Organ Donation: Or IB fails to understand other people again
Another one of those subjects about which I am simply astonished there's any debate at all, is organ donation.
According to the BBC, Gordon Brown has spoken out recently that Britain should adopt an opt-out organ donation policy, instead of the current opt-in. Under the current system, donating your organs after death is an active decision - you ( Read more... )
According to the BBC, Gordon Brown has spoken out recently that Britain should adopt an opt-out organ donation policy, instead of the current opt-in. Under the current system, donating your organs after death is an active decision - you ( Read more... )
In all honesty I guess it's a pretty good idea as it's something I have shoved in a box ever since applying for my driving license over 5 years ago. It would force people like me to finally make a decision.
One concern I do have though, being a scientist, is what happens for people who have genetic predispositions to things like cancer? are their organs donated as well? We have a couple of nasty genes and it's unclear (in this age of genetic discovery) whether they would eventually have an effect on other systems.
Oh and my main worry throughout the whole idea, for as long as I can remember, has been down to the argument on whether someone actually deserves to have organs replaced if they themselves have destroyed them through lifestyle choices. Maybe that's very judgemental of me, I don't know, but i've always been fine with the idea of donating bits of me to someone who is unfortunate enough to have never been supplied with all the working parts they need. I'm a bit of a health freak though and have difficulties with the idea of bits that i've looked after going to someone who wouldn't look after them. Does that sound stupid?
Reply
You make good points, and you make them well, so I'm going to be very rude (hey, it's my journal, I can do what I want) and dismiss them both.
AFAIK genetic dispositions go, you'd have to be pretty damn sure this organ is going to become cancerous before you refuse to give it to someone - I'd like to see actual research into whether donors of gene A have a significant risk of cancer of organ B even after donation before I started saying "well, there was a heart for you, Mr. Bloggs, but it was a bit risky so you're just going to have to wait for someone else to die - try to stay alive until then."
As for lifestyle choices - I do not believe it is the NHS's (sorry, I'm assuming you're British) job to start passing judgment on people in terms of lifestyle. At all. Because yeah, maybe someone who smokes for thirty years is takign an unneccessary risk and 'placing a burden' on the NHS, but now this kind of thinking is being applied to the obese (which ISN'T always due to overeating), and I can only imagine what kind of slippery slope we're falling on to. If smokers are refused lung transplants, alcoholics liver transplants, then when will vegan women be refused hip replacements?
The National Health Service should provide health care for all, and I don't want my National Insurance contribution going towards even more paperwork to decide who's worthy of it or not.
Reply
Of course that's the current status quo... but being a researcher in this kind of thing after a while you start to wonder about the things that we don't know. Will it be that they eventually genetically profile us all? I simply don't know and chances are an organ won't go bad and even if it does the recipient will probably be glad for the extra years (let's assume) he or she has had. I dunno, it just intrigues me what actually happens when you put a whole group of cells clumped together, each containing someone else's DNA into a body. It's quite fascinating when you think about it, especially when, at least in theory, they could be holding a whole plethora of different instructions. I suspect, however, that in order for a tissue/organ to be suitable for donation, i.e. a good match ad all that the genetic information in the cells must be more similar than with a poor match. Oooh that's got me thinking.
You are correct, I am English, and I totally agree with you on the NHS front. It should most definitely be health for all and I guess what I find difficult is that I would have to hand over a decision that would be hard for me to someone who cannot discriminate after i'm gone and have no more influence. It's a weird scenario. Logic tells me that I do not need this bag of cells anymore but I guess it's some kind of messed up sentimental rubbish that makes me go "but I really took care of them.... how do I know they will?!" - welcome to my inner child. I guess in the end though making the whole thing opt-out will make people like myself think rationally about this without getting away with just ignoring it. I guess selection would mean that if there were two people who could use, say, my liver and one was an alcoholic and the other was just unfortunate and born with a duff liver (assuming they are of equal match) that mine wouldn't go to the alcoholic. At least that's what I would hope. It's quite complex really isn't it?
I wonder how much of this wavering comes from the fact that my father is completely against organ transplant in a totally non-sensical way.
Reply
Leave a comment