|
20 Apr 10 - 11:03 AM (#2890636) Subject: BS: Public to have say on organ donation inc From: GUEST,mauvepink Public to have say on organ donation incentives I am all in favour of anything that would increase the amount of organ donations being made but I would stop far short of any thought of allowing people who need a transplant in later life getting priority should they carry a card. In principle I see no harm in helping towards the funeral costs of those who have died and donated organs but being able to 'jump the queue' if you need a transplant yourself at some stage seems a wrong incentive. In short, I think having financial incentives to being a donor is okay but having any priorities other than pure need for being a recipient seems wrong still. The present system seems fair enough, as no-one can gain favour or buy tissue, but there is a lack of donations. Financial incentive (like funeral assitance) seems a reasonable way forward. Personally I would still give my organs freely but that is my own choice. If some need a financial incentive then so be it if it helps others in a fair way. mp |
|
20 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM (#2890655) Subject: RE: BS: Public to have say on organ donation inc From: SINSULL The present system is fair to the hospitals who make money, the surgeons who make money and the recipients who get a healthy organ. The donor, who makes all this possible, gets a card and a thank you and in many cases not even that. Why should I not be able to sell my organs (post mortem) to a middle man or hospital and leave the proceeds to my family? Why should only the donor be the humanitarian in this process? Mary |
|
20 Apr 10 - 11:48 AM (#2890659) Subject: RE: BS: Public to have say on organ donation inc From: GUEST,mauvepink Mary, I certainly take your point, but my understanding is that no private fees are involved in the organ donation system. The people who carry out the work obviously do get paid for doing their jobs. All that said, as I said in the OP, I have no problem with donors getting incentives (or their loved ones). I personally do not expect payment for something that would get burnt in cremation if it were not donated. I have to trust the system to be fair in distributing my bits and pieces. Selling the organs is a matter of choice, but anyone other than the donor (or family) profitting from such a system should not be allowed to be viable. If it were you would get all sorts of things happening where people get killed and their organs sold (it actually happens now in some places they say). It has to be an individual's choice what one donates, why, when and who should benefit. The consultation also covers live donation and research. The ethical issues alone are ginormous. It is a long overdue discussion though so hopefully only good can come from it. The consultation is complex. Members can see more at Human bodies in medicine and research - Consultation It will take some time to complete and read through though so do be warned! mp |
|
20 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM (#2890971) Subject: RE: BS: Public to have say on organ donation inc From: Don(Wyziwyg)T It's extremely unlikely that the policy you dislike would ever be implemented, mp, and a virtual certainty that it would not in any case work. The main organs will always inevitably be given to the recipient with the best blood and tissue match, regardless of time on the transplant list, because any other choice would be clinically unsafe, as you would run the risk of losing the best recipient by default, and the actual recipient by rejection. Corneas would be one exception, but, I believe there are enough of those to go round, and they aren't a life and death matter anyway. Don T. |