In Australia, those people who wish to be organ donors signify their choice by opting in. Australians, despite having a deserved reputation for helping one another, have a relatively low rate of organ donation.

The method used by some countries is to assume that their people want to be organ donors and those who personally don't agree have the right to opt out. This method results in a higher percentage of organ donors, ie it could be said to be more effective in getting the required result.

I would like to see Australia do it this way too. What do others think?

Correct me if my memory fails me, but didn't we used to tick a box on our drivers licence to identify that we wanted to be organ donors? These days, I think that there is a form to fill out that people have to apply for. I would hazard a guess that this new system would have automatically reduced the number of people willing to be organ donors. I used to tick my driver's licence, but I haven't applied for the form.

There is also the problem with giving blood. You cannot simply go in off the street and give blood when you feel generous. Forms have to be taken home, filled in and taken back, an interview, tests taken and then if you are lucky you can give blood.

My expired, out of state drivers license says I'm an organ donor. Hopefully that's enough, although I doubt my organs are gonna be much good to anybody..

Yes, I remember that when I applied for my new drivers license I ticked the box to be an organ donor, [G-d knows who would want my well used/punished organs but ....] I noticed that my new drivers license does not say that I am an organ donor so when I drop off this mortal coil my legal next of kin will scratch their heads trying to guess my wishes because we have never discussed it, there are more immediate things to discuss

The Medicare office in the Brisbane CBD has the forms which made it easy for me to get one.

On the actual topic I really find myself of two minds
- I don't like the government taking anything by default
- The thought of someone dying because somebody else didn't get around to filling in a form or was to bloody minded to do so.

Given that I pay tax money which I could still use and which does not have a legal opt out clause maybe there should be no opt out clause on organ donation other than staying alive.

Is taking something which someone has no further use for to save somebody elses life somehow less moral than taking a significant proportion of the result of their pay every week for causes which the person may not support anyway?

R0bert

Rex you said. Australians despite having a deserved reputation for helping one another, have a relatively low rate of organ donation.

I wonder where you got the idea that Australians help one another. They might look after their own, but they dont help one another.

Just because they donate alot of money if there is a disaster that doesn't mean that they help one another. That just means that they have been programed well by the Government to respond with money when there is a disaster. There is no concern in helping in trying to prevent and avoid disasters.

I am an organ donor. Made a point to fill out the form. My main reason is that I have children and I would hope that if my children ever needed a donor organ that somebody would have been kind enough to make the effort and do the same and donate their organs. I cant ask for more than I am prepared to give.

My wife was a transplant recipant and it gave her an extra seventeen years for which we are most gratefull, so you could say I am biased.

If they transplant any of my organs they would have to get a liqour licence first and whoever gets my blood must begin to feel good straight away.

Seriously, tell your next of kin about your desire to be a donor as they make the decission if you die unexpectedly.

Jolanda, off topic. I think I decussed multiculturalism with you on another thread a couple of years ago. You stopped posting because you believed those with a certain point of view were getting preferential treatment. Incidently, our discussion was amicable and
I have wondered how you got on with the problems you had with your kids education.

On my fairly new Driver's NSW licence it clearly states that I'm a donor (Donor A).

I agree with Rex that an opt-out system would be more beneficial than an opt-in system.

When this new "Smart card" is introduced (I believe in 2010?) it should show whether people have chosen to be organ donors.
From what I have read about the smart card, I have not seen the organ donor thing being discussed in regard to the smart card, I'm just assuming that this option would be automatically included.

Hi Banjo. Still going on with the issue. The main problem is that the system is under no obligation to afford the ordinary person procedural fairness or natural justice.

I write on my blog what is going on http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

Thing with the issue of organ transfer is that you just never know when it can happen to you or to someone that you dearly love. I am glad to hear that your wife and family benefited so much from the organ that was donated.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20070218/08/domestic/1850476.inp

'Organ donation rates still too low
8:22 AM February 18

Health authorities say Australia desperately needs more people to sign up to the organ donor register.

Today marks the start of Organ Donor Awareness week and Australia continues to have one of the lowest donation rates in the world despite being a world leader in organ transplant surgery.

Around 63 per cent of all transplants are kidney related and the number of new people on dialysis or awaiting transplant rose by 13 per cent last year.

Kidney Australia chief executive Anne Wilson says there is increasing pressure to lift organ donation rates.

"One patient a week dies and there's on average a four-year waiting list and some people have to wait up to seven," she said.

"So Australia's organ donation rate is not the best at present.

"A number of initiatives are being undertaken to turn that around, both in the hospital systems and in relation to public awareness."

Source: ABC'

Further proof [if we needed it] that what Australia is doing in this respect is not working. But we only have to look at what some other countries are doing to see what does work. And this is just one concept where this principle could justifiably be applied. What is collectively wrong with Australian politicians, stupid, bloody-minded, brainwashed, or what?

Banjo

Yes to respond to your off topic- I recall that also. Its true she was treated badly and those who posted in support were stuck off.

As a matter of fact Jolanda as I recall didnt know she had posts of support.

Jolanda perhaps you should start a thread at some stage about misuse of political powers[ Not to mention control of threads for political puroposes.

happy to disclose.

Back on topic.

Sorry guys but I have so little faith in the system that I would fear a loved one would be-[let go] or not worked on quite as hard as could be to save them.

People pay an awful lot to obtain organs. After all didnt we loose one of the best Drs this country has ever had becuase he refused to sell organs..

No far too open for abuse.

Rather what we now have

People against Live Exports. I know how to recognise support. Being told to accept what is being done because its too hard to change things is not support and being critisized and attacked for not agreeing to accept people's advice to just accept is also not support - it is a form of bullying and control. I do not wish to get into what happened with you here as this is about organ donors.

Jolanda

I think you misunderstood me. I was not refering to OLO or me for that matter. Rather what Banjo mentioned that happend to YOU on Another!forum line.

I thought you were treated very badly and was agreeing with Banjo. I offered YOU support regarding that particular matter and what happend.
It was nice of Bango to say something - I thought.

Good on you Banjo for speaking up for fair play

Thats is why my friend sent you the OLO one instead so you would have somewhere else to post.

Sorry If you misunderstood.

Good to see your site back up Jolanda. I have experienced something similar with my daughter In Canberra.

Of course she grown now and almost married.

Antj

Antj I apologize if I misunderstood. I am somewhat burnt so I am sensitive and given that there is a bit of a history here and, I also thought you were somebody else, I read it to be in the negative to me.

I am sorry. You may have to ignore my other post on the other thread as well as again given the history, and the fact that I thought that somebody else was writing, it I was a bit ubrupt.

It’s depressing that everyone thinks it’s a good idea to keep people alive by transplanting organs. This is the reason thousands of men [prisoners] are murdered every year by the state in china for their organs, and all over the world, men women and especially children are abducted and trafficked for their organs – it is now a more lucrative trade than drugs.
Westerners think they have the right to live forever at any cost. But that is not so. Death is always sad for loving survivors, but it is not sad for the dead. Everyone has to die sooner or later, and at least those who die young will not have to suffer the vicissitudes of old age.
I will never agree to my organs being donated. As a same-sex-oriented male, I have suffered far too much from religious and other bigotry. The idea that a homophobe would be given my perfectly working heart makes my flesh crawl.
I’m a slim, healthy, vegetarian, non-smoking, non-drinking, monogamist, conservationist who has done no harm to either the planet or my fellow humans. If I could be assured my organs went to a similar type of human who was also an atheist, then I might consider donating things. But until then my organs at death are going up in smoke!

ybgirp, I found your post rather sad.

Whilst I see your point about not wanting to help those who hurt you you might consider all those straights who support equal rights for gays.

I'd find a post by a homophobe saying they are not donating because a homosexual might get their organs sad and I'm struggling to see much difference. Refusing to do good because you can't control who might benefit is part of the problem not the solution.

Maybe better to enjoy the irony of a staunch homophobe being kept alive by a well looked after organ that came from a homosexual. Now how can we arrange to tell them six months after the operation (or give them a choice before sugery of having your liver or waiting for a more suitable one)?

R0bert

RObert: "Maybe better to enjoy the irony of a staunch homophobe being kept alive by a well looked after organ that came from a homosexual. Now how can we arrange to tell them six months after the operation (or give them a choice before sugery of having your liver or waiting for a more suitable one)?"

Now that's what I call Humour with a capital H :)

jbgirp,
I can understand your thinking, and appreciate your view on this.

When I first read about the Organ Trade in China several years ago I could hardly belief something as horrible as that was reality! Not just the death penalty but then also knowing that people are benefitting from the organs of executed people is horror indeed!
I have also read that the higher the demand for organs, the more prisoners are being executed! It makes me wonder if they're just keeping people in death row longer until needed or that some prisoners are being sentenced to death undeserving...

But when there are enough organ donors in Australia, (or any country) wouldn't that reduce the demand for 'buyable' organs?

Having enough organs available to fill demand would have to kill a trade in organs, I figure.

It's very sad and frustrating to know that there are wealthy people who can snap their fingers and 'buy' life by paying for organs like they pay for any of their other 'conveniences'.

You can ignore my following comment because it's a sub-topic or as you may say, off-topic, but I wonder if, on a much smaller scale, wealthy people in Australia are, in a way, able to 'buy' life as well since we have an inequal health system that, I believe, disadvantages people of low socio-economic status.

People who can pay for top level health insurance experience less waiting time which equals less risk for the patient. Not everyone can choose top specialists and surgeons. People relying Medicare only do not have these options.

Are penniless people on Medicare shoved down the list to allow for wealthier people to jump the queue?

People who refuse to donate there organs in the tragedy of there death show the height of selfishness! There last act in this world was to refuse needy people the gift of life! Anyone here who is not an organ donor is despicable beyond words!

Easy times.

No doubt those people who shot the Wonderful Dr Victa Chann in Sydney share your views.

I think Australians have seen enough of the forced! organ donners thank You.

I hope the Government never introduces forced Donners. If nothing else but out of respect for that wonderful man who was murdered becuase he refused to get into this forced organ donner trade that you speak of.

Our fathers before us fought for a free country with freedom of choice.

Celiva.
I am not surprised you have put a great deal of thought into your post.

Yes I too have often thought about the prisoners as well as the homeless and perhaps people without any living relatives.


Certainly its a nice thought to leave another person a donation that may either improve or even save a life.

You wont get any argument from anybody on that I am sure.

However its a very personal choice involving that person and their family alone.


To say if you dont become a donner you are selfish makes me feel you may have experienced or witnessed a personal loss.

We should try to understand your feeling of frustration and anger at your loss if thats the case.
Our hearts go out to anybody who has been in such a horrible postion but trying to force others to agree to donate for eg- The eyes of their young child killed in a car accident is simply wrong

I agree, PALE, that organ donation should not be forced but should remain a personal choice.

EasyTimes, I think that organ donation should be strongly encouraged by educating people (e.g. media and schools) about the difference they can really make by the last thing they can do for others- donating their organs after passing away.
I have the impression that some people just don't know how much their organs are in demand and the lives of people they can save.
There are children without mothers or fathers because there was no organ available for them. There are parents who lost children, uncles and aunts who lost nephews and nieces, grandparents who lost children or grand children, all because someone didn't know their organs were wanted, or because someone didn't bother to opt in.

However, I am not going to judge the ones who choose not to donate their organs- you'll never know what they have gone through in life and they might have their reasons for refusing to donate.

Perhaps a reminder is appropriate. This thread isn't about whether anyone should be forced to be an organ donor. The question is whether a person should signify their willingness by saying "yes". Or opting out by saying "No". I prefer the opting out by saying "No" alternative, because we know that it produces more donated organs. And it doesn't make anyone do anything which is significantly or irreversibly against their wishes, does it?

What do you need your organs for when you die PALE? Do you have some primitive belief like the ancient Egyptians that you need your organs in the after life?

People you have 2 choices in the event of your death, you can either choose to feed your organs to the worms I am sure the worms will be very grateful or you can choose to help another person and give them a second chance at life and not only make them very happy but also all there family and friends.

It’s not exactly the money or the box is it?

I'm with Rex on this one.

An organ can save a life. If I'm dead, I really don't need it. If we generally assume a yes, but ensure that people always have the right to say no if they wish, then I don't really see the problem.

There is a desperate shortage of organs. Talk to the children who need them, and see if you still think the idea is stupid.

I repeat - everyone should have the right to say no to organ donation. I just think we should assume they would want to save a life rather than not, and if they say no, well that's fine too.

Easytimes.

Pardon my Mirth and I smile at your question. Of course this 'is' a serious question but considering the circumstances your question > [ What Do You need your organs for when you die PALE ]cracked me up.

The head of PETA Animal Libbers who are extreme, appeared on 60 minutes. She declaired that when she died she wanted her organs to be donated to different fund raising campaigns!.

She wanted her skin cooked on BBQs- "She said" people would walk past and smell her skin burning and say "Oh! thats that animal lady".

Clearly any normal thinking member of the public would consider her a nut. People like that do more harm than good as far as I am concerned.

Hence your question "What do you need your organs for when you die for PALE" Tickled my funny bone.

I thought perhaps I should clear up. [Rather quickly in case you had confused us with the extreme lot]

No PALE in conjunction RSPCA QLD does not require their organs for after life BBQS.

Phew! However that said I guess it does open another argument doesnt it.

If the founder of PETA Ingrid wants to leave her organs to raise awareness to animal cruelty who are you or I to tell her she cant or what to do?

I already expressed that I think that system you suggested would be wide open to abuse.

Those are my feelings. My utter disgust for those who murdered Dr Chan.

Extreme anything easy isnt good.
I told you a large number of my family ARE donours but that does not mean I would hassle the others.

Yes we have discussed it and "really it is a family thing".

If I were you and wanted to help I would contact NIB or Medi bank Private or some of the health insurance companies. Ask if they will enclose forms when they sign people online or post renewals out.
Perhaps even some banks.
Why not try the Peoples Bank - St George, I hear they are branching out these days.

Rex… people should opt in. No one has the right to assume agreement.
I’m surprised at the unquestioning acceptance of organ donation. A wise emperor when shown the first aeroplane, had its inventor killed. He foresaw the problems such a machine would bring – as it has. I think he would also have had Dr. Barnard put down, foreseeing the consequences of transplants.
It is infantile to think that just because something is possible, it should be done. Because it was possible to destroy Australia’s flora and fauna, it was – has that been of benefit?
The planet is suffering a plague of humans. We are fouling and destroying the stuff from which we came that supports all life. Do we need more humans? No.
No one commented when I mentioned the thousands of young men and women abducted as sex slaves then cut up for body parts to satisfy the expanding demand of self-indulgent westerners to live beyond their allotted span. The profits of this trade now exceed that of drug trafficking. Have these young people less right to life than those born with defective organs?
Most organ transplants go to older people who have abused their bodies and want a second chance. For such degenerates healthy young Filipinos suffer the agony of having one kidney removed just so they can survive a few more years. Children born with defective organs, even when these are replaced by donated organs, usually suffer a variety of disabilities for the rest of their lives, from learning problems to continuing health problems.
It is time that death was reintroduced as an essential factor in the ‘life’ equation. Perhaps then people might take care of their bodies and not stuff them with alcohol and unhealthy food.
Children born defective should be allowed to die with dignity. Old people who have abused their bodies should suffer the consequences

Uh Ybgirp...

Firstly - you don't seem to make any allowance for people who haven't abused their bodies and are genuinely in need of an organ.
You will find most of the time, that those who have been assessed as at-risk individuals (people who are likely to abuse their bodies) are lower on the extensive organ waiting lists.

What is so wrong with using the organs of people who have died?

They are dead. Gone. Zip. Even if there is an afterlife, they evidently didn't take their kidneys there.

Defective people should be left to die? What kind of eugenic theory is that? I won't elaborate on the slippery slope that kind of thinking leads to, but I don't think it takes much imagination to envision it.

T R T L,
Your selective misrepresentation of my post and refusal to address the point I made about some of the serious consequences of society’s unconditional embrace of medical technology is unsurprising. That’s how irrational people argue. However, to say that permitting natural selection is a form of eugenics, is insane. What you are proposing is the flip side of the eugenics coin – instead of encouraging the ‘beautiful’, you are following in the footsteps of privileged humans before you, resulting in the inbreeding of the wealthy and the decline of the ruling classes into the chinless wonders and mentally retarded parasites that lorded it over Europe for centuries with such disastrous results.
I respect ‘Life’. You confuse ‘Life’ with mere existence.

Opt out...100% from me. I've been arguing this for the last couple of years. We are an extremely apathetic nation until something strikes us as individuals, then we become passionate about it...I know this from experience because my missus had a double lung transplant and I can't stress enough how important this opt out idea is....people are dying everyday that could otherwise be saved.

Ygirp

[Said]

"self-indulgent Westerners to live beyond their allotted span."

The problem I see is you have lost the oportunity to present the counter argument. To explain why some people do not want change it and point out how the best sytem with the very best of intentions can and will be abused.

I put it to you your clear dislike of Westerners is the reason for the tone of your posts.

Thats very sad and I am sorry for you.

However those same self-indulgent Westerners have give much to third world countries so why should they not want to give or do anything to save one of "their own"?

There are givers and takers in this world and I am proud to say Australians are givers.

I fall short of many becuase I have often questioned our genorosity.

Sometimes it comes back and haunts you

No, no, ybgirp is right insofar as selective interpretation is a method of distorting an argument - ybgirp's pointed out a stance, and I've only focused on a minor element of the statement - while I may believe it is logical simplification, I concede simplifications don't necessarily do the argument justice: so instead I will address the argument more soundly.

Firstly: your argument in relation to organ harvesting:

I'll concede this is an important issue, and I wouldn't condone it by any means. I've had an interest in the Chinese organ harvesting situation for quite some time and have written articles on the subject. I have personally spoken to people who have accompanied relatives who went to China to receive organs, not being eligible in Australia for health reasons such as diabetes.
While I can't blame them for making whatever choice necessary to extend their life, that doesn't mean I condone the taking of organs without permission.
Nobody here is arguing in favour of that, and in pushing this particular wheelbarrow, it is you who is indulging in selective interpretation.

You also argue that by prolonging these lives, it is not of benefit to society.
I would be interested as to where you draw the line - when do you stop treating somebody? Is all medicine suspect, or are you simply against organ donation? What about people with the genetic defects you describe? Should somebody with, say, cystic fibrosis not be eligible to receive medication? After all, it takes significant resources to prolong their life.

I'm afraid the argument you are pushing here is indeed a close cousin to eugenics. It may not be racially based, but in selecting what people have the right to be treated and what people don't, you are indeed indulging in precisely that. Organ donation is a form of medical treatment whether you like it or not.
You can rail about western society all you like, but the way I see it, one of the few things that separate us from the animals is a level or respect for the sanctity of human life... though I'm not so sure you consider people to be different from animals anyhow - you've said so in other threads. Perhaps it is little wonder that you are opposed to organ donation on this basis.

The issue really is, by assuming people will want to donate organs, are we somehow violating their right (which we are all agreed must remain) not to donate an organ?

My view, is that if people really are opposed to donating their organs, then they would have ample opportunity to simply say no. This would be a necessary component in the situation, and on a practical level, I can hardly see the situation being otherwise in Australia. It would be an electoral nightmare.

This argument isn't about people who've been killed for organs - we all agree that's wrong. But your suggestion that organ donation shouldn't occur at all... well, that shows such disregard for human life that I couldn't let it go without comment.

Perhaps It would be sensible for the Government to make it a complusary Question on the Medi Bank form
Then there would be a clear record[ One would hope] Of those who wish to donate and those who do not.

TRTL
All I’ve done is point out that human activity has consequences, and it is dangerous to ignore them. It could be argued that assisting ill people to prolong their lives is eugenics – except that eu means beautiful.
I have no problem with western civilization – I am a product of it. You are correct in assuming that I consider humans to be no more worthy of ‘inheriting the earth’ than other animals. I’d forbid all except minor medical intervention on new born infants for the first month, then, when the population consists only of people who have survived their first months unaided, it will be time to consider what medical interventions are ethical – taking not only humans, but the entire endangered biosphere of this planet into consideration. The fact that human overpopulation is causing the extinction of life on earth is relevant to this debate.
If people allow themselves to become unfit, obese, and deliberately poison themselves with too much sugar, alcohol, nicotine etc… then they ‘harvest’ what they sow.
I would not like to live with cystic fibrosis, and would never condemn anyone to that by medical intervention at birth. Nor do I want to be kept alive by medical interventions that will see me institutionalised for the last ten years of my life. A discussion on the ethics of modern medicine is long overdue.

Yes, I am all for making this a compulsory question, either on our Medicare form, Health fund form, or driver's licence or our future "Smart card".

I am also thinking about the following question (but haven't taken a stand on this yet is):

If people are not making their organs available for whatever reason, should that automatically disqualify them from receiving organs as well?

Yes, Celivia... it should.

Actually... that's quite brilliant, and could encourage more people to donate, though I foresee some difficulties.

How soon do people have to decide? when can they change their minds?

In some instances, you would have people simply changing their minds when the circumstances require them to do so (i.e. saying they don't want to donate organs, then when they need one, changing their mind).

There is also the issue of consent... is a nine year old child able to make an informed decision on the issue? If it requires parental consent, then in the event that child needs an organ, do we then punish the child for the parent's decision?

I suppose we could get around that by saying that up until the age of 18, children are automatically eligible for organ transplants regardless of whether or not they donate.

Actually that could work - it would lead to more organs going toward younger patients, and could also encourage more people to sign up to donating organs.

Celivia, maybe rather than disqualifying somebody it would reduce their priority on any waiting list.

A formula based on the period someone has been elligible to consent to donate vs the period they have been registered to do so. If there is no waiting list for an organ then give it to whoever, otherwise priority for those with a history of support organ donation.

Children included regardless.

There is a part of me that fails to see why it should not be compulsary, each time I consider how little say I have in regards to the tax on my income (which I could use) I fail to see anything more morally pressing about having a say over the use organs which are no longer required are put to. Different thread I know but the thought sticks.

R0bert

You are correct in assuming that I consider humans to be no more worthy of ‘inheriting the earth’ than other animals.
The fact is I totally agree with you on this issue and that the world has too many people in it.

Celiva
I think you could all lobby the Government as I said to make it a standard question on medi care. After that we should leave it up to the Drs to make the calls.
One would assume not everybody would be suitable. I dont think we should be [let go] either just becuase we ae not spring chickens.
I dont know I just get an awful feeling about talking about humans as spare parts.
Remember we have millions starving to death in third world countries.
What about making the pill mandatory before we sent more aid!

gbgirp has some good points as well

ok so The Government DO make it a requirement on the medi care form. What then? Who is going to pay for it The ops?
Well we had best start to think about that one too.
What a nightmere. I guess we might all be charged some extra tax to sit next to our transplant in case its required. The transplant retirment fund and if you draw it out before you dont get treatment.
Kind of like a second life insurance.
Mmm We are self centered when you put it that way.
Whats Steve Fieldings policy on organs. Anybody know?

TRTL
Yes, I think that this idea would certainly encourage people to choose to become donors. I agree with you that children under 18 should always be eligible for organ transplants.
I can imagine that a discussion on ‘what to do with the children’ could be a heated one, especially when it comes to religious parents making decisions for their children that I believe they should not be allowed to make.
For example, children of Jehova Witness’ parents can be denied a blood transfusion and this can result in death. I assume if they do not allow blood transfusions they won’t be too happy if their child would receive an organ either. The parent's choice of a religion, cult or sect should not be a reason to let their child unnecessarily die.

I also agree with jbgirp about his concern connected to organ donations that many people do not have a healthy lifestyle, and it would make a good discussion in itself along with PALE’s question on how this is going to be financed and with RObert’s sub-topic that organ donation should be compulsary- part of me feels the same way, but another part of me is probably too democratic to push this that idea much . I’m not sure that Rex likes these subtopics being discussed on his thread.

RObert
“…maybe rather than disqualifying somebody it would reduce their priority on any waiting list”
Great idea, I like it. Seems very fair! It may be comparable with what health funds are doing: you can make a claim only when you’ve been a contributor for a certain period of time.

Celivia writes: I’m not sure that Rex likes these subtopics being discussed on his thread.
That's the whole point about human debates. we argue about things in isolation, whereas nothing occurs in isolation. A coalminer's overtime in Queensland contributes to lung cancer in a Chinese child. My neighbour's garden lights that he insists "He can afford", are contributing to the increase in Indian Ocean hurricanes that are destroying the infrastructure of the island of Reunion. It didn't matter too much when humans numbered only millions, but with 7,000,000,000 of us and doubling every decade or less, things are seriously our of balance! Unless humans address all possible consequences of their actions, we are doomed to extinction.

You are quite right, jbgirp. I also find it quite hard to stick to just the one aspect of this wide spectrum.

Rex said, "Perhaps a reminder is appropriate. This thread isn't about whether anyone should be forced to be an organ donor. The question is whether a person should signify their willingness by saying "yes". Or opting out by saying "No"."

Perhaps Rex won't mind if we take the discussion a bit further after we have given our opinion about the opt-in vs opt-out question.

Definitely "opt in" for me, although organ donation is something I've never really thought about too much. I used to donate blood and have made close to 70 donations, but haven't given for twelve months. As a previous poster pointed out, even the simple and generous act of donating blood has been made so much harder and it's only the dedicated few that give any longer. The large regional city where I used to donate is severly overcrowded since Red Cross shut down many smaller collection centers in the name of saving the mighty dollar and now whinge because they can't find enough donars. Everything is about money these days and I suspect organ donation is in pretty much the same boat.
Medical ethics vary considerably from hospital to hospital and it wouldn't surprise me if doctors were purposely preventing certain sections of the community from obtaining organs because of low socio-economic standard, perceived body "mistreatment" or age, so I prefer to keep my organs in case I need to direct them to my kids, grand kids or a close family member. Also, I live in a remote rural location and have a friend in a similar position. The place where she works was visited by people trying to attract organ donation and when she volunteered her organs should she die an untimely death, she was told that organ donation is usually only suitable for people who have died reasonably close to emergency facilities and considering where she lives, she would be wasting her time filling out the form. (Not the exact words, but close enough). At least this post caused me to think about organ donation.

ybgirp and Celiva
Thank You.
I should I suppose hang my head in Shame. I actually replied to Rex after his comment about staying on track but deleated it.
Call me a Coward for the first time Celiva but Rex has expressed some willingness to try to help the animals if you look on the Kevin Rudd thread.
They say every man has his price. I didnt want to get him off side. I will hold my breath and hope his chats with Yabby pay off. Sorry off track]
However Rex they are correct. Thats why we open threads to get others point of views.
I repeat we must never forget what they did to Dr Chan. Never!
A letter to the leaders wanting to gain some votes suggesting Medi care make it the norm for people to say either way would take care of this problem.
Probably be a race to the post. You should not have much trouble putting that through.

Still the counter argument to it has to be all the extra costs and no dought the public will want it to be covered under free health system.
Personally I think its going to create huge problems down the track.
We have credit card frauds and licence frauds and enough corruption already.
Just imagine the luctrative trade in switching info for organs.

Why not print posters to go in all hospitals everywhere- both public and private and have donner forms at all hospital counters as well.
Oh and dont forget the St George bank[smile]
Thank you to both of you for speaking out and keeping me honest.
I misjudged you ybgirp. I do apoligise. I also think like you on a world wide scale.
Love to have your imput on a few other things.
Rex what do you think of the comments on your post so far
Do you like the medi care idea
Do you know what Steve Fieldings policy is on organs?

Hi everyone. I don't claim to own this thread and everyone is entitled to post as they see fit.

It is Australian govt policy to increase the number of organ donors. Those countries which use the "opt out if you don't want to be a donor" method have a higher percentage of donors, so obviously this method is more efficient at achieving the required result. I like efficiency and I believe that govt should, wherever reasonably possible, be efficient. And Australia is not efficient in so many ways.

Rex

Thanks for answeing

I dont know I kind Of Have one foot in each camp about this to be really honest with you.
I have read your comments and totally agree. I have read others comments as well supporting to opt out idea.
I guess I need to make a choice however and let me tell you its not an easy one after the loss of a dear friend becuase there was no transplant available.
I know this is going to sound strange to you but it just doesnt seem right somehow.
It sort of takes away the respect thing of that special person was has just died.
To be left in peace after ones gone is something that has always been a 'basic right.'

People are distressed enough after an accident or death without having the feeling their loved one is being used for spare parts and touched by a stranger.
Its sort of a 'sarcred time.'
Just doesnt seem right somehow to me.

I think it would change societys attitude not only to dieing but living too.
Now everybody can write how selfish I am but is respect for the dead less important than respect for the living

Thank you, Rex.
I agree with you about the importance of efficiency. I still favour the opt-out system.

PALE
No it is not selfish, it just shows you are exploring your feelings and thoughts about donations. That's why people should not be forced into donating, it should always remain a choice.

May be not only do we need to make our wishes known about donating our organs, but also about receiving organs. Perhaps not all donors want to be receivers of other's organs.

I understand your feeling about 'sacred time' after a person close to you has passed away.
But if one of my children happened to die I would find it a pacifying thought that at least their death has saved the life of someone else.

Donating organs is the very last thing we can do to help end someone's suffering, to improve another's life.

And as Rex said, the most efficient way of ensuring more organs become available is to introduce the opt-out system.

celiva
Yes but it WILL be abused. Nothing and nobody can stop that Celivia. Quite easily too I might add

My NSW driver's licence has Donor A on it, which only signifies that I (and I only) agree to the donation of my organs.
It does not say that my immediate family agree with my decision.
When I'm lying on the slab they can apply their veto.

This is the problem at the moment (not with mine I hasten to add) but many families in the past, and probably in the future, will go against the wishes of the donor.
That is why the forms were introduced so that there was a legal document giving permission to take any useful organs.
People are naturally lazy when it comes to asking for extra forms to fill in and this is partly to blame for the shortage of donors.

Would it not have been much simpler to have altered the law and made the ticking of the box on the licence application legally binding?
After all ticking of all the other boxes is legally binding.

I dont know the answer. Maybe celiva had it when she suggested more advertising. I only know the Medi Care card is highly misused for things such as ID and free drs. Its not unusual for one card to be used by 6 different people. PR is something we need to watch as well
I think Rex has a point but i will be hanged if i can see how its to be set up without being misused
Good Luck for such a worthy cause but never push people. its just wrong.

"I think Rex has a point but i will be hanged if i can see how its to be set up without being misused"

First of all check out what happens with the countries which use a successful "opt out" system. I think Spain is one of them. If they can do it, then why can't we? And we don't need to send political/bureaucratic deputations on taxpayer funded holidays either, in order to find out what's going on. All we need to do is ask and then sensibly assess the answers. Is that too hard for us to do?

No Rex, it doesn’t sound too hard to do at all, thanks to our advanced communication systems of today.

I asked my mum (in Holland) how organ donations are organised over there. Apparently everybody over 18 (and under 18 only on request) receives a form to fill in to register Yes or No and you’ll get to choose whether you want to donate all of your organs and tissues or you can pick from a list (e.g. they can have your eyes but not your liver).
These forms are processed and filed into a safe computer system which only doctors have access to. So every deceased person’s file can be instantly checked on this system.

Wendy, I agree that there is room for fraud. But I think that the more organs are available, the less incidents of corruption there will be.

A shortage of something will always cause a black market and corruption.
Look what happened years ago when the US made alcohol illegal. It didn’t last for long because the black market was booming. I don't know who's dumb idea that was but it waw a laugh.
Same with drugs. If the government doesn’t regulate it, then gangs like the mafia will regulate it.

So I’d say organ donation must remain a free choice- but an opt out system or a system where everyone has to tick either a Yes or No box will be more beneficial than the system we have now. Many people do not mind donating their organs but just ‘never get around’ to registering to be an organ donation.

And yes, here in NSW as I said, our driver’s license indicates whether you’re an organ donor or not.

“I will be hanged if I can see how it’s to be set up without being misused”
I hope you won’t be hanged before you’ve made your decision either way :+)

Oops I made a mistake out of habit: I meant to say Antje, not Wendy. Perhaps we should address you as PALE.
Sorry!

Yes, Celivia, it does say that on NSW licences but it has no standing in law, if the Donor's next-of-kin don't approve.
All that is needed to solve the problem is to make the permission that was given, by the donor when the licence application was made, legally binding.
After all it was her/his wish and should have standing in law.

I can buy a dodgey licence for five hundred bucks.
Any better ideas anybody. Dont try a medi care card.
All suggestions or any. You cant except that we just cant make sure somebody is not let go[ All for a good cause? Oh of course Drs are never corrupt. Ok Ok Then make the next of kin sign the form as well. At least there might be a inderpendant witness.

Ceilvia Its ok Call me what ever Its fine

Rex suggests we check out what happens in countries which use a successful "opt out" system such as Spain; then asks; "If they can do it, why can't we?...All we need to do is ask and then sensibly assess the answers. Is that too hard for us to do?"
Sadly, the answer to that is "Yes. Much too hard." Spain is a secular, independent country in which children are taught to use reason at an early age. Australian politics are dominated by religion, and our politicians are lickspittles of the USA now, and China in a couple of years. Reason and common sense have never interfered with political decisions in Australia in the past, and there is little likelihood of their doing so in the future.

So you mark the dodgy licence Donor A (or whatever)
the holder is still dead. Or do you mean that the bad people will grab people and murder them and supply a crook licence with the bits?
Seems a hard way to go about it.
Maybe we just need more secure licences.

Is Mise
That you could ask such a question is proof that many have no idea what goes in the real world.
Actually your not that far off the mark. Ids are often obtained through grave yards.
A bodgey Licence in real easy to obtain if you know where to shop.
It more common than ice which you can get with fifteen minutes.

God the legal nightmere ramifactions are endless. Cant you just see a family sueing the hospital and the Government because their family member[ sometimes an illegal] got their whatever taken because that was on [ or not on their bodgey licence.

Hey what about the licences that have half a dozen owners.?

Probably however you have no idea of what I am on about.

Being a owner of a investigation company for years I can assure you its a nightmere waiting to happen if you push this.

Never mind the tax payer will pay and after all Howard already did his deal with insurance companies to protect the reasonsible.

Even if you proved a case of misuse and unlawful removal of a loved ones organs you might get Ten[k]
Too bad that it would be a thirty thousand to fity grand case not to mention the upset for the victims family
Good intentions dont always end up with good results.