Comment by Crosseye_Jack | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Crosseye_Jack | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

New? Law came into effect on 20 May 2020 and received royal on 15 March 2019. Title of the post doesn't even reflect that of the link.

Want more info on the subject including a brief reason as to why visit (Spoiler: not enough donors) https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...

The UK has been trying to push people more into being donors for a while. Back in 2011 (iirc) they added questions about your status as an organ donor to the driving license application. As the UK has about 75% of the adult population holding full licenses its was a good way of getting the question atleast asked to new drivers.

Also

> Will you automatically take my organs if I don't opt out?

> No. Your family would always be involved before donation takes place, so it is really important that you choose whether you want to be a donor and discuss what you want to happen with your family, so your decision is clear and they can have peace of mind knowing that your decision is being honoured.

EDIT: Also this is law in England. Wales has had a similar opt-out system in place since 2015 (Not checked Scotland or Northern Ireland)

I have been a registered organ donor (full body, even for research purposes) ever since I could legally do so, which is for almost twenty years now and registering for donation in every single country I have lived. However, not seeking consent is inexcusable, regardless of how noble the cause. Reading “80% of people in England support organ donation but only 38% have opted in. This means families are often left with a difficult decision when a loved one dies.” [1], it is clear that despite a massive amount of popular support the UK government fails to communicate effectively with its populace and instead of reflecting on its failures it now opts for a nuclear option. What about those without family? What about cases where family can not be contacted in due time? What about cases where the UK bureaucracy “accidentally” approves it? I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but here is a case where a good cause is hijacked and corrupted by a political body, leaving someone like me that considered donation to be a no-brainer with a bitter taste in my mouth wondering how best to protest as opting out clearly will not cut it given my moral inclinations.

[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/opt-out-organ-donation-ma...

The biggest problem is people who would consent, but just never bothered filling in the form.

I think asking people this question when they apply for a passport would be a good middle ground, and/or maybe on the intake form for their GP, or other kinds of government interactions (voting registration might make sense in the UK specifically). People would still be able to opt-out of choosing at all, but this would catch the large group of people who just never bothered to register.

> I think asking people this question when they apply for a passport would be a good middle ground

This already happens. When you apply for a driving licence, you are asked whether you would like to be put on the donor registry.

The government has many ways of getting consent, as you said: driver's licenses, passports, tax, any other interaction with the state...or even mailing a separate form to each and everyone complete with a media campaign.

I am no fan of opt out since with the right opt-in they could get enough.

Must feel strange to have opted in many years ago and now it’s “just„ the default.

This rule has been decided by elected leaders after many discussions. As a citizen you opt in by default into many things that have been different in the older times. School, health care, the BBC, etc. some of which you even cannot opt out at all. Why should organ donation be treated differently?

No, it does not feel strange that it is the default, as I would love it if more people abided by the same moral code as myself which is why I contribute in a free exchange of ideas and advocate for people to volunteer both in terms of organ and blood donations – the latter I am sadly not allowed to do in the UK due to my type 1 diabetes.

It is however strange to me that rather than to communicate clearly with its populace, improve/innovate in terms of recruitment methods, and generally “educate” the populace, a government reaches for an option that I would consider morally dubious and potentially harmful to the overall opinion on organ donation further down the line whenever that inevitable case comes up when a donation is carried out without properly seeking consent. I say inevitable here, because out of the three countries (Sweden, Japan, and the UK) I have lived in long enough to form an opinion, the UK government is by far the worst and its institutions the most poorly managed.

As for “elected”, the UK has a very large expat community and many of us are well over the 12-month limit and are being “volunteered” as donors without being close to having the right to vote for the political body that enacted this legislation. Make of that what you will.

Yup, completely agree..

> it is clear that despite a massive amount of popular support the UK government fails to communicate effectively with its populace.

I have no idea where you get that opinion from... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56818750 (sarcasm tag, just in case :-p)

I completely agree.

I live in the UK, I’ve been a registered organ donor for as long as I can remember.

I’ve opted out.

I’m not a bag of parts that belongs to an all powerful state.

I think it's a bit much to punish someone in need because you're angry that your government made a bad policy choice.

He’s not punishing someone in need. Nobody has a right to someone else’s organs, however life-saving they may be. The fundamental idea of a ”donation“ is that it’s voluntary.

The Right to Health is an inalienable human right.

I suppose "organ donation" might be better phrased as "organ recovery" then?

You can't use it anymore, and it would go to waste... Hence it should be recovered. People might not have a right to have your own organs specifically, but it's society's duty to implement organ recovery.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to provide for everyone's human rights.

This thought process is why the idea of positive rights is incoherent.

The right to health is completely made up; bacteria, viruses and cancer don't honor this right and doctors and drug makers don't work for free, so this right and a few similar ones (right to Internet, for example) are just pulled out of someone's rear parts.

That being said, it cannot be used as an argument in a civilized discussion between adults.

So are all the other rights.

> Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.

> Susan: So we can believe the big ones?

> Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

> Susan: They're not the same at all!

> Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and THEN show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet... you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.

https://www.quotes.net/mquote/1016567

I think it's a bit much to voluntarily withhold lifesaving treatment for someone in need because you're angry that your government made a bad policy choice.

I respect your opinion but I don’t want my family to be pressurised with that view at the time of my death.

It’s one thing to ask if they will help someone in need and another to say “we’re doing this are you going to stop us?”

By opting out, when I was previously on the donor list, I can spare them that.

You might say it will be handled more tactfully but there’s historical precedent that it won’t be.

This is an unpopular opinion but I feel compelled to express it; I think this law is wrong.

There should have been more debate and finesse used in the drafting of it.

I don't know why my family should have a say either. I guess it's pressuring them in a way, but dying generally puts pressure on one's family regardless.

Cremated, buried, put out to sea on a flaming raft, whatever. Who cares if the corpse I left behind is short an eyeball, a couple tendons, and a liver?

More importantly, if those body parts can be used to save someone else's life, I don't believe they should even have the right to care. People who are still alive and need an organ to survive are more important than whatever squeamishness and perception of agency my family might have.

The concern that doctors could theoretically let people die more easily to get their organs is another matter entirely, but that's not the topic in this sub-thread.

Thank you that’s far more eloquent than I could have put it.

Punish who exactly?

Well put

Organ donation gets a lot of razzle dazzle press. I think we should put more effort into other things.

Rejection is horrifying and can be deadly. Donated organs can introduce deadly infections. If all goes well, you will be on anti rejection meds the rest of your life.

It's not the magic cure all with no downside that people often seem to imagine.

...what? Is there some media conspiracy pushing unnecessary organ transplants on people that I'm unaware of?

I don't think anyone gets a liver transplant because of an article in Goop. I imagine that in most cases, they do it because they're going to die without it.

It's really a lot more complicated than that.

But I think it's time for me to walk away from this discussion.

And they still have a great likelihood to die even after.

So, after a heart attack we should not try to do CPR on you because you have a great likelihood to die either way, do I get it right?

You might want to look into the definition of odds.

All of these things are vastly better than dying due to a failed organ... and it’s not like other choices are not seeked. Should we not extend the life of so many children, because in 10 years there may be a better option?

The primary issue that concerns me is that we plow a lot of resources into this option because it makes doctors heroes and grabs headlines. Meanwhile, less "sexy", less headline-grabbing options that would really be better for the patient may be getting overlooked and remaining underdeveloped because it won't grab headlines.

Any source on your claim? Because there is basically research into every illness, and usually organ transplant is chosen as a last option. But when an organ does fail, there is hardly any other choice left.

And organ “printing” is simply not there yet.

Considering how hard it is to obtain and transplant organs, I'm pretty sure doctors only do it when it's the last possible option. Medicine is incredibly data/statistics driven these days.

It’s not an easy thing to do and not an easy thing to say out loud but I _am_ angry about it and there’s not much else I can do.

Do we have agency over our own bodies or not?

How can I keep that agency and help someone under an opt-out system? That has been taken from me when better, workable opt-in solutions weren’t tried.

To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors?

Should criminals be forced to donate blood?

What about children that die in child birth, should they be harvested for organs too? ‘Cause the NHS were doing that at one time.[1]

Where does the line stop?

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1136723.stm

> Do we have agency over our own bodies or not?

Right up until the point it's no longer your own body because you're dead, yes.

> To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors?

No, they're not dead.

> Should criminals be forced to donate blood?

No, but again, they're not dead.

> What about children that die in child birth should they be harvested for organs too?

The law only covers adults with the opt-out which would make this another no.

> Where does the line stop?

Pretty much exactly where the law says it does - "All adults in England will be considered as having agreed to donate their own organs when they die unless they record a decision not to donate (known as ‘opting out’) or are in one of the excluded groups."

[edit: Missed the A in "All"]

The line is pushed a bit every time. This time is there, but the history tells us it is not stopping and the next step is scary.

> Do we have agency over our own bodies or not?

No, and that's the point. When you're dead you cannot have agency over your body even if you had the right to.

I find it weird how people compare this to the government treating them like a "bag of parts", as if they were more than a rotting corpse at that point. If you have a religious belief or some other reason that makes you think otherwise then go ahead and opt out, I don't have an issue with that.

> To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors?

Who ever asked for that? If the time came where the UK government started acting like the CCP the law today wouldn't matter either way.

But this is a moral dilemma, where a slightly less ethical choice WILL dramatically increase another variable that is widely regarded as good.

And it’s not like it is forced, especially with the family being able to “stop” it even when it happens. The status quo was a different tradeoff.

> Do we have agency over our own bodies or not?

I believe the answer is somewhere in-between. We certainly don't have full agency over our own bodies. Can't take the drugs you want or need without asking permission, you're highly encouraged to stay healthy, vaccinations are mandatory, suicide is highly discouraged.

As always, it's a trade-off between the individual self and the society we live in.

> I’m not a bag of parts that belongs to an all powerful state.

Aside from the fact that this statement is wrong - the state can conscript you if there's a war, or imprison you - I'm wondering what actual objection you have to donating parts of your body after you are dead? Personally speaking once I'm dead, I'm not going to care in the slightest.

I have no objection to organ donation at all.

I think the idea that someone might see with my eyes after my death to be a beautiful one and I’ve been a lifelong card carrying organ donor.

I object to presumed consent.

A gift is not a gift if it’s not freely given.

Sounds a bit like you weren't an organ donor because it's the right thing but because it makes you feel good. And now that good feeling is taken away from you because everyone is an organ donor by default and you're not doing anything special anymore.

Does it? I think you’re twisting my words a bit there.

My aim was simply to answer the parent’s claim that I might have an issue with organ transplant and that’s not the case.

> because it’s the right thing

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so”

80% of people in England support organ donation

This is nonsense, because this is the standard fallacy of any survey. You take a sample and extrapolate out to the general population. If your sample is not representative, then the statement is false.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should mandate a law whereby nobody can claim "% of X agree to Y" unless it is specifically stated "% of X surveyed out of a sample size of N agree to Y. Here's a link to the methodology and questions."

Organ donation is good and important, but default opt-in is a bad decision, and the reasoning listed for it is worse.

"NHSBT carries out biannual attitudinal surveys. The fourth wave in 2017, involved 1499 interviews carried out via online self-completion between the 10th and 21st of April 2017. In this wave, 81% of people supported organ donation in principle."

https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/get-involved/news/hundreds-...

But alas, no methodology and questions on that page.

Precisely, this is a bullshit survey with dodgy results. Online self-completion? 1499 participants? If this survey was the basis of this change in law, to be default opt-in, then something very terrible has happened.

Seems rather accurate. Most people will assume "organ donor if you're 100% impossible to revive", if that is the case, might as well help someone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com