Yes Banjo, I've thought about it, deeply. Here is why I have my opinion.

I have watched a a young neighbour family on the verge of loosing their home. She had a gallstone. She was carted off to hospital 4 times in 18 months, with a blockage. She was sent home without an operation 3 times, "because they could not fit her in".

It was only when she had been too sick to work for months, with the family in big financial trouble, thay they did the op. She spent a long tine in hospital, recovering, rather than the couple of days it would have been, if fixed ealier, before she was so sick. Bad management all round.

Another young family have just had to borrow $9,000 to have a bunion operation. She is a shop girl, who must stand all day. She was told it would be at least 3 years wait for surgery in the public system.

As she could not stand the pain for that long, they will now have to be a bit lucky to keep their house, after paying for the op, as well as having 10 weeks off work.

Perhaps it's because I don't personally know anyone waiting for a transplant, that I feel as I do. I do see many quite comfortable elderly people getting transplants, & young needy families suffering with huge waiting times. I would rather see 100 smaller, but still critical treatments done, than the odd huge treatment.

I don't claim to be "right" about this, but that's the way I see it. As time goes on, & medical costs become even greater, we will have to make some hard decisions about how much we spend on everyone, no matter how much we wish it was not necessary.

I believe we must spend the limited budget where it is most cost effective. Fixing my young neighbours bunion, or gallstone, is probably more cost effective, than doing a transplant on an old fart

Hasbeen,

It's not just 'been there, done that' old people who have transplants. In fact, that's the minority.

In my initial post I gave a link to the CF community that is a list 30 pages long that have died on waiting transplant lists. That list only goes back to 2006. have a look at the ages of those people that have died. Barely one over 30.

My mother has a rare condition called, scleroderma, this disease effects, as its name suggests, skin - including the skin of internal organs. The effects of this disease varies from person to person, in my mother's case it is slowly clogging her lungs, day by day, month by month. At no stage has it been suggested that she go on the waiting list for a new set of lungs - she and her doctors agree that she is too old, in fact she would refuse such a donation even if offered. She has lived a good long life coping with an ex-vet alcoholic husband and raising two girls to adulthood by herself.

I will be giving up my home soon to stay with her in her final time - due to illness myself I can no longer afford the mortgage on my home, so will go care for my mother - it is the least I can do.

Those who would place caveats on organ donation or whose warped views that an opt-out system of organ donation is some kind of totalitarianism need to do some hard reflection on themselves.

Thank you StG for your eloquent explanation of the 'opt-out' system.

I read somewhere that most organs are taken from road accident victims and speed of obtaining consent is critical for the survival of required tissue.

If this is so, an 'opt in' system may not result in as many organs being taken where the consent of next of kin is still required. For starters, it may be difficult to contact next of kin and discussion of organ donation under those circumstances must await some recovery time for the person bereaved. The loss of time results in loss of organs.

A risk in an increasingly litigious Australia, where individual rights are always supposed to be superior to community benefit, is that an 'opt in' system could result in legal challenges where there could be any doubt about the dead person's intentions and the consent of his relatives. It only takes one successful case to produce a very large loss for a hospital and medical staff. Then there are the additional insurance costs for the whole health industry.

While I can see possible advantages in an 'opt in' system, it will not result in a windfall of suitable organs for the reasons outlined above and also because while out population is growing exponentially for Mr Rudd's unsustainable Big Australia (and the demand for organ transplants similarly increases), the number of terminal car accident victims is not keeping pace - and there are reasons for that, thank goodness.

I am by no means convinced that the 'large percentage of the population who don't have issue with donation didn't ticked the box (on the drivers licence) purely because they hadn't considered it and didn't wish to spend the time at the transport office before getting their licence'. There must be some reasons and objections - not simply laziness - that account for the difference between the number of people who agree with organ donation and the far lower number who eventually opt in.

contd...

contd..

I support 'opt out' and can easily make ethical arguments supporting it. However I do not support lazy, gutless politicians who sweep problems under the carpet and are unwilling to explain issues to the public and enter into direct consultation for consensus on a practical solution that identifies and treats all of the risks and objections.

Even if there was an 'opt out' system the vexed problem remains of ensuring there is no possibility of a later appeal from the next-of-kin, or significant others. Appeal is highly for members of some religions, for example those who would accept an organ but are implacably opposed to donation themselves. This is not intended to stir up an anti-religion debate, but saying that all opinion that could have a bearing on policy should be put onto the table and dealt with in advance.

Maybe too a new system could include preference in the queue for organ transplants for any person and his/her immediate family who is listed as a willing donor

Cornflower,

Yeah, it wasn't my intention to suggest that EVERY person who isn't a donor only aren't because of laziness. OBVIOUSLY many have consciously considered the question properly.

I SAID in my initial post that bureaucracy was part of it as well. I'd suggest it's most of the problem.

Severin,

You're doing it tough. I'm REAL sorry to hear. Carers are amongst the most unrecognised 'volunteers' around. I get you really don't have a choice, but do it willingly anyway. I'll be the same with my partner. All the best.