大象传媒

Habeas Corpus is it alive?

Absolutely. I think generally people should have to "exercise" their rights in a real sense in order to have them (i.e. have to actually do something, rather than sit back and expect it to be given to them on a plate). I'd like to see compulsory voting at elections too, with the ability to opt out, so that not voting itself becomes an specific action and sends a clear message that the voter has no confidence in any party.

In theory, I agree. But where you have a system which implements something many people do not agree in - or have religious beliefs to the contrary - you need the administrative safeguards to protect those who want to opt out.
I don't think anyone truly trusts the system adequately to say they would be assured no organ donation mix up might occur. The ongoing debacle over the NHS IT system is illustrative.
It is far too hard to be a donor. My family know I am signed up for everything going, but they would still have to confirm that should anything happen to me - and this lack of surety in the administrative capacity is a good reason. Until we can fix basic things from the basics such as making doctor appointments to more serious problems such as blood transfusion tragedies, I do not see a way past the current safeguards.

I will opt out thanks. The government would steal your soul if it could. I am not opposed to organ donation but I oppose anything the government does. I can just imagine all the organs rotting in the sun as the government computers order doctors to send kidneys where livers are needed and remove hearts from the living. Everything the government touches turns to ****.

Let's think of the alternatives:

- Ban the use seat belts, airbags and child booster seats.
- Re-introdution of compulsory "bull bars" on 4x4s
- Removal of pedestrian crossings
- "Farming" donor organs from gentically modified pigs, mice and chickens

As maternalism it follows on from the above really...

I believe this is the best way to ensure the supply of quality organs can effectively meet the demand. I believe most people are happy to donate, however, it is due to lack of co-operation from relatives and cultural shyness that means such issues are not properly addressed at death by the medical profession.

Yes, yes and thrice yes of course this is the best way of ensuring there are enough donors.
Only lazy people and superstitious nuts don't sign up for a Donor Card.
Perhaps we might also have an "opt out" of atheism. Might give our country a well needed boost in the 'reason' rankings and get us up there with Sweden and the like.

It would give me great comfort to know that the tragic loss of a loved one had given hope to another by the donation of usable organs. I must have carried a donor card for over thirty years and am in favour of an opt out system.

This outrageous high-handed approach is too full of dangers to even be considered.

It's like everything else - it requires effort!! Not a lot but clearly enough to put off approx 50% of potential donors.

I think it should be an opt out rather than an opt in system for sure.

Absolutely yes. And it should be Europe wide, embedded in the information chip in all passports and ID cards.

Not donating on religious or ethical grounds is one thing, failure to do so out of sheer lethargy is quite another.

Initially, it sounds like a good idea but, like all good ideas, it has certain drawbacks. This proposed change would alter forever the sanctity of the individual. Unless I take steps otherwise, my body belongs to the State. It is a very thin wedge against apathy. Why not extend the idea to elections and presume that non-voters must be in favour of the status-quo, otherwise they would have voted. As a silver surfer I do not trust politicians and grow increasingly cynical.

I don't agree with this idea. I can see this causing a lot more upset at a time when people are at there lowest. Far better for people to carry a donor card or having a tick box on their drivers licence, that way there's no argument, otherwise it's no less than theft.
That reminds me, I need to get a new one!

This is part of the movement towards Society owning its citizens, rather than Society being formed of them. ID cards, protection of the vulnerable, the presumption that the state can take your body after death - the individual becoming an unrespected unit.

I disagree. You should expressly request for your organs to be donated: your choice what to do with your body. Maybe GPs should ask people when they visit if they're not already registered... along with mailshots & magazines flyers.

The donor issue is a very complex one. The donor itself is in comma, so the relatives are the ones that must take the final decision. Ten years ago I had to go through with that decision when my agonizing husband was dying in hospital. His body was still warm, although it has been kept alive by all kind of machines and tubes. The decision of donating his organs implied that I could not wait for him to die when his body gave up, but that I had to accelerate to process by giving permission to remove his heart while still beating...the thought of precipitating his death by tearing his heart out of his body, was too much for me and I was unable to fulfill the doctors expectations and did not donate his heart or other organs. He died in peace, surrounded by his family, without any piece of his body removed. When I had to dress him for the coffin, no scars or marks were found in his body. And that was a relief. Maybe my testimony will not be accepted by many, but you have to be there to know what it feels like to take such decisions. I believe that relatives that donate the organs of their loved ones are extremely brave people and they have my utmost admiration.

This seems to be one of these simple ideas we should have implemented years ago. It would have my full support.

The British penchant for nanny-state politics is sticking its ugly head into the last bastion of individual freedom, my own human remains. It is my body, thank you, and I will promptly move from a country which claims my dead organs as their own. The politicians already take 50% of my income for taxes to support just juch inanity as forced body part harvesting, and I'll have none of it. It is my right not to have to tell the government that I don't wish to be chopped to bits when I die. If I wanted to donate I would say so. Leave me alone. Give me liberty to die unmolested. Next thing you know, the government will decide that an unharvested organ is actually a burden on society, and will tax the bereaved family to allow a whole body to be buried! Arise citizens, lest it be too late to prevent this travesty!

Election idea: how about all of the electorate is considered to have voted for the Green Party unless they have positively voted for one of the others. That might get a few more people voting and deciding what the real issues are!

I'm sorry, but the NHS does NOT own my organs and as such they should only be allowed to take them if I explicitly say they can.

It dosn't matter if my body no longer needs them, I do not tolerate people using my things (that includes bits of my body) without asking me first!

I have bequested my whole body to medical science for them to use as they wish. It will be of no use to me! It could help train surgeons, (they have to learn on someone) at the same time giving a living person a better quality of life. I don't understand the squeamish attutude of so many?

It sounds like a very good idea to me but it will have to have very strict controls and it will have to be very well explained ahead of time to John Q Publique.

And for heavens sake keep the religious bodies out of the discussion, they will only muddy the waters. I remember the birth control debate in Oldham during the late fifties or early sixties, what a mess that was. J R Harwood Brantford Ontario Canada

Why not just send everyone a plastic donor card. You want it, put it in your wallet or purse, you don't, ditch it.

There, you've been forced to choose, and have decided, that didn't take long did it?

If I'm dead, then the best part of me has already gone, whatever is left you can have. Can't vouch for it's usefulness of course. For I intend to run this vessel into the ground! Ha ha ha!

I believe it should be an opt out. I have carried a donor card for over twenty years.
What use are our organs to us when we a dead. It's only primitive thinking that requires us to be in one piece when we are buried or cremated.
Also it would be nice to think that a part of us lives on.

If my life can save a life it should do, and it should be compulsary.

Long overdue legislation. I have always intended to donate my organs this way however have never got round to doing this yet.I am sure there are many other people in the same situation.
Mike Derriman

How about a system whereby, if you don't opt in, you are not eligible to receive donor organs. Or only if there is only no opted-in person locally who could match the organ. Perfectly fair. And something to motivate the apathetic...?

Only if they make the opting out a very easy process for ANYBODY and strongly publicise the methods available, so that NOBODY can remain ignorant about the issue.

I have read the awesome poster in our Children's Hospital for many years "Dont send your organs to Heaven. Heaven knows we need them here". Organ donation gives both Single people and whole families a good chance of a precious healthy life. One generous donor can restore health to as many as 8 people!
Make it easy to opt in at GP's surgeries and every Driver's License renewal.

It's got my vote. and as for the self centred idiot who said he hates anything the government does and so would opt out on principle, I kind of hope he suffers for lack of a donor organs some time. harsh perhaps but our society has to run on mutual support, not on idiots like him thinking they are just too important to be part of the whole - sorry, got into a bit of a rant there!

I do not like the "opt out" idea. Many might not even know of it and have their bodies violated in spite of family objections. I would think that a better solution would be to have much publicity about the need to sign up as I did long ago. Post signs at major sites worldwide, make sign ups easy online, and so forth. I expect you would then obtain a significant increase in availabilities. Also urge those signing up to make relatives aware of that selection so that on death there is no problem. ADH

Absolutely, would be a positive move.

Its the old army joke about three volunteers to move the piano--you! you! and you!
But in this case its a form of civilian conscription.
No one wants to be cajoled into something over which they have no control.Just another example of the erosion of personal freedom that is currently politically correct.

Should this become law I'd opt out of donating and receiving organs. I do not belong to any church and I don't do it for some religious belief. I'd just hate to see here what I see somewhere else. It becomes a market, whether legal (if managed by doctors) or illegal (if handled by someone else).
Doctors gain celebrity (and higher pay) to perform often dubious surgeries. A transplant make you far more famous than anything else. It would be too tempting to say "Well, we can't do anything for your parent. But s/he will save another life!" Organised crime would earn money, a lot of it, out of the misery of people, as they already do where this law is in place.

I fully support the opt-out system.

And to those who say it takes away their freedom, I'd like more explaination please. It is not compulsory. The idea of an opt-out system is that you can opt-out. You will still have that choice.

i carry a card in my wallet, but how do you get on the NHS organ donor register anyway?

I think it would be a very positive move. I am already signed up as a donor.

But a note of caution: my partner lost her husband some years ago and did the good thing by agreeing to donate his organs. Many benefited from his heart, liver, and kidneys. BUT the emotional cost to her was immense because of the way she was treated as an irrelevance once consent had been given and life support withdrawn. She had no opportunity to be with him as he died and had to wait many days to have his body returned for burial. Now she is firmly against donation which is a terrible shame.

I think the medical profession need to understand the impact on relatives and build support into the donor process so that we can let our loved ones go with dignity rather than feeling them torn away from us.

My initial reaction was to think, 'Make it compulsory with an easy way to opt out.' Inertia and ignorance are probably the main problems. But perhaps the first step would be to make sure that as many people as possible know how to opt in - and MAKE IT EASY (with an on-line option.) (Perhaps there is already, and I have never seen it advertised!)

It is objectionable to assume the right to take body parts.
If the survey is correct and 70% of people want their organs donated after death it is clearly finger trouble that their signatures have not been obtained.
When voting, visiting a doctor or optician, applying for a credit card and so on the option should be part of the proceedings.
A little less friendly would be to add that people not on the donor list would not qualify for a donated organ should the necessity occur.

He would get my organs only over my dead body

I fully subscribe to this theory and I do believe that it is time that all governments reverse their thinking and stop letting capitalism grow strong off the apathy of the masses. If all the choices available to the masses were automatically made should you choose not to opt out then we would have more productive nations. As it stands, the masses sit (note that position well) and complain about everything rather than acting to make a change. So humanity will continue to descend into an abyss of inactivity unless forced to take action. So opt out of everything! Most choices have been to make no choice. When what we really need are nations of decisive citizens. And...failing that, having ample spare body organs will help advance the nation.

All fine comments...but what if you were the potential recipient?
THINK...what if you were suddenly told you need a transplant - heart/kidney/liver etc. to stay alive?

Sad that the medical professions leadership will corrupt the professions basic ethics in the pursuit of convenience. Frankly Liam Donaldson should be told to resign because he has forgotten his principles.

Once the doctors started working mostly for the state it was always going to be too easy to start following policy not the good of individual patients.

So doctors lie about available medicines rather than admit they are not funded. And now want to take organs without having to ask.

As people have pointed out above - the profession HAS NEVER REALLY TRIED to boost numbers on the register. A decent central database, with GPs asking people to register when they sign on at their practice would solve this. But it so much easy to reach for coercion and damn their ethics.

How low has the profession fallen.

The State should never have this power over our bodies. They would manipulate people against opting out.

The decision as to whether or not to be an organ donor should be left to the individuals concerned, though permission could be sought from families after the person has died.

Remember that some accident victims can recover after some time in a coma.

I hope MPs will again reject this frightening proposal.

What bothers me is the government want people to opt out rather than opt in knowing this government if you don't do what they want they will tax you, but i have always thought there you are near death and a rich or influential person is waiting for an organ, a donation to the hospital and your organ is gone and so are you lets be fair Tony Blair wouldn't say if his kid had the 3 in one vaxcine but he said we should all get our kids done.
and the man that advised the government on organ donation was deemed 'not talented enough" for surgery also Sir Liam was involved in devising the Modernising Medical Careers (MMC) system and the medical training application service (MTAS). This has been very controversial since its inception, with officials from the DH proclaiming success although it has been outrightly rejected by a large group of trainees and consultants [1]. It champions competence rather than excellence and substantially reduces the length of the training programme required to become a consultant [2]. In an unprecedented demonstration against this system, around 12,000 junior doctors marched against MMC and the associated MTAS in March 2007 [3]. Subsequently, Professor Alan Crockard the National Director of MMC resigned stating that the project had 'lacked clear leadership from the top for a very long time' [4]. His colleague Professor Shelley Heard has also resigned.
I have to say id opt out, but if people want to opt in wonderfull carry a card let your family know don't put them through the pain of a doctor asking if they can remove vital organs it ceases to become your choice but your next of kins

Should I have anti-donar card if I don't agree to become a donar?

If I have that card when I die, can I believe you won't discard my anti-donar card ?

I agree totally.I am a doctor involved in caring for liver transplant patients.Most of these patients do not even realise they are ill untill very late in the coarse of their illness. Suddenly they discover they need a liver transplant. Whatever their views were before their illness they all expect to receive a liver before they die.The faster they get it the better.The demand for organs is always increasing as people expect to live longer and with a good quality of life. In the case of transplant medicine it is the only way foward.People who don't agree now will quickly change their mind if they themselves need an organ.

Unfortunately, those concerned about the civil liberties implications of this proposal need to wake up and realise that our bodies have been the de facto property of the State for some time now.

We've allowed the authorities to re-draw the boundaries to the extent that they now tell us what we're allowed to weigh and how big we're permitted to be, what we should and shouldn't put into our bodies (alcohol, cigarettes and drugs bad, fluoride and folic acid good so long as it's delivered to you mass-medication style through tap water and bread) and to increasingly use sanctions against us if we fail to comply. It isn't therefore such a big step to seeing their involvement in our individual choices even after death.

On the other hand, such schemes have had proven benefits in other countries which have implemented them, and in many ways I'm less concerned about the obviously positive motivations behind this than the creeping elements of control through health fascism such as those mentioned above.

I can't imagine anything worse, were I to be hit by a bus tomorrow, than to have my organs go to waste, or for another family to suffer the loss of a loved one when a simple signature on a piece of paper could so easily save them. And I certainly wouldn't want any member of my family, whether motivated by malice, grief or their own religious / moral beliefs, to be allowed to overrule my own on this matter.

However it goes without saying that were such a system to be introduced, there would need to be adequate safeguards for those who make the entirely valid choice to opt out, not least to protect the NHS from an even greater number of unnecessary lawsuits from relatives. Currently i'm not sure we can trust either the NHS or their political masters with this level of responsibility. Let's leave the big moral debates such as opt-out donation lists, euthanasia and genetic engineering until we have a more benign administration at the helm.

Regarding organ donations: I don't believe they should be 'donated' but we should be obliged to have them removed - only make certain we're really dead first.
I have been an organ donor for years but recently I have had cancer and chemotherapy and now have been told my organs cannot be used. My husband, too, has had hepatitis so the same thing applies to him. We both feel rather sad about this and stress that checks must be made to ensure that all donors are suitable.

I agree with Mandy's point earlier. [#3]

It is far too hard to be a donor. I have a 'donor card' but it is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, as the final decision rests with next of kin. Why should their input be required ? Also, I don't understand whether this additional consent is required if one is on the 'organ donation' register - which I am not.

I would consider adding my name to this register - but not surely sure what this adds to the fact I already have a donor card. Agree that a debate is required and that we need to seriously consider an 'opt-out' system.

But I can't see this happening soon, as people have a rather simplistic view that 'the government' will allow another 'Alder Hey' when the two are not really connected.

I think that there is probably a reason for the lack of people being willing to voluntarily donate their organs without condition should they die. I know that personally, I would be delighted for someone else to benefit from my organs should I be unable to use them any more due to premature death. However, I have reservations about what happens to my body parts and who might receive benefit from my downfall, and would like to see greater conditions being defined. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to stop my organs from going to a criminal. I certainly wouldn't want my death to be of benefit to a killer. I also would not like my organs to go to an irresponsible person who had abused their own bodies through alcohol, cigarettes, other drug abuse, or someone who had failed to address their health by overeating and becoming morbidly obesce to the extent that their organs couldn't sustain their body. I am also concerned that part of me that sustains my consciousness could become part of someone else's consciousness, and I want that consciousness to be a responsible person. From a moral position, what greater karma could one gain than from sacrificing an organ to save someone else. This does not have to be one life sacrificed for another, however there are circumstances where this could become the case. Not an act of martyrdom, however certain circumstances could lead to difficult sacrifices having to be reconciled, meriting one life over another, particularly relevant to families where a family member has a terminal condition, possibly in the case of siamese twins who share common organs. There is also the case that should someone have a terminal condition, then there would be a potential motive for murder. What if for example there were two brothers, one of which had a terminal condition. What is to stop him from for example sabotaging the braking system of his brother's car to incite an 'accident', thus getting the spilled organs. What is to stop irresponsible driving with the mentality of 'it doesn't matter, the organs will be useful anyway' attitude. Surely not an approach to safety to be encouraged. They may think this in some countries, but I'll be looking at immediate and urgent emigration if Britain resorts to such a backwards approach. Some might also take the opinion that evolution operates under survival of the fittest, and that people with terminal genetic conditions should not pass the defects onto their future successors. That isn't religion, it is proven science, unless you dispute Charles Darwin. Should civilisation / society be violating these laws of nature ? In conclusion, I think we have to find ways of boosting organ donors, and in my opinion the most effective way of doing this is greater public awareness and accessibility of the donor card system, and a better system to define the conditions organs are transferred through the voluntary donor system. I also think that every citizen should periodically be send a donor card which will need to be registered in order for their organs to be medically usable under the conditions that they clearly specify. Why not issue the cards ubiquitously like national insurance numbers and the electoral register. Surely one is no longer an organ donor if it is not a voluntary donation. This would be organ theft. The donor registration system should not only include specifying organs, but also the recipient. I think people should have the right in this case to discriminate between sex, age, race and any other trait that would ordinarily be defined as discriminatory in any other situation. This could be to achieve a good match and reduce the likelihood of biological rejection, however it should also be the right of the individual to choose what happens to their own body parts. Address the problem in this manner, and I would not be surprised to see donor numbers increasing dramatically on a voluntary basis. If medical science continues to advance with technologies, what is to say the moral dilemmas discussed here could not be made largely history with artificial synthetic blood and lab grown organs using stem cell technology becoming a reality. A long way off, and even longer off on the nhs, but who is to say it is impossible. I am fed up with the government and nhs management telling us as the public at large how wrong we all are and how unhealthy the nation is to justify restrictions and penalties when the nhs is in the worst shambolic state for decades. This proposal is merely an example of how the public are made a scapegoat for the deficiencies in patient care in hospitals and it is not the fault of the public or the patients. It is the governments fault, and it is time they stopped playing politics, and actually did something about it.

The only drawback that I can see is that everyone who opted out would have to be registered. That means a government IT system and as sure as night follows day that means the government handing over large amounts of our cash for something that's years late and doesn't actually work all that well when it is delivered. Other than that I'm all for it.

I'm a nineteen year old girl with cystic Fibrosis. I've been told I need a double lung transplant as soon as possible but there's a fifty percent chance that i'll die whilst on the waiting list and I believe that's largely due to the current opt-in system. You are twice as likely to need an organ than to give one. I think most people believe in donating organs but never get around to getting a donor card. With an opt-out system people who felt strongly about it could choose not to donate, but at least they would have to actively make that decision. This is an important decision that could save my, and around 7000 other people's, lives. I hope people think about it carefully.

Why not kill two birds with one stone
let the familys sell your body to science when you die as it would not matter to you then you can save the organs and cut down on a funeral expence which saves mony for the goverment to your local council

Mr T M Sheehan

Both of my 17 year old nephew's kidneys failed suddenly. My sister-in-law donated one of hers and the transplant was done within a week of his being diagnosed.
It was a family affair, there was no thought to wait for a donor nor heaven forbid, of buying the organs from some unsuspecting victim of a scam.

Maybe if there were more donors in the west, this black marketing of organs would not exist, however going from volontary organ donors to forced-by-law donors seems too drastic a step.

I totally agree with the idea! At least the organs of the corps will be in good use of for some other people. And I support the very idea of PD's comment #13, but in all countries not only in Europe.

OPT OUT

How many of the medical officers will be opting out and more importantly how many of these medical officers making the rules for the public, and the rest of the people working in the health industry actually put themselves out to give blood? Do their families get the first option of organs and blood donations?

I cannot believe the country that gave us the Python's "Meaning of Life" could ever seriously discuss organ donation.

Even though it was a very funny movie and this post may or may not be serious, I still feel that the point made in the film, about premature organ donation, should be taken very literally.

If - as I heard the Chief Medical Officer declare this morning, 67% (or something like it) of the population support organ donation, but just 'don't get round to it,' then shouldn't the effort be directed towards nudging the willing in the required direction? Not the lazy alternative of requiring action from the unwilling in the hope that they 'won't get round to it either' and carry a 'refuse to donate' card?

If - as I heard the Chief Medical Officer declare this morning, 67% (or something like it) of the population support organ donation, but just 'don't get round to it,' then shouldn't the effort be directed towards nudging the willing in the required direction? Not the lazy alternative of requiring action from the unwilling in the hope that they 'won't get round to it either' and carry a 'refuse to donate' card?

No one should be able to opt out at all! Once you are dead - that's the end for the organ's usefulness, the body will be either burnt or put in the ground to rot. So why drag into the grave someone else with you when your organs can save their life? A dead person doesn't need his kidneys or heart at all!

Donaldson, who is a public servant, is trying to spin us all into accepting his pr driven agenda. I saw the facts on the programme,especially that 400 people are sadly dying unnecessarily each year because there are not enough donors. And then I heard the Chief Medical Officer, who you would have thought with a scientific background dealt in facts say: 'Many of our people are dying every day through a lack of donors.'
It is this sort of sophistry that forces me to think more than twice about signing up.

While the intentions behind this proposal are good, there are some inherent dangers in making organ donation compulsory.

There is already a thriving iniquitous trade in the trafficking of organs. Not all members of the medical profession are as ethical as they should be.

Where money rules, either directly in the form of a fee paid or increased funding to a hospital, there is a greater likelihood that doctors might be less willing to facilitate the recovery of certain patients, particularly the elderly, if they see them as a source of organs for donation.

Let it not be forgotten that in order for one person, who may not even deserve it, but who may have the money to pay for it, to have an extension of life, someone else's life must be cut short.

We cannot help those who die as the result of unpreventable accidents, but if we extend the lives of too many people in an already overpopulated world, then we are denying babies the chance to be born and depriving the younger generation of the joys of parenthood.

Let it also not be forgotten that when the demand for cadavers for medical research began to outstrip supply, the notorious body snatchers, Burke and Hare, resorted to murder, to supply the demand.

Cases have already been reported of organs being harvested from people who are still alive. This is utterly wrong. The patient should be dead before any organs are removed.

I used to be in favour of organ donation. Now I am beginning to revise my opinions.

It is bad enough that animals and birds have their lives prematurely terminated in order to supply somebody's hamburger or fur coat without this institutionalized violence spreading to hospitals, which will then become little better than slaughterhouses, except that their victims will be anaesthetized before being put to death.

Blood is something which the human body can regenerate, so being a blood donor is a different matter altogether, but we only have one heart and one liver, etc, though a person may choose to donate a kidney, as we have two of these.

Also it is possible for a government to rush a bill through with loopholes which can be exploited by the unscrupulous and to cloud legislation in such nebulous terms that people may not realize that they must take deliberate steps to opt out.

Also how can you argue your case, if you are knocked unconscious by thugs, who steal your wallet containing your opt-out card and die - or are allowed to die - without regaining consciousness?

If this government - or any other government, as I am convinced that the opposition has an equal amount of MPs of this persuasion - is allowed to make us donate organs by default, then they will find ways of making us do almost anything else they wish by default.

The planet is already bursting at the seams. At sixty-two years of age I am content to go, when my time comes, but I have no intention of be hurried along because some vomiting binge drinker has wrecked his or her liver and wants mine or some inveterate smoker has developed emphysema and wants my heart and lungs. If they choose a lifestyle which is life shortening by its nature, they should bear the consequences. They have no right to demand that someone else's life should be cut short in order to lengthen theirs.

Even if I was not opposed to this because of religious beliefs, and took a more objective view, if there are actually 70% of people who want to be donors, why don't they opt in now? Maybe there are other reasons, which this latest bill will not address, like poor advertising, mis-trust in the health system, and also the possibility that people feel that by saying they are a donor they might get less care if they are critically ill. I wouldn't want to be a donor, because I can't be certain that if I was critically ill because of a car accident, and there was a young child in hospital needing an organ that I was a match for, that they would be thinking of that rather than concentrating on my life. Maybe if the government gave more funding to hospitals and worked to providing better trained doctors, more people would feel confident about donating organs.

If the default is to opt out of being an organ donor, doesn't this set a president for a number of other things that the government wants us to do but we don't want to? Could we see that the default for people of a certain age is to join the armed forces, and you have to opt out, or that the police will keep everyone's dna on file and you have to opt out and have not committed any crime to have your records destroyed? The latter policy would certainly help the police track suspects, but is against the principals of a democratic society.

Never having had a loved one who required an organ transplant, I can only imagine the pain of familes who have watched a loved one die because no organs were available. I carry a donor card because in the hereafter, I won't need a body that has turned to ashes (in a very expensive coffin) or a body that has been burned (at X amount of degree's) and put into an urn. I'd like to think that any bit's of me that can save another life - is used to prolong the life of the next, Mother Theresa (who helped the less fortunate), John Lennon (who filled the world with 'universal' music), or my late brother Selu, who did nothing for mankind - but was loved dearly. Transplants are not for the donor - They are for the living. Let's go the default route.

Yes it appears to be the best way to guarantee a constant supply of donor organs. Spain (and to a lesser degree the state of South Australia) is an excellent example of this. They have however also implemented good systems to coordinate distributing organs nationally and occasionally even internationally. Other areas that should be addressed in conjunction with a system of presumed consent should be the education of both the public and health care providers to ensure understanding and smooth execution of organ donation/receipt. People's rights are not being breached in my view as they can opt out and if they are unable to do so themselves for any reason this can be done on their behalf.

I am not opposed to organ donation if people are given the choice but to compell individuals into doing so is a contradiction to democracy and freedom of choice. Some individuals on this forum class themselves as left wing yet they think because they agree with Opting Out, everyone else should too! Where's the democracy in that?! God knows I don't wish afflictions and internal organ failure on people but I believe we should have a choice and for Donaldson to say that organ donation will be boosted is obvious. It won't be down to generosity or choice it will be because we, the people have no rights. And with no rights we will never be safe.
There is a deeper, more frightening issue here that most have not thought of. If the Opt Out system is enforced, many in terrible accidents may not receive life-saving procedures and could be covenient organ donors without it ever being known or proved to the family!?! How many medics are held responsible for MRSA and the lives it has claimed? Not many. What makes anyone think it will be different when it comes to a subject that can easily be covered up by Liam Donaldson, The Medical World and Government?!
Has anybody thought of how much more money Insurance Companies, The Medical World and the Government will gain if this dictatorial idea becomes real?
I oppose the Opt Out idea, not because I am a religious conservative or I'm trapped in some squeamish, pyschological horror movie scenario but because I fear we are increasingly losing control of our destinies. By agreeing to this we are giving the Government more power to cover up any blunders that will surely happen. This will be one of many catalysts to ensure our rights are eradicated further.

In principle yes but like many of the changes introduced by the current government it dilutes individual rights and choice. But I believe one of the contributors hit it on the head with the suggestion that it should be a mandatory 'tick box' on one of the many ID documents we inevitably collect and carry during life i.e. driving license, passport etc By doing this the issue could virtually be resolved.

This is an excellent move. The whole of the world should join together in this movement.In today's volatile world when terrorism is trying to rule the roost,we need to have one world & one people. The world has become boundaryless & when human organs donated will move across the world freely it will become easy to understand the value for life.My best wishes are with you.

Totally agree. I have carried a donor card in my wallet since April 1980 and you can imagine the condition that that is in now? Even if it was found when relevant, what if we write ourselves out in a car/aeroplane crash, note Brazil today? Whether I am on the NHS list or not, I have no idea but these large bureaucrasies are not known for their efficient administration of such lists? and time is often critical when the organs are required. For those who believe in the afterlife, I am sure that their Gods will only look benevolently at this final gift.

Some good comments regarding making the system better and easier for those who wish to donate, ie having this info on your driving license or passport is an excellent idea. I don't think the majority of people agree to it being an opt-out system. I don't understand why the dead persons relatives have to be consulted though, if the person himself wishes to donate, that should be enough permission.

It is putting the question about who ownes your body in a grimm perspective. They may use my body to their heart's content, but I do respect without understanding the reservation of others.

Many a loss of potential donororgans is due to peoples ignorance of what it means to donate organs. Many believe you need to mutilate the remains to get at the organs, which is not the case. But should one fight ignorance with compulsion?

In the Netherlands there was recently a GIANT DONORSHOW on tv. The format:
one dying woman has a kidney due to come available.
Four men in need of a kidney compete in Big Brother style for the transplant.
The dying woman decides who'll get it with the 'help' of the tv audience.

Outrage througout the country. Ministers consider forbidding the broadcast, Parliament in uproar, millions at the screen.........and at the end of the show it is revealed, that the dying woman is a heathy actress

But the candidates are real, they are desparately waiting for organs that go to waist because to many peop;e just don't bother to arrange for donation.
Opt out is a bad system, but the registration system is pretty lousy too. We had this discussion in the Netherlands and decided for registration, and awareness campaigns. It had onlly a temporal result. The shocktherapy of the DONORSHOW will not last either.

But let's face it. So many people do not take care for their own life and health. How can one expect those to take care and thought for others beyond their grave?

I putt it to you though, that the easy speeches here about compulsorsy Bullbars and rotting organs in NHS corridors only raise the stockmarketratings of businesses that scavenge the third world for illegal organs. And that is a certain loss for humane society

If my blood can save lives, I am enthusiastic to donate it. I would be willing to consider donating any other renewable part of me, provided that doing so did not seriously jeopardise my health. However, I give no-one permission to take anything from my body when I am dying or dead. This is not about superstition. I choose to donate with my explicit and informed consent, and only then. I do not wish anyone to remove my choice, including by accident, error or conspiracy.

I think this is a wonderful idea. This subject comes up precisely when I am looking for a way to make it clear that doctors may do what they want with my body after my death provided it be in the interests of other people. They can take the organs they think will serve their purpose or use the body for teaching medical students. I even like the idea of being buried in an unmarked grave in some reforestation programme. After we "change frequency" we won't be needing our physical bodies. Given the population explosion on Earth I also think that it is high time we thought again, seriously, about euthenasia and assisted suicide. T.D.B. Madrid

I am a kidney transplant recipient from New Zealand. Twice in my life I have had to spend months on dialysis waiting for a suitable donor to come up. Here in NZ we have appalling donor rates, the lowest in the OECD: only 25 donors in the whole of 2006, in a country of 4 million people. We have 530 patients on the waiting list for kidneys, and a small number waiting for other organs. We also have an epidemic of diabetes, especially in Maori and Pacific populations, who also have the lowest donor rates.

I've agreed with my family and with Medic-Alert that I will be a donor. In NZ we have purported notification through driver licences, but that is a complete travesty, since intensivists and other medical professionals don't check the driver licence card, or the national driver licensing database at all. The only means we have for making our wishes known at death is through our families, but only 30-40% of families are even asked about this. My godfather died six years ago from a haemorrhagic stroke, but his wife wasn't asked even though both were keen supporters of organ donation.

I'm told by Andy Tookey, of Give Life New Zealand (www.givelife.org.nz), that the recently-established Organ Donation New Zealand, a government publicity and advocacy organization within the Ministry of Health, is actively working to discourage donation at death in favour of living-donor transplants. Tookey's organization supports a national register based on the NHS model in the UK, but has little support from the Ministry of Health for this. I am a supporter of Give Life NZ.

Give Life NZ and its supporters don't support an opt-out system based on the Spanish model, because there are too many ethical issues with that approach. In a 2004 review of the Human Tissue Act 1964, there was only 5% support for an opt-out system, compared with 45% support for an opt-in register. That would certainly be a big step ahead from the ludicrous system we have at present.

I signed a kidney donor card some 20 years ago, so I am all in favour of voluntary donations. However, I am totally appalled by the assumptions in Sir Liam Donaldson suggestion. This is a matter for individual conscience and in no way should organ donation become the default option. I will tear up my kidney donor card if Liam Donaldson's suggestion ever becomes law and pledge not to donate.

As a total organ donor I fail to see why so many opt out from what would be a 'life saver' to another human being. After all, their organs, will on death, of the owner either be cremated or simply buried and rot away. What a waste when a single or multiple donation could otherwise "live on" in another person(s). I bet that, given the need, they would cry out for someone to save them by organ donation. So, if there is a way to make all potential donors have to formally "Opt Out" many more would / may rethink their decision to opt out from Organ Donation and sign up. Thus making scarcity of viable organs a thing of the past.

As a total organ donor I fail to see why so many opt out from what would be a 'life saver' to another human being. After all, their organs, will on death, of the owner either be cremated or simply buried and rot away. What a waste when a single or multiple donation could otherwise "live on" in another person(s). I bet that, given the need, they would cry out for someone to save them by organ donation. So, if there is a way to make all potential donors have to formally "Opt Out" many more would / may rethink their decision to opt out from Organ Donation and sign up. Thus making scarcity of viable organs a thing of the past.

When buying replacement parts for a car, would you rather have new, or second hand reconditioned parts ? Well, ultimately, brand new should be the preferred option, this would be the stem cell cultured organs. Not yet available with current technology. So we have to see what we can salvage in the second hand market. While there is nothing wrong in cannibalising the components of worn out motors from the breakers yard, the market in components tends to change attitudes. It potentially makes people neglect their motors and fail to take good care of them as they rely on being able to get replacement parts. This is like people looking after their own health. Some vehicles are considered not worth keeping serviceable, and are therefore broken up for scrap in this way. This is analogous to providing poor healthcare to the masses, or neglecting criminals and loonies of no value to society, and using their organs for other people considered 'more worthy'. People deserve good healthcare, they can't provide all the necessary ingredients themselves. There is no substitute for a good healthcare system. Look after what you've got with regular servicing and hopefully you won't need a transplant. However, through no fault of their own, some people are born with faulty components, and their organs either need repairing or replacing. Their condition is possibly a result of a genetic relic of a problem evolution solved with a desperate method, such as sickle cell anaemia providing malaria resistance. In modern society, civilisation has been able to eradicate the cause and need for such defects that now provide no benefit but plenty of health problems. Civilisation is now evolving, and has the ability to eradicate the trade off that evolution responded with and allowed humans to survive in the harsh natural environment. Civilisation has provided a civilised society in which evolution can be artificially controlled for the benefits of it's individual components. Civilisation and society has a duty to eradicate as much unnecessary disease as possible, and to fix unbeneficial defects. The complexity of genetics means that there are many trade-offs, an affliction usually has a beneficial effect as well as a detrimental side. There is no perfect human, and I know of no-one who does not have something usually genetically related that they would rather not have. Some of these traits are psychological, such as autism, where geniuses provide great advantage to civilisation and society, whilst the individual can experience mood swings, depression and torment as a consequence of their condition. Simple genetic eradication by fetus screening is not realistic, there is no such thing as the perfect human, and we all have what could be described as defects in one way or another. As a species, we are only as good as our component parts, and that requires its component parts to be different, and be able to perform different roles within society and civilisation. However society has a duty to its citizens to provide the best health available. Society and civilisation is only as strong as all its combined component parts. Society now provides the evolutionary mechanisms of our species and our existance within it. Humans are versatile, and are excellent at manipulating to their environment as well as manipulating their environment to suit their requirements. Humans as a species also need to respect their environment in order to fit well within it and avoid rejection by other species. Human society exists within the context of an external environment as much as an individual organism exists within its environment. People need the best parts, and this can either be provided by repairing what they've got through medical procedures, or replacing them with what is available. Medical knowledge continues to develop to repair faulty organs and allow all people to live longer. With an absence of medical expertise being able to repair malfunctioning organs, the next best option is transplants. Seeing that a large number of transplantable organs effectively go to waste, it would be far more beneficial for their organs to be of value to someone else who can use them. I suspect that without being in control of and being able to provide what their bodies require in order to sustain their life, the inevitable death would lead most rational people to have no qualms about donating their now spare organs to someone else. However, I suspect, they would like them to go to the best cause. They would also not like to be neglected for some other cause. When making a financial donation, we have the choice of whether or not to make a donation, depending on whether we feel the charity is responsible enough to get best value out of the donation and make best use of it. We have a limited supply of cash, in the same way that we have a limited supply of organs. We can only make this donation once, and people deserve to have as much choice as possible as to where their donation goes. Many people would not make donations to irresponsible charities, or corrupt charities that would probably use the money to fund terrorist activities. People have this right, and is no different with organ donation. An organ can give life to a good person, as well as a bad person, just as with universal ability a pound coin can buy someone bread irrespective of whether they could give it to a starving soul or allow them to buy a firearm to commit the crime of stealing bread off someone else who needs it to survive. Organ transplants without consent or conditional agreement is like charities mugging people for cash on the high street. Some might even place hidden tripwire or wobbly kerbstones and paving slabs in order to help them in their plight. Most charities are genuinely worthy causes, however there are a minority who aren't. There are individuals who are more worthy of charitable donations than others, and there are many factors involved in this, including physiological need, ability to get good use from the donation, and passing the benefit of the donation onto others. There are also less salubrious factors such as social status, financial status and other factors normally described as discriminatory, such as race, gender, and age, that might be involved in a donors decision making process as to the desired recipient of their organs.

Lots of people are saying things like: "...Everybody should be made to donate their organs because when you are dead, they are of no use to you and will rot or be burned..."
The point is that the major internal organs like the heart, kidneys and lungs require the donor to still be alive when they are removed. These people who think they will already be dead when the organs are removed are naive to say the least. The organs need to still be functioning up until the point that they are removed, then they are carefully frozen.
There have been hundreds of people who recovered after initially being pronounced brain dead.
Cases like these prove there is no certainty that donors definitely would have died.
But once their organs are harvested it's too late.
Life is unfair but it's even more unfair to decide the fate of an entire nation of people. Where is the democracy in that?

I sent a comment re organ donation being assumed unless opted out. It was not published Who is it within 大象传媒 who censors the views of the fee paying British public.Lets have an answer. Eric Coppin

In response to the comments saying that it should be made easy to opt-in... it is easy! there are leaflets in GPs offices, hospitals plus a range of other places (including my University) plus of course you can register online quickly and easily by filling in a small form.

It would be hard to make opting in any easier!

As of my opinions on the opt-out proposal, I am all for it. I have a 21 year old friend currently on the list for a new heart and is obviously very till and stuck in hospital.

My sister is to undergo a kidney transplant in August. This is a live donation from her fiance, whom she is marrying tomorrow. Mum was a perfect match but unfotunately she passed away from colon cancer last May (misdiagnosis of I.B.S.). My youngest child is in paliative care and after seeing first hand the daily suffering of my sister, I would have no problem in donating his organs to help others. Sir Liam Donaldson is right to bring in this new opt-out system of donating body parts. If it's not for you, opt out.

If we want to practical then it is not a bad idea at all. Many people who object would NOT object if it was themselves in need. I was 80 yesterday so I don't know if my bits and pieces would be good but I can not see why anyone should choose to believe that someone who has died is the same individual as the one that was alive. It is nothing more than a kind of replica - no life, no love, no use (but for spares).
Dig me up in six months and see how useless I really am! Anyway, it is nice to be wanted!

Is being asked to 'opt out' being considered to deal with the nation's apathy regarding becoming donors?

Yes, being asked to 'opt out' is being considered to deal with the nation's apathy regarding becoming donors.

That was too easy, c'mon, gimme another.

'Is the contracting-out of cleaning services in hospitals to the lowest bidder the cause of increased in-hospital infection rates?'

Yes, the contracting-out....

Who's dumbing down?

I am an atheist in my sixties. I have multiple sclerosis and would opt out of any life-extending treatment other than a total reversal of this illness. Even then, there would have to be no consequential drug side-effects or dependency. My opt out includes receiving a donated organ should any of mine fail.

Don't try to lengthen my life with chemicals or another person's body parts. That won't improve my life, just prolong my dying. When I need it, give me large doses of painkiller and make sure you thereby hasten my death.

Do let me die with dignity in pain-free peace and don't rip out my heart, lungs, liver, kidneys or anything else until they have entirely ceased to function.

Only when they, and I, are fully dead can you have them. But don't use them to prolong the death of someone else.

I stronlgy disagree with this idea of compulsory donatians of organs unless 'opted out'. For me the idea of having to 'opt out' suggests that the State considers that my body is no longer my own property but belongs to them, and that I have to have a document giving me special permission to keep my own body in one peice if I wish! I also have a grotesque image in my head of stock piles of organs not getting used quickly enough and being sold by the government to other countries and making fat lots of money out of it.

For me there are several issues here.

First, I suspect the real motivation behind this move is so that the civil service can press further ahead with their ID card agenda. If this donor optout card is implemented in the way I think it will be, anyone who refuses to carry an ID card will have their internal organs confiscated by the state.

Second, there is the issue that, once this system is in place, vulnerable people who should not be expected to have to carry optout cards will be in an unpleasant position. It will be harder to insist on continuing care for a patient in a persistant vegitative state, or a conjoined twin with short life expectancy, or an unwanted pregnancy that could be cannibalised for spare parts, or a terminally ill pensioner with an expensive pacemaker. People rarely look ahead to the consequential pressures arising out of a political decision.

One "organ" that is much demanded for transplant is blood. We often hear of the shortage of blood donors. But in an age of growing sexual liberality, should we not be asking why the transfusion service automatically refuses donations from any man who has ever "had sex with another man" ? What is the rationale? Surely they test all donations for HIV and other diseases, if that's what they are implying?