 'fears' and 'predjudices' that many people have on the subject and, believe me, those fears and predjudices DO exist.

So can you tell me the educational process you went through to come to the conclusion that opting in on the donor list was beneficial to others?

What prejudices do people have?

Then you dont get how people make decisions. When people are given a spur of the moment decision to make then they almost inevitably opt for the 'safest' percieved option. In this case, without further information, the safest thing to do is say no !

I still don't get that? Your not making a decision that is going to affect your daily life. What information do you want?
Do you want to know what type of individual will get your organs? Black, White, Catholic, Muslim?

How is opting in UNSAFE??

The association of a driving licence with 'death' is also a very negative thing in itself. Organ donation should NOT have anything to do with whether you choose to drive a vehicle or not. The two topics are not associated in any way !

Thats nonsense, So by getting a mortgage and having to have life insurance is associating buying a house with death ?

So everything that is being used to asked the donor question will be linked to death?

Its used like I said because the vast majority of people will apply for a driving license at one point in their life. So it makes sense.

I believe they should link it to UK passports too. The better the demographic the better chance of getting more donors.

Extremely serious. A large chunk of the population see the compulsory opting in to such a scheme as akin to legalised body snatching, a crime which is considered far more heinous than simple stealing.

Thats just one lot of nonsense and you know it. The bodies that people stole had NO OPTION what so ever.

They can opt out with the donor list, hardly the same. Stop trying to link Robbers, muggers and thief to this subject.

Its all about perception. If you push things too far then you may end up destroying any goodwill you had and achieving the exact opposite of what you wanted. As I say, its a very complex subject and nowhere near as black and white as you would have us believe with your very nieve posts.

What is complex about it? explain that to me? Also explain how any of my posts are naive ?

What do you need to consider that makes the decision so complex?

Indeed not, but you cant expect a simple solution to such things and you certainly cant expect to be able to harvest organs from others for the sake of convenience

There you go again with comments like harvesting, its people like you that make it sound sinister and put people off the whole process.

But tell me this why if you EDUCATED you self on the subject do you link it to more sinister side of donor transpiration rather than the good benefits of people who are dying.

As I mentioned, faced with this situation I would probably of opted for 'NO' simply because i'm not being given the option to research the subject for myself and also, quite simply, I would resent the implication that my parts belong to the state by default. The choice to organ donate is mine and mine alone (or, at worst my close relatives choice).

A simple tick to opt-in is nothing, for those that actually want to do so !

So what did you go research or educate your self on that made you better placed to make a decision?

Educate me

The whole point of educating is getting people to learn better methods and practices.

So what your saying you were uneducated that the donor program saved lives and ultimately to finally came to the right decision.

Therefore the donor process is good and not sinister and bad and a bunch of body snatchers.

Thing is I came to that conclusion on my own and didn't need educated on it.

That all depends on your belief's doesn't it. Different people are entitled to believe different things.

That is indeed your choice and I defend your right to make those choices but I also defend others rights to make other choices and to not have decisions (which they may not wish to make at that time) forced on them.
That really is an entirely different issue and nothing really to do with whether you have a default opt-in or default opt-out.

Fine then lets have a opt out that you don't get blood or a organ if you need it? would they need educated on that? or take time to research that? No

Why is it a different issue, why should some one get a organ from some one and not be prepared to do it for others ?

Generally, I think people should make a decision one way or the other but it should not be a quick decision on a driving licence application. A more proper place for it would be as a seperate mailing or perhaps as a seperate part of something like the census form. There should be no time limit or compulsion on its return and the default, if not returned, should be no. People are then allowed to make there own decisions in there own time and you maintain the goodwill of the scheme without making the state look like bodysnatchers.

So we spend needles money on a separate census?

and by following this process what do you think would happen to the amount on the register? eh? massive decrease

Because as much as any thing bad happens in this country our mindset is to bury our heads in the sand and think na it wont happen to me.

But one day you might be sitting in the hospital watching you child die as their is no organs available to save them.

What would you tell you child then? its all about education ?

[racin-snake]

on the other hand
someone could be watching there loved one having there organs harvested by default against there specific feelings or religious persuasion

point being this should never be "default yes" as a simple misunderstanding might cause serious problems irreversible later

default yes is fundementally and legally / lawfully wrong IMHO

opt in is the only way forward to assure the organs are harvested lawfully

your religious or actual belief is only protected by a tick in a box

as for donating as i say they're welcome to my organs if they will be of use after my death
we cannot loose sight that not everyone will allow nor condone this

they should only harvest on the persons strict acceptance ,signature and will to do so

default yes is not fair and maybe the idea of if you "opt in" you "opt in" for receiving an organ is fair

but purely against Hippocratic oaths made by doctors too

so for lawful and respect reasons "opt in" is the only safe method

and i think like at least one other poster the default yes is sneaky and underhand and completely undemocratic

[TheCoder]

Senior Ding Dong !!!!!!

Not sure what thats supposed to mean but if your suggesting thats one of my other pseudonyms then its definately not to case.

So can you tell me the educational process you went through to come to the conclusion that opting in on the donor list was beneficial to others?

At the time I signed up the Internet wasn't available so I had to do a little legwork but still nothing too taxing for such a decision. The bulk of the information was obtained by asking for the relevant literature from my GP (who supplied some fairly comphrensive leaflets printed by the NHS, strange none of these were ever supplied with a driving licence application to aid the decision). I also spoke with some people I knew, including a pathologist (yes, I know some strange people) from where I got a lot of 'inside' info, the main snippet being that very few harvested organs are actually used for transplant - most are used for either training or experimentation.

The most important part was actually discussing it with my relatives to see how they felt about such a decision.

There were quite a few pros and quite a few cons but in the end my decision was to go with it. The point is, is that it was my decision based on material that I had gathered. I wasn't forced, cajoled or otherwise tricked into it !

What prejudices do people have?

Seems your trying to make me do all the work in this discussion. I'm sure you already know the kind of fears and predjudices a lot of people have. The main fear has already been mentioned previously but there are also many others, a lot of them religeous

I still don't get that? Your not making a decision that is going to affect your daily life. What information do you want?
Do you want to know what type of individual will get your organs? Black, White, Catholic, Muslim?

Perhaps if you went to your Healthcentre and asked for the relevant literature then you may start to see the kind of information that some people want. You have to remember that everybody is different though. Different people will ask different questions or have different fears. Not everybody has your attitude towards this stuff.

How is opting in UNSAFE??

Its the way peope generally function. When faced with an unexpected option peope will nearly always opt for the perceived less risky option. Notice I say perceived - its really all about perception. Generally, the only people who would say yes to such a question are those that have given the matter some prior thought so already have strong feelings. Those that dont know or have not considered the question would tend to say no.
Of course i'm only talking probability here - but that is the way people generally tend to operate.

Thats nonsense, So by getting a mortgage and having to have life insurance is associating buying a house with death ?

Life insurance is mandated by the loan company as part of the mortgage agreement. Its expected as they obviously have to protect their investment. The two are inherantly linked as anybody can plainly see.

Organ donation, on the other hand, has absolutely no link to applying for a driving licence. The two should NOT be linked which is why that particular question is innapropriate for a licence application.

So everything that is being used to asked the donor question will be linked to death?

In effect yes, which is why I suggested it ought to be a seperate mailing that deals properly with this one subject. I've always felt that there would be a much higher response if the Govt did the job properly, spent a few quid and mailed the proper literature out. The low response is basically down to the scheme not been taken particularly seriously, at least not seriously enough to spend money on !

Its used like I said because the vast majority of people will apply for a driving license at one point in their life. So it makes sense.

But the two things aren't connected so why should people have to think about such a thing in order to apply for a driving licence ?

Its a driving licence ffs, why should I have to consider organ donation with that !

I believe they should link it to UK passports too. The better the demographic the better chance of getting more donors.

Again, why ?

Why do you constantly want to link things with other that are inherantly unconnected ?

Thats just one lot of nonsense and you know it. The bodies that people stole had NO OPTION what so ever.

Again, I say perception. People who use 'trickery' (and yes, opt-in by default schemes are seen as trickery by most people) to get hold of organs would be perceived as body-snatchers. It doesn't matter how good or noble the intentions, the perceptions still linger.

They can opt out with the donor list, hardly the same. Stop trying to link Robbers, muggers and thief to this subject.

I think you fail to see the difference between reality and perception. What people think is often entirely different than reality.

What is complex about it? explain that to me? Also explain how any of my posts are naive ?

Your naivety is down to your inability to see the other side of the argument. You dismiss the points i've made without even considering them as being in any way valid. If it was as clear cut as you suggest then there wouldn't be the shortage that there clearly is. This means the present methods aren't working. Ask yourself why ?

There you go again with comments like harvesting, its people like you that make it sound sinister and put people off the whole process.

, the word 'harvesting' is actually the very word used in the NHS literature on the subject. Strange you should find its use sinister but I didn't choose it.....

But tell me this why if you EDUCATED you self on the subject do you link it to more sinister side of donor transpiration rather than the good benefits of people who are dying.

I volunteered so I suggest its fairly self evident which side I came out on although thats not to suggest there can't also a sinister side to things (there certainly can, as various scandals would support although, thankfully, mostly US based rather than UK)

The whole point of educating is getting people to learn better methods and practices.

So what your saying you were uneducated that the donor program saved lives and ultimately to finally came to the right decision.

No, i'm saying there is a lot more to it than that. For a lot of people its nowhere near as simple a decision as you seem to think it is

Therefore the donor process is good and not sinister and bad and a bunch of body snatchers.

Thing is I came to that conclusion on my own and didn't need educated on it.

Do you generally make snap decisions without giving it any thought ?

You may be comfortable making such decisions on the spur of the moment but not everybody is !

Fine then lets have a opt out that you don't get blood or a organ if you need it? would they need educated on that? or take time to research that? No

Why is it a different issue, why should some one get a organ from some one and not be prepared to do it for others ?

If you cant see why the debate about using opt-in/opt-out is different than the debate about who should get organs then its pretty pointeless debating the subject with you

At no point have I said organ donation is a bad thing. My only objection is the way its presented. A default opt-in scheme is sneaky and underhanded in exactly the same way as most other scheme where you are opted-in by default. It really is as simple as that !

So we spend needles money on a separate census?

If you want to increase numbers on the register then you do it properly, and that involves spending money. Doing it on the cheap by a backdoor method just isn't the correct way to achieve the goal !

You seem fixated on presenting pictures of 'kids' not being able to get the organs they need but at the same time you dont want to spend money on fixing a system that is clearly broken, why is that ?

and by following this process what do you think would happen to the amount on the register? eh? massive decrease

Perhaps you ought to examine the results achieved elsewhere when a Govt has tried to do things properly - the results are usually a massive positive !

Because as much as any thing bad happens in this country our mindset is to bury our heads in the sand and think na it wont happen to me.

Thats human nature everywhere. A population that has a 'positive' outlook is generally considered far more healthy than the alternative. Such an outlook certainly wont affect the results of a properly co-ordinated campaign with the proper level of education and support.

But one day you might be sitting in the hospital watching you child die as their is no organs available to save them.

What would you tell you child then? its all about education ?

Personally I would prefer to never see the above situation but thats only possible if things are done in the correct way. Doing things on the cheap and expecting it all to work out just wont work. The main bar to a proper scheme is petty little beancounters trying to do things on the cheap using stupid options on driving licences, which is just not the correct place for such a decision.

btw, a driving licence question actually has little effect on your above scenario. Kids tend to need organs donated from other kids (the liver is an exception but generally other adult organs are too large for kids). The ONLY proper way to aquire organs from child donors is the old fashoned (and yes, heartbreaking) method of asking bereaved parents !

[super jumbe]

Waiting for some one to be pronounced dead for organ donor, why can?t we invest more in artificial heart, kidney, liver, etc, if we are committed to give our patient more life to live?




A father-of-one has become the first person in Britain to check out of hospital and return home after being fitted with an artificial plastic heart.

[johnboy1974]

Why should we pick?

Well it forces us to make a call that probably a lot just don't see as an important decision or until its too late.

So it will prob make as a result more donors on the register and as a result of this make a family happy that a loved one has been saved.

Is that not enough of a reason.

Are people so blind to see the benefits of this?

Are we that selfish of a race that even in death we cannot help others who need it most?

The word forces yes thats what you said. I dont like that word i live in a democracy.

[Bulld0g]

Even if you opt to donate any of your organs, that doesn't mean it will actually happen. If your family oppose it the transplant co ordinator will not force it.

[Rodbouy]

Not sure what thats supposed to mean but if your suggesting thats one of my other pseudonyms then its definately not to case.

Maybe, Maybe not

At the time I signed up the Internet wasn't available so I had to do a little legwork but still nothing too taxing for such a decision. The bulk of the information was obtained by asking for the relevant literature from my GP (who supplied some fairly comphrensive leaflets printed by the NHS, strange none of these were ever supplied with a driving licence application to aid the decision). I also spoke with some people I knew, including a pathologist (yes, I know some strange people) from where I got a lot of 'inside' info, the main snippet being that very few harvested organs are actually used for transplant - most are used for either training or experimentation.

The most important part was actually discussing it with my relatives to see how they felt about such a decision.

If a donor is not matched it will be offered abroad like wise in return, if it cannot be used it will be used for medial research. Again fair enough.

So what you suggest if teach every one of us in a way similar to what you educated your self on?

Do you have a concept of how much that would cost to roll out in the uk ?

There were quite a few pros and quite a few cons but in the end my decision was to go with it. The point is, is that it was my decision based on material that I had gathered. I wasn't forced, cajoled or otherwise tricked into it !

You try make it sound like the work you done before making your mind pointed you in that direction. But I don't believe you on that, not that you didn't read up on it, but you knew what you would do prior to it.

Your main argument is how they get you to decided not upon the act its self.

Seems your trying to make me do all the work in this discussion. I'm sure you already know the kind of fears and predjudices a lot of people have. The main fear has already been mentioned previously but there are also many others, a lot of them religeous

I am getting you to do all the work ? I didnt know you asked me to research the answers. You made a comment on them, and I asked for examples?

Perhaps if you went to your Healthcentre and asked for the relevant literature then you may start to see the kind of information that some people want. You have to remember that everybody is different though. Different people will ask different questions or have different fears. Not everybody has your attitude towards this stuff.

Thats the point, I dont have any fears on the matter. What is there to be fearful about? What is there to be scared of?

I am dead, I cant be hurt any more. Burn me, bury me, do as they wish.
Perhaps you should visit the wards of dying people who have been told there is no donors available.

Its the way peope generally function. When faced with an unexpected option peope will nearly always opt for the perceived less risky option. Notice I say perceived - its really all about perception. Generally, the only people who would say yes to such a question are those that have given the matter some prior thought so already have strong feelings. Those that dont know or have not considered the question would tend to say no.
Of course i'm only talking probability here - but that is the way people generally tend to operate.

And thats my point about the way people put it off until its too late, or think na it wont happen to me and just forget about it.

But like I said the option to force at least an answer suits both parties.

Life insurance is mandated by the loan company as part of the mortgage agreement. Its expected as they obviously have to protect their investment. The two are inherantly linked as anybody can plainly see.

Organ donation, on the other hand, has absolutely no link to applying for a driving licence. The two should NOT be linked which is why that particular question is innapropriate for a licence application.

No its has no link but its one of the best ways to get a question out to
the mass population.

In effect yes, which is why I suggested it ought to be a seperate mailing that deals properly with this one subject. I've always felt that there would be a much higher response if the Govt did the job properly, spent a few quid and mailed the proper literature out. The low response is basically down to the scheme not been taken particularly seriously, at least not seriously enough to spend money on !

No the low response is down to people not thinking it will happen to them. if people dont know their is a shortage then they must be sticking their head in the sand and aint got a grasp on whats happing round about them.

But what do you think the cost would be to roll out such a project? or would you not rather spend that on health care instead?

But the two things aren't connected so why should people have to think about such a thing in order to apply for a driving licence ?

Its a driving licence ffs, why should I have to consider organ donation with that !

You mention further down that I am naive as I dont see the other arguments yet you fail to see how this would get it out amount the bigger population. You would rather dismiss it because they are not linked.

Again, why ?

Why do you constantly want to link things with other that are inherantly unconnected ?

Like muggers and robbers?

I think you fail to see the difference between reality and perception. What people think is often entirely different than reality.

Your naivety is down to your inability to see the other side of the argument. You dismiss the points i've made without even considering them as being in any way valid. If it was as clear cut as you suggest then there wouldn't be the shortage that there clearly is. This means the present methods aren't working. Ask yourself why ?

I see well what reality is on it, but I don't understand peoples constant conspiracy theories that lets their judgement be clouded.

So you believe that there is not a bigger uptake in the donor like due to some underlying issue surrounding organ donation?

I like I have said before, people put it off thinking its ok some one else will do it.

Or they keep saying they will do it but never actually do. Not that they dont wont too.

, the word 'harvesting' is actually the very word used in the NHS literature on the subject. Strange you should find its use sinister but I didn't choose it.....

You make the whole process and their reasons behind it not for saving lives but for something underhand and devious

No, i'm saying there is a lot more to it than that. For a lot of people its nowhere near as simple a decision as you seem to think it is


Do you generally make snap decisions without giving it any thought ?

You may be comfortable making such decisions on the spur of the moment but not everybody is !

Well I didnt just hear about the organ donor when I applied for my license.

I was on the earth for 17 years before that. So in my latter years I heard enough about it to make a judgement on it.

If some one has not heard of the process prior to applying for driving license then where have they been?

In a lead hut hiding from life ?

If you cant see why the debate about using opt-in/opt-out is different than the debate about who should get organs then its pretty pointeless debating the subject with you

I can see the debate on it, but I chose to think its better served as compulsory.

At no point have I said organ donation is a bad thing. My only objection is the way its presented. A default opt-in scheme is sneaky and underhanded in exactly the same way as most other scheme where you are opted-in by default. It really is as simple as that !

well that's you opinion like I have mine. I have no problem, you do. Nothing is going to alter that.

If you want to increase numbers on the register then you do it properly, and that involves spending money. Doing it on the cheap by a backdoor method just isn't the correct way to achieve the goal !

You seem fixated on presenting pictures of 'kids' not being able to get the organs they need but at the same time you dont want to spend money on fixing a system that is clearly broken, why is that ?

But I dont see the problem is being eduation, I see the problem as people being lazy. So the added cost to educated them wouldn't work. So your point on me not spending money to fix it is nonsense.

Maybe hammer it in at a young age at school that would be better and at no extra cost.

Thats human nature everywhere. A population that has a 'positive' outlook is generally considered far more healthy than the alternative. Such an outlook certainly wont affect the results of a properly co-ordinated campaign with the proper level of education and support.



Personally I would prefer to never see the above situation but thats only possible if things are done in the correct way. Doing things on the cheap and expecting it all to work out just wont work. The main bar to a proper scheme is petty little beancounters trying to do things on the cheap using stupid options on driving licences, which is just not the correct place for such a decision.

btw, a driving licence question actually has little effect on your above scenario. Kids tend to need organs donated from other kids (the liver is an exception but generally other adult organs are too large for kids). The ONLY proper way to aquire organs from child donors is the old fashoned (and yes, heartbreaking) method of asking bereaved parents !

Kids, teenagers, Generally aiming my point at people at early stages of life. Under 20s say.

Yes kids are less likely to use adult donors but they still can use partial on some organs.

Anyway, Im sure you going to multiquote again.

But no matter what you say, it wont reverse my own judgement, likewise nothing I will say will alter yours.

but hey knock your self out.

[Snowy79]

If someone wants my organ they can have it. It's too noisy for my house and I can't play it too well anyway.

[TheCoder]

I'm not going to reply to those individual points becase, tbh its getting too big and I think we've probably both covered the salient points several times. There's no point rehashing it yet again !

The only point I'll rasie this time is -

No the low response is down to people not thinking it will happen to them. if people dont know their is a shortage then they must be sticking their head in the sand and aint got a grasp on whats happing round about them.

Whilst there may be some of what you say involved its not really the fundamental problem. Thats almost solely down to the way the problem is approached. As i've already mentioned its human nature to go for the 'safest' option when faced with a question you aren't fully prepared for and i've told you why a 'no' answer would be considered the safest choice, therefore a 'no' response is always the most likely outcome. The use of a logic switch to modify the outcome is just trickery - nothing more or less !

Its a fairly simple situation - the majority of people are just not prepared to commit themselves to this process based on a single yes/no type question on a driving licence application. Saying that people just 'stick there head in the sand' or 'it'll never happen to me' just doesn't cut it. If the problem was that alone then you would actually expect to get significantly more yes votes than presently does occur - that fact alone should be telling you something !

But what do you think the cost would be to roll out such a project? or would you not rather spend that on health care instead

Do you really want to start beancounting for peoples lives ?

Regardless. the cost really doesn't have to be that high. Just look at how many other govt sponsored infomercials land through your letterbox each year. A campaign doesn't have to be particularly sophisticated but it does need to provide information and build confidence (the UK comes very low on organ donation confidence, partly because of the perception that the govt really dont care one way or the other). The fact that this kind of campaign doesn't occur again tells you something - Govt's simply consider it too low priority to actually do anything about it !

[Lainie]

if any of my organs are in decent working order they can take what they like when im gone. i personally love the thought i could help someone live.