Finally someone got this idea in the head of a PM. Howard dismissed without a blink and thankfully Rudd had a heart valve replacement so the need for improvement was lodged in his head to start with.

Many people are dying because you are to lazy educate yourself on the topic and it doesn't help that individuals are 'squeamish' and think it's 'icky'. The following article uses the term 'mandatory' which is just wrong. There is nothing mandatory about the Opt-Out system. It's still voluntary. My only issue with the proposal to Rudd is that I didn't see anything about the donors wishes for donation SHOULD NOT be able to be reversed by the next of kin.

My other concern is that this idea was lodged by an individual, not by official organisations. But at least it's lodged....finally.

I appreciate there's people out who are totally against it, and good for you. All you have to do is Opt-Out. Simple eh?.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23571441-5016510,00.html

Yes I am all in favour for all Australian being listed as organ donators and if on Religious grounds you did not agree then you have to make a declaration that you wish to OPT out.

Hi StG,
I have always been a proponent for the opt-out system because it saves many more lives.
What else is going to happen to your organs after you die? They will either be cremated, eaten by worms or rot away in the ground.

It’s heartbreaking that there are so many patients on very long waiting lists (I believe it’s about 4-5 years for a kidney) and simply don’t make it because of the long wait.
An opt-out system will provide many more organs to patients who desperately need them.

I think that most religions are in favour of organ donations- ain’t it the very last good deed one can do?

I fully agree also that the next of kin should not be able to reverse the wishes of the donor.
Since my body will be useless to me after I die, I will donate my whole body to scientific research.

Celivia

Totally agree. I'm on the full body donation thing as well. Never been able to understand what the issue is about possibly saving a life when one has died.

Definitely should be an opt-out system for people who really have a problem with the idea.

The woeful thing at present is that even if a deceased person has registered for organ donation, their relatives can still have final say - how screwed up is that?

StG,
I am surprised that only 3 people found it worthwhile to express their views on such an important issue, given the numbers of anti-abortionist on past abortion threads.
One would've thought that saving lives or rescuing people from a horrible death would be on their priority list.

Just wanted to say this before this thread will be locked.

Quite so, Celivia. I've always thought that organ donation is literally a no-brainer. Once you're dead, your body is effectively a lump of meat, bone and organs that have to be disposed of.

If any of it can help the living, why not?

And it is quite interesting that there has been little discussion about this important topic thus far.

I agree with everything said above about the importance of organ donation and how vital it is to raise awareness. As an atheist I cannot see that our bodies, which will only be cremated or buried, cannot be used to save another life. It makes perfect sense to me and to many others but not everyone is comfortable with organ donation.

What about the concept or principle of ‘opt-out’ systems in general.

While there are people who are willing to donate organs but don’t make this wish known officially because of some superstitious belief that they are tempting fate if they do (I have heard this argument) there are equally people that might not ‘opt-out’ for fear of being perceived as uncaring or persecuted because of their religious beliefs. There are also people who won’t understand or be aware of the ‘opt out’ system for various reasons (including language or cultural barriers) and their families may find it difficult to convince medical authorities that their relative was against organ donation on whatever grounds. In other words the system’s processes or bureaucracy may potentially override the family or person’s legitimate wishes.

It is much safer and more democratic if a person who is willing to donate organs makes that intention clear by actually registering that desire.

The difference between the choice to REGISTER and the choice to OPT OUT is the premise that a person has the right to make a decision and choose what they wish to do rather than someone else make the decision for them and then they have to choose not to participate by whichever formal mechanism is in place.

I have heard but maybe someone with more knowledge can verify, that even if a deceased person is not listed on the organ donor register, hospitals do ask the relatives if they would be willing to donate the organs of their loved ones, so there is always that final decision at the end.

I too am quite stunned that this important topic, which is definitely pro-life, is being ignored by many posters who never fail to complain about abortion whenever an opportune moment arises.

Organ donation is the last act of altruism that one can give. Where is the support?

For anyone out there in OLO land who would like to register for organ donation or simply find out more about it, please check the following link at Medicare Australia:

http://littlurl.com/w2whn

Slightly off topic - or is it? On forums discussing animal welfare there is a conspicuous silence from a particular crowd who regularly vent on how charitable and concerned they are about life.

Very strange indeed.

Stj,
Good on you for posting this important discussion.

I suppose the reason more people have not registered as a donor is simply lethergy. Take the low number of people that actually vote where it is not compulsory. While I have always ticked the box on the drivers licence I have not registered but after reading the info supplied via Medicare I will register when next in their office. Because people are apathetic, I support the introduction of an opt-out system.

My greatest concern is that, at present, relatives can overide the wishes of a registered donor. A legal declaration should be binding.

My personal view is that if someone can get some use out of any parts of my body after I go, good.

Thankyou guys. I very much appreciate your support in the topic I started. The topic itself is VERY important to me because my partner has Cystic Fibrosis (CF) and has had a double lung transplant. I hold my passion about the topic back on here becuase of previous postings were basically 'ignored' by the majority. Although I'm active elsewhere.

She's watched ALL her friends die from varying issues related to CF. Mostly though, from their lungs giving way. We do sit in the 'clinic' with people who need transplants becuase of self induced health issues like smoking, drinking and various others lifestyle bad decisions but still there are hundreds (at least) of people who are desperate for life saving transplant through no fault of their own. Self induced illnesses are last on the list and only get the organs when no others are compatible. Also there's many other types of illnesses that require transplants.

My partner will die from her CF, but all our dreams revolve around available organs outnumbering those waiting for them. So this issue being raised and taken onboard by Rudd is a HUGE thing for us, and our friends.

Thanks again.

StG
I sincerely feel for your partner and you and I can only try to imagine how terribly frustrating and testing this whole experience must be for both of you.
I think that a donor should have priority over a non-donor if they both happen to be in need of an organ transplant at the same time, unless there is a medical reason why someone is not legible to become a donor.

Fractelle,
The interest of ‘that crowd’ in welfare and health issues seems to be much greater when it involves control over the behaviour of others (especially women) then when it does not involve control.

Pelican,
Actually, you are raising REALLY good questions, which prompted me to do some more research.
I have always been a proponent of the opt out system but now I’m not so sure anymore because from the research I did I concluded that it doesn’t really matter whether a country has opt in or opt out- the increase in donors appears to rely on other factors more than on the registration system.

E.g. while Australia has an opt in system and the lowest organ donation rate in the world, some other countries with opt in systems have higher rates.

Some countries (e.g. Sweden) with opt out systems have lower rates than some countries with opt in systems (Belgium, Netherlands).

Some counties saw no changes after switching from an opt in to an opt out system (Sweden, Italy).

While Spain has an opt out system and has one of the highest donor rates in the world, so has Belgium, with its opt in system.

Spain’s opt out system did not actually help improve donor rates until their hospitals organised specialist teams, called organ coordinators, who are responsible for encouraging organ donation by talking to relatives.

Some main aspects that make a difference to stimulating a higher donor rate:
1. Regular education campaigns.
2. Hospital system and attention given to the relatives of donor.
3. The registering process requires little effort.

StG

Difficult to put into words, how much I feel for you and your wife, I can imagine how painful just bringing this topic on to OLO must have been. I thank you for this opportunity for the rest of us to express our thoughts and feelings.

Celivia

A thought occurred to me after reading your interesting research on 'opting in' and 'opting out' in various countries. It is this, that organ donation be kept under government regulation and never privatised. I think that if profit was brought into the mix, then I would be 'opting-out'.

I haven't done any research, but I think there are private companies in some states in the USA, where organs are harvested for profit. The justification for this is that they claim that more money is available for better equipment and standards for keeping organs, than in the public sector. I disagree, given how successful the donor program works in countries Celivia has already mentioned

Celivia
Some good points arose from your research. I tend to agree with your three main points at the end as probably being the most effective in increasing donor participation.

Fractelle
I agree wholeheartedley that profit should not come into it - that would set a dangerous precedent.

StG
It must be very difficult to face those experiences that you and your partner went through and you have both shown great courage. Best of luck for the future and I wish you both good health.

Yes, I've made comment in past threads that I firmly agree the opt-out system is far better.

The only reasons I see raised against it tend to be rather emotive ones - when I've mentioned this to others, they've said they'd be a bit worried about people hovering over the life support systems keen on pulling the plug. Frankly, I don't think this is at all likely, and considering the number of lives that could potentially be saved, this one really does seem like a no-brainer.

Fractelle and Pelican,
at the risk of being provocative I’m going to say that I used to totally agree with the non-profit for donors stand, but I have to admit that I’m not 100% sure about that anymore, either.
For about 95% I agree that there should be no payment to live organ donors because there is always the chance that the poor will be exploited.
But because I have doubts, for the remaining, vexing 5% I’ve been sitting on the fence ever since I read an OLO article by (I think) Mirko Bagaric last year. Wish I’d kept it because I can’t find it back to show you.

From memory: he argued that if the government would pay live donors (I think the amount was $50,000) through the health system for a kidney, the problem of shortage of kidneys would be solved and nobody would have to die while on a waiting list.
He argued that exploitation wouldn't happen if it’s properly done through the health system and that poor people are capable of making decisions just as well as the wealthy. The poor are being exploited by the rich already by selling their time, through labour, cheaply. The pharmaceutical industry benefits financially, the surgeons benefit financially; the only one who does not benefit is the donor.

Well, I dunno, but I guess the best solution would be to all donate our organs post mortem, and we will all benefit because we’ll maximise the chance that there will be an organ available if we need one.

Thanks for the thoughts guys. It's very much appreciated by us both.

Fingers crossed for the Opt-Out option.