Organ donated 'nudge' for drivers in new DVLA process

[MrFug]

These are my organs and they're going into the ground with me! I'd consider making a gift of them if I could properly vet the potential recipient - not all lives are worth saving.

That's horrible, right? Well, sometimes I am.

[Snowy79]

Mr Fug does make a valid point. It's one thing donating your Organs it's another thing knowing who's getting it. Imagine how your family would feel if it went to a waster like George Best etc.

[Rodbouy]

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 !

The sticking their head in the sand is a true statement for humans. How many people are pro active rather than reactive?

Humans tend not to partake in anything until it happens to them. Such like when people suffer losses to say car speeding, then they want speed humps or traffic calming measures.

Or tighter gun laws or knife crime the list is endless.

Its out of sight out of mind for people. Unless it directly affects you at that given time, its not at the forefront of you mind to react to it.

Until this thread, in my 32 years of life I have never heard some one talk about wanting educated on the organ donor before making a decision.

I agree you need to bring it to the public to make them more aware of the situation but I dont believe we have a nation of people who need educated on the pros and cons.

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 !

You have mentioned these other govt schemes that we get shown to us. I for one have never got anything through my door about no scheme.

The only leaflet or information about anything Govt oriented was about the swine flu.

Maybe thats just my council but I can honestly tell you I have never noticed any.

Do you know this is why its low?or is this just your opinion like mine?

As I have said before, I believe its down to people not being reactive.

But thats my opinion and I will stick it unless I can see clearly that thats not the case.

Just like wise you. Its all just a matter of opinions at the end of the day.

My view point in life, is its over once I die and If I can help 1 person live a bit longer then so be it.

I will never understand why some does not want to help others when they are dead and of no use them them. I can accept its their decision.

But in my opinion its selfish.

These are my organs and they're going into the ground with me! I'd consider making a gift of them if I could properly vet the potential recipient - not all lives are worth saving.

That's horrible, right? Well, sometimes I am.

I can see you point and like snow says, you would be happy if it went to a George Best type person.

Like I have said before, if you require a transplant due to self infliction then you need to go to the bottom of the que if it all.

I smoked lightly for 10 years or so, so I dont deserve any transplant if I get any smoke related lung disease in the future.

[Rodbouy]

Organ donor register passes 18m

Getting better a suppose.

The number of people registered as organ donors in the UK has reached "staggering" levels, according to NHS Blood and Transplant.
A record 18 million - nearly one out of every three - people now say they are willing to donate their organs.
But the organisation said even more people needed to register.
It added Black and Asian people had to wait three times longer for a transplant, because of a shortage of donors in those communities.
Sally Johnson, director of organ donation and transplantation, said the number of people on the register represented "a fantastic achievement".
But she added: "Getting people to sign up to the register is only half the battle.
"In order to see that their wishes are carried out in the event of their deaths, it is essential that those who want to become donors discuss donation with family and friends."
People in Scotland are the most likely to donate, 37% are on the register.
In 2010, more than 1,000 people donated their organs, and 2,700 organs were transplanted, across the UK.
However, 10,000 people are still on a waiting list for transplants.

Source

[Rodbouy]

A Higher % of Scots are willing to donate.

Maybe we are better educated

None the less 1 in 3 is a decent ratio.


Good reading also

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8562709.stm

with peoples comments here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8572143.stm

[TheCoder]

Until this thread, in my 32 years of life I have never heard some one talk about wanting educated on the organ donor before making a decision.

, what were you saying about head in the sand ?

The reason you haven't heard about it is simply becasue you've never bothered to find out. After all, you've already made your decision (which I applaud) so why should you bother to look deeper.

But she added: "Getting people to sign up to the register is only half the battle.
"In order to see that their wishes are carried out in the event of their deaths, it is essential that those who want to become donors discuss donation with family and friends."

This is an obvious part of the problem and one of the things where education is needed. Organs are often not harvested from some donors simply because relatives object (regardless of the fact the donor has agreed - a simple checkbox on a driving licence application is NOT a legally binding commitment). Things would be so much easier if potential donors discussed these things with relatives beforehand but few actually do so !

[Rodbouy]

, what were you saying about head in the sand ?

The reason you haven't heard about it is simply becasue you've never bothered to find out. After all, you've already made your decision (which I applaud) so why should you bother to look deeper.

See the sticking your head in the sand cant be applied to me like you have tried.

By sticking your head in the sand you know there is a problem and what it is, you just choose to ignore it.

I know there is a problem, I just dont accept it the one you propose.

I have never heard anyone say they wanted educated on the pros and cons of it.

This is an obvious part of the problem and one of the things where education is needed. Organs are often not harvested from some donors simply because relatives object (regardless of the fact the donor has agreed - a simple checkbox on a driving licence application is NOT a legally binding commitment). Things would be so much easier if potential donors discussed these things with relatives beforehand but few actually do so !

On the subject of relatives, stopping it unless its a child is nothing more than a joke.

If you are on the list, you stay on the list. Relatives should not be allowed to remove you from it.

But your correct they should discuss this with them so they fully understand.

[racin-snake]

If you are on the list, you stay on the list. Relatives should not be allowed to remove you from it.

that statement is lawfully and legally fundamentally wrong

your next of kin can and should be able lawfully to revoke a decision based on a "opt out "

as you may have forgot to tick the box
so in actual fact your claim of default yes is blown clean out of the water mate

in your opinion a oversight of ticking a box gives claims in your absence to your corpse
so harvesting the organs against the will of the person

what if the person converted to a religion the day he gets killed and then what ?
due to the fact he forgot to tick a box saying (by default) his organs now belong to the transplant organisation ?

these kinds of rules i think will put people off rather than gain anything positive


and as for the family knowing
that's also essential if there is to be no contest as to harvesting organs

so in reality your rights when your dead are lawfully upheld
its a choice not a miss a trick and your in mate

i reckon that's as close to "entrapment " as you get ...IMHO

[Rodbouy]

that statement is lawfully and legally fundamentally wrong
your next of kin can and should be able lawfully to revoke a decision based on a "opt out "

It was expressed as my opinion not as a legal right.

I do not mean you cant opt out from it, but I don't believe if you have opted in (current law) then your next of kin should be able to express THEIR beliefs and remove yours as your are no longer able to invoke your rights.

as you may have forgot to tick the box
so in actual fact your claim of default yes is blown clean out of the water mate

in your opinion a oversight of ticking a box gives claims in your absence to your corpse
so harvesting the organs against the will of the person

Well they should take time you read everything your signing for, I don't think it would just be slid in and nothing said about it. It would have to be made clear and not just a small insignificant question hidden in the small print.


Hardly blown out the water.

what if the person converted to a religion the day he gets killed and then what ?
due to the fact he forgot to tick a box saying (by default) his organs now belong to the transplant organisation ?

these kinds of rules i think will put people off rather than gain anything positive

Thats has to be the most obscure argument for not having it. That would have to be in the smallest percentile of chances of actually happening.

Now if the Govt should have to weigh up the possibilities of that happening and hinging on weather they go ahead or not, I think they would take their chances.

I hardly doubt some one converts in just a shirt immediate period of time and if they some how did, they must have gave it great thought and for the religion to have then dictated that no you shall not give some unfortunate person your organs but died before they couldn't get the time to opt out before their untimely death then that would just be unfortunate.

but fck me that would have to be a hell of a situation for all that to happen.

and as for the family knowing
that's also essential if there is to be no contest as to harvesting organs

so in reality your rights when your dead are lawfully upheld
its a choice not a miss a trick and your in mate

i reckon that's as close to "entrapment " as you get ...IMHO

But irrespective if they know or not they can refuse? so what difference would it make then?

Now if current law, your on the list and your next of kin says know, they are going against your wish, you obv went out your way to get on it.

But good thing is as generations are coming along, they myths and fear is slowly vanishing and more and more and signing up to the scheme.

So maybe we wont need a automatic opt in.

The forcing you in to a ya or na is a fair scheme and I think it will gather even more to sign up.

[racin-snake]

whoa there a minute "new generations" ?
most people agree that harvesting there organs is not a problem for a vast majority
forcing anything like a ya or nay is wrong cant you see that ?
force means manipulate and coerce into a decision that might not be thought out just the word force would have put me off signing up for anything whether i thought it was right or wrong mate as its fundamentally wrong to make it a forced agenda
and the word "choice" is essential in this case

believe me education like has been said is the only way to give an totally fair and fully legal way to harvest organs from anyone
your rights should "NEVER BE COMPROMISED"

give the people an informed and educated decision and a full awareness is the only way forward

to be honest play fair ..get results
underhand be gets suspicion (as previously stated )

opt in then your legally and lawfully bound
if the scenario for someone's parents or a religious decision are contested err on the persons rights " fair and lawful "
even obscure arguments no matter how low the odds on actually happening are worthy of sitting back and doing nothing like a default "opt in"

as a previous poster has said

educate and ask for the donation "as that's what it is" a donation of your organs for harvest

and to reiterate again ..i have ticked the box and filled in a form for organ donation including corneas
but as others have said let it be an educated choice and not anything seen to be underhand or trickery

makes good sense (to me anyway)

also they spent millions on a campaign about AIDS/HIV
millions on a campaign for STD's

why not to harvest donors organs ?

educate not assimilate

simple solution for getting results i would have thought also safer and no legal or moral hiccups

i personally have detached myself maybe to make some sort of reasoning for my decision
but i believe my organs if they are no use to me then then someone
i don't care who.... race ,creed .or apparent voiding reasons stated in this thread should in my opinion get the organs to save a life
i don't really care who nor want or seek any thanks
on compassionate and ethical grounds its my right to give up something i no longer require to help a fellow human

but always there are people who wont see things my way
and for that they are completely entitled i have no qualms in that department

just educate and let those who wish to do so ..and those who do not wish ;not to do as they want without prejudice ..
its after all their right to do so

its not about fear but "CHOICE" remove choice and loose out i reckon

i think you know as well as myself your personal agenda is overtaking peoples rights ...in this debate
people have a right to make informed and clear decisions based solely on there personal feelings and thoughts
not wedged into a format that will remove choice by mandate of default in ANY case

bigger picture here is consensus dictates by majority and in these cases even a full blown campaign can only achieve a return based on what people are told and what the feelings are for individual cases .





force is NOT an option .. that's just wrong you know it and i know it .....

[waken]

There?s been a lot of discussion on here with regards to educating people about organ donation. Perhaps some one may be able to answer a few niggling questions I have with regards to donating.

As of late the government as been putting pressure on certain people I.E smokers, obesity, alcoholics, and drug addicts, (which incidentally almost everyone in the UK falls into one of those categories) they are basically being told you are putting to much stress on the NHS.

My first question is this. If everyone donated their organs where would all the money come from for all this mayor surgery?

Secondly, People are being told by the same government/ NHS that when they are ill and needing surgery that the NHS will not operate because they are to obese or they smoke and so on. So why would the government expect those same people to donate their organs. It seems they can?t operate one someone because their fat but can take their organs when dead?

Thirdly, Organs generate massive amounts of money and where money can be made corruption will follow.

Fourthly, where will all these organs end up. If some go abroad will they end up in a country where that the government have no problems charging their citizens for their operations?

Ethically, if we give our organs freely would it be right if someone else has to pay for them?
Just a few of the problems I have with the donation of organs.

[Snowy79]

Sadly corruption comes into play whenever there is an opportunity to make money regardless what the source is. You only need to look at the bleeding heart charities to see how corrupt they are. Even the demands for blood donors due to our stocks running low is a joke as we sell loads to overseas agencies without advertising it.

There's no hard and fast solution as you'll never please everyone. It's well know that the wheel that squeeks the most gets the most lubrication and that's why some minor in my opinion things get passed by Governments.

You could get 1000 arguing that it's against their human rights not to be given the choice yet the of the same 1000 people if they had to choose whether they required treatment before receiving it the majority would complain that it should just be given to them anyway. Should it work both ways?

[racin-snake]

that's a pertinent question about the would people take an organ but not give one etc.

but id say human nature would be to take rather than to give
some people only really think of their own mortality when its a scenario with the own mortality being challenged so they might be ill before contemplating this scenario so hardly the perfect donor to be honest

in the natural world survivors survive cos they are willing to do anything it takes to survive

but if educated : the people are actually seeing the plus side of the argument for organ donation ?
as in fact it could be them that might need an organ

bone marrow transplants do not need to have a corpse to be a donor
and blood transplants are painless and take a less than an hour at most in most cases
which should help the cause and maybe loosen the resolve due to giving a chance to help by giving while alive so just a step further you can help in the event of your death ?

this should be a first step in asking for an informed response
as when you are dead its of no use to you
so what does it matter if someone makes money from it or who gets the organ
after all its a bit of flesh in the end they are either gonna burn or poison then plant in the ground
so why would maybe giving someone the chance to live like you have done is surely a plus
its bit selfish not to really but to overcome any type of fear ignorance or phobia is the challenge
you will never change greed and self preservation its human nature
the rest can be explained as maybe a charitable and at a push a humanitarian effort
but convincing a young person of their mortality is gonna be tough too as the young people are. if killed in an accident (which is not uncommon) the best donors generally
and the young have really no concept of the thought of croaking any time soon

so its a tough one all round but maybe likes been mentioned before kids and so on educated in this at schools
and parents of young people maybe asked in advance if in the eventuality of their kids death they could harvest the kids organs and educate them on the pros and cons in the eventuality of something happening to their kid not sign anything but have the information prior

sure would be much better than being asked in a shocked ,grief stricken state to donate their kids organs though

all in all death and fear of death and all out youthful incoherence of mortality can be maybe overcome to a degree with the right methods and information
just a thought ..

yet still leaving the open choice to "not donate" as anyone should have without prejudice i might add