Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France Begins Opt-Out Organ Donation (theoutline.com)

Posted by msmash on from the interesting-moves dept.

Laura June, reporting for The Outline: France began to use a new opt-out system of organ donation on Jan. 1, making it one of a large number of European nations that now use a "presumed consent" system. This means that any adult who dies will now donate their organs by default, regardless of their survivors' wishes, unless they have signed a refusal registry in advance. The new law gets around what has historically been a stumbling block for organ donation: the surviving families of the deceased. A survey in France previously showed that while up to 80 percent of the population was in favor of donating their own organs, about 40 percent of families refuse when pressed to make the choice.

10 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. NIMBY in full effect by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure I'm for donations, they might save my life!

    But I'd want to receive, not give!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:NIMBY in full effect by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they should be tied together. Unless you have some sort actual medical reason as to why you should not be an organ donor (HIV infection, ect.) opting out should put you on the bottom of the donation list should you need it. If you contribute to the system, you get priority if you need the system. Otherwise, you go to the back of the line. Don't expect to receive if you're not willing to give.

      I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you? It's one last act of good that could save lives and, seeing as how you're never going to use them again, costs you absolutely nothing. How big of a prick do you have to be to look at that proposition and reject it?

    2. Re:NIMBY in full effect by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you?

      The concern is not "If you're dead". The concern is, If i'm in critical condition, the hospital that knows I'm a potential organ donor
      may treat me differently in a manner that makes me less likely to survive, Or they may prematurely declare me dead out of concern for
      the organs they could get from me to save someone else..... perhaps someone they deem "More worthy" of being saved.

    3. Re:NIMBY in full effect by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they should be tied together.

      That's a useless suggestion: people who need organ donations are generally not suitable to donate, and they know it long ahead of time.

      I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you?

      Well, one reason is a concern that doctors and hospitals might be less interested in saving you if that means potentially damaging donatable organs. There are many other reasons as well.

      How big of a prick do you have to be to look at that proposition and reject it?

      I should say not as big of a prick as you, who is ready to attribute base motives to everybody at the drop of a pin.

    4. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is an issue that an opt out system mitigates nicely. The more donors there are, the less likelihood of unethical behavior.

    5. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I want to ensure is that doctors are fully incentivized to keep me alive, and never incentivized not to for the sake of organ donations. The only safe way to do that is to opt out.

    6. Re:NIMBY in full effect by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This exactly. I am all for organ donation, but the problem is that it is a statistically proven fact that organ donors don't get worked on as long as non-donors with the exact same injury, especially those involved in violence, such as car accidents, gun shots and other traumatic injury. I used to be an organ donor on my drivers license, now I am not on my license. I have told my family that if I am really dead and the opportunity to donate is there, I would like them to do it, but I want the doctors focused on saving my life, not thinking about the potential of my harvest-able organs.

      I think that a lot of people are like me especially after doing a bit of research, and the best way to get around this issue is to have medical/religious only opt out (i.e. AIDS etc), where doctors, nurses, EMTs etc can't pronounce without a second opinion. To pronounce you it takes one MD who has not worked on you to come in with fresh eyes and make sure you are actually dead with no chance of coming back, if there is any question his job is to tell them to keep working on you. Part of the organ donor system should also keep track of the number of donors vs patients vs time they try to save you vs criticality of injury on a per doctor and per hospital basis. Doctors that are shortcuting to get more donors instead of saving their patients can be screened for and dealt with. The benefits are two fold. First, with opt out, it reduces the strain by making a lot more donors available, and second, it reduces the strain on families having to try and guess if the doctor has actually done everything possible before coming out and asking for donation.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    7. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except it's not anywhere near as safe as you imagine, thinking that way, is it? Because you're only attending to one of the two risks: the risk you might be maliciously deprived of your own organ when you still need it. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the other risk: that you might not have a donor organ available to you when you need it. The more people like you there are, and the more you talk, the higher that risk becomes, because you'll persuade others to follow in your footsteps. It's like the tragedy of the commons, except played out by stupid and mean-minded little pricks like yourselves who put more energy into doubting the motives of doctors than they do into doing anything worthwhile with their own time on this earth.

  2. Re:Blatant violation of the individual's rights by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't call organs a fee when they have zero value to the donor, on account of the donor being dead. It's just taking from them something that they no longer have any use for, and giving it to someone who has a very dire need.

    If you have the ability to save the life of one person, possibly more, and you refuse to do so for no other reason than sentimental attachment or superstition, then you bear responsibility for the consequences of this inaction. So I am entirely wiling to see any number of corpses mangled in order to benefit those still alive. At the end of the day, they are just bags of spare parts.

  3. Not harvesting by netean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any discussion about this topic should NOT talk about organ "Harvesting". It is NOT harvesting, it's recycling and reusing something that you no longer have any need of.