Stealing this from an ABC radio talk today two points of interest.
Some, far too many, who ask that their organs be donated are not having the wish carried out family refuse after death.
Do they have that right? do we have that right?
Why not take every ones organs unless they have said no why bury two people one sadly dead one killed by not having the chance.
Second point of the debate was why not pay for the donors funeral?
My view is we could talk about cheaper funerals in another thread but if not donating was by exception we may not need to bribe any one to save life.
We need to confront cultural things that get in the way of change if change is for the better as a Christian my view would be the same as it is now if I could save a life why not?
we needed a change from politics.

Belly,
To raise such an issue just before an election indicates that you too, like everyone else, is heartly sick of the election spiel and the commercials. I am sick of seeing the leaders faces and mute them all the time.

On topic. As i see it the matter is not political except that it shows just how far out of touch our politicians are because there are very few people that would go against the wishes of the deceased in indicating his desire for any organs to be used for another person.
I do not think any party has a policy on the matter.

I have yet to hear a rational argument against such a move.

Have you ever raised the matter at your branch meetings? If not maybe you should. It may not be a big vote winner but not contraversial either and would indicate that your party was listening to the electors.

I agree with you that the organs should be harvested unless the deceased has indicated otherwise. The only objectors to this would be the extremist minority that may, or may not, have a connection with a religion.

Belly,
Thanks for this topic.
I think that organ donation should be an opt-out system rather than opt-in because many patients die while waiting for an organ.

While organ donation needs to be encouraged, as a tax payer I don't wish to pay for other people's funerals.

Suitable potential organ donors who have not opted in or, where an opt-out system exists, opted out should naturally be moved down the waiting list when they themselves are waiting for an organ donation.

Surely every one is sick of the election?
The winner will not be our best government no matter who wins if my mob crawl over the line they have much to get right.
Yes do not let religion see people die needlessly,do not let relatives blinded by love of a dead person stop a wish made long before death.
Take the organs if it helps and only if we say no do not.
Not our loved ones ,never bury a stranger in your loved ones grave if you can save them.
We unfortunately are less able to see others need than we once could.
Our nation once, was built on mate ship looking after the other bloke ,at that graveside of one you cry for think about this.
Soon other will cry ,because the organ needed to give some one a chances rotting in the ground.

Maybe I was a bit too frank, a little to confronting.
Rot in the ground?
Well on this subject we must confront our selves.
We donate blood and get to be proud of it.
But our country has one of the worst organ donation records.
Partly because those we leave behind change our intentions after we no longer have a say.
Would they if it was another loved one who may benefit?
Surely some one who has changed the pledge of a dead loved one later waited and hoped for a donor for themselves or another.
It should be law that only by exception organs can not be taken.
We should look at and review all aspects of death funeral costs ,what happens to unknown body's its not Dracula stuff its to maintain a life.

Yeah, losing Rudd was a tragedy for this topic. He was transplant recipient's biggest hope.

People don't sign up because of apathy and not wanting to give organs to junkies of various descriptions when the tragedy of that is that one donor can save and change the lives of many people. People are dying everyday through lack of educating the masses with facts.

Until someone important - like Rudd - has seen the genuine benefits first hand of who is actually benefiting from these organs then nothing will change and many innocent people with genetic disorders and others who need transplants from accidents and viruses will keep dying daily.

My particular flag is Cystic Fibrosis. My partner has got it and had a double lung transplant at the age of 29. Without it she WOULD be dead right now. She is doing good in the community and has earned those lungs that someone so selflessly donated to her through the death of their loved one. I can't thank them enough and we all weep in remembering them every 29th of December.

Thanks for the topic.

Yes, great topic Belly. I've never been able to understand why it is that Australians are apparently so reticent to donate their organs when they die. I agree that an 'opt-out' system would make far more sense than current arrangements, and that relatives etc should not be able to override the expressed wishes of deceased people to be organ donors on their deaths.

Hi CJ, nice to see that you're back!

Belly, teeeheee we need some opponents in this discussion otherwise there is not much more left to say.

The reasons I have come across from people who would not donate their organs were based on:

* Suspicion (what if there is an after life- will you have to go around without a liver, hehehe, or perhaps a disfunctional liver/heart?)

* Plain nastiness (they don't wanna donate to gays, lesbians, atheists, muslims, criminals, bludgers, or whatever group of people they hate or fear).

* Economical reasons (organ transplants cost Medicare and/or insurance companies a lot of money). Me wonders whether these people would refuse an organ when the time comes that their own child or partner or they, themselves are facing death because one of their organs is failing.

Any other reasons that anyone might have heard?

Celivia,

Nothing I have ever read would confirm your jaundiced view of the motivations of people who don't donate organs.

It would seem that administrative delays, most commonly through finding and obtaining next of kin agreement result in losses. Those problems if fixed could see a dramatic increase in the number of successful transplants.

This is not to say that more donors shouldn't be encouraged, but be aware it will result in more waste and upset people without correcting known systemic problems.

An 'opt-out' system does not correct the problems. For example, hospitals' insurers would remain wary of proactive solutions without first locating and obtaining the concurrence of the next-of-kin.

Cornflower,

You obviously haven't taken part in enough discussion about organ donation either on OLO or with people you meet in your daily life, otherwise you would have, like I did, met people with opinions like this one:

"Celivia, my body my right. I don't have to think about anyone else but myself. My choice. And I certainly don't want some alcoholic or drug user to benefit from my lifetime of clean living only to treat my gift with their who gives a "-" attitude. I want to meet my recipient and know they are worthy. If anybody is going to be the judge of who gets my body parts it'll be me and my family will benefit with some financial security. Not left to some social dictator to play at altruism at my families expense (or anyone else's)
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 19 June 2007 11:19:38 PM"
http://tinyurl.com/2dse88t

Of course systemic problems should be fixed.

Spain, with an opt-out system does have triple the amount of donors as Australia has. Not that this necessarily is due to the opt-out system, but why not have an opt-out system if it even slightly increases the amount of donors we have?

Why are we afraid of change?
Do we have to live with yesterdays cultural belief.
We should make laws that let us harvest these organs.
That set out clear laws saying only by exception should it not happen.
Now in the debate I got this from a bribe was proposed.
Those who donated would have funeral costs paid.
Lets turn it on its head, those who refuse to follow the wishes of the dead should be forced to pay an equal amount of the funeral cost to a health system fund.
Funeral costs are a separate issue some suffer greatly because of them but we must remember we can not forever give money away it has to be paid for in the long run.

An Opt-out system of organ donation, may not be 100% perfect, but it is light-speed ahead of our present system where even the best intentions of the donor can have their final wishes thwarted by relatives who either hold religious views or other equally judgemental opinions.

Currently the rate of donations in countries like Australia is fewer than 2 out of every ten families - which is woeful. And legislation to Opt-Out would also eradicate the black market for human body parts.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/05/india_transplants_donorpolicy

Clearly the current system is not adequate and people who could have their entire lives turned around are dying needlessly. Where are all the "pro-lifers"? Still bleating about foetuses no doubt.

Celivia, "You obviously haven't taken part in enough discussion about organ donation either on OLO or with people you meet in your daily life, otherwise you would have, like I did, met people with opinions like this one.."

True, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence alone or in substitution for other evidence and that is the difference.

However I do find that the substantial majority of people are fundamentally good, kind and generous, often to a fault.

The two relevant issues are firstly, the success in harvesting and applying donated organs and secondly, how to encourage more people to donate. There is a lot of wastage of donated organs through administrative problems that need to be resolved, it is not simply a problem that too few body parts have been 'willed' to hospitals in the first place.

In a society that puts individual rights before community good and where there are too many lawyers for available work (resulting in ambulance chasing), there remains the problem that surgical teams and hospitals need to be protected against the litigious few. Even frivolous or vexatious litigation wreaks enormous damage to reputations and programs. Unless better protection to the satisfaction of medical insurers is provided through laws, it is irrelevant whether there is 'opt in' or 'opt out' donation.

What is the use of 'opt out' if the organs are rendered useless through the same administrative procedures and delays that affect the viability of 'opt in' organs?