Presumed consent for organ donation is in the news again. I suspect, that like a poorly digested meal, it will continue to repeat as the vested interests try to force it upon us.
This time, though it is with a note of caution that the matter is raised. As Wales plans to push ahead with it, research is suggesting that it is not necessarily the panacea proponents claim that it is.
Spain was found to have doubled organ donation rates with a such a system of “soft” presumed consent, but Sweden – which presumes consent – had a similar rate to Germany and Denmark where informed consent operates, as in the UK.
“Further exploration of underlying regional differences and temporal variations in organ donation, as well as organisational issues, practices and attitudes that may affect organ donation, needs to be undertaken before considering legislation to admit presumed consent,” the report says.
Such caution is welcome and it is interesting to see some evidence that it doesn’t necessarily increase donation automatically. Maybe there are lots of Swedes objecting in principle and opting out?
Either way, whether it raises the rate of donation is neither here nor there, the practice is unethical and should be opposed on that principle alone. The end does not justify the means. I leave the last word to the Archbishop of Wales:
…but it has been criticised by some, such as the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, who said organs should be donated as a gift and not as an “asset of the state.”
Now there’s someone who gets it.
The Archbishop was on PM on Radio 4 last week making the same point. It is a rare moment indeed when I find myself nodding approval towards a senior Church man, but on this matter he was (is) absolutely right. As an individual, I find myself looking towards the concept of being considered a walking State Organ Bank with utter distaste and intend to opt out of any such scheme were it to be adopted. I have given Miss Starship the option of making a decision on my behalf should I find myself incapacitated and at death’s door, but by then I would be well past caring. It might seem selfish, bu I believe that principled stands are the only way to demonstrate just how wrong this policy is. I also can’t help thinking that somewhere down the line would come registers of every ‘donor’ which could be very easily exploited by a corrupt future government. They may want the organs badly enough to harvest them when they need them, rather than when they become available…
I too will opt out if this comes to pass. If the medics ask my next of kin should the occasion happen, then they will be allowed to harvest – but, and it’s an important but – they will have to ask. That’s what you do when you want something that doesn’t belong to you.
Normally organs are harvested from donors in ICUs. If you snuff it in bed on Conker Tree ward by the time you get into theatre to have things removed, by the time the recipient is phoned, arrives and is prepped etc, your organs are kaput, dead and useless. Lack of perfusion by oxygenated blood.
The stiff in the ICU isn’t stiff as the life support machine is on. So the recipient or recipients can take their time getting there and prepped ready for the surgery. This is why we don’t have the optimal numbers for transplantation.
Is the Bishop of Wales known as “Organ Morgan”? If not, he should be. I agree with Longrider; if you ask nicely, you are likely to get what you want. People who take without asking aren’t usually very popular…