h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You said morally deficient kea, I didn't see anyone else say that.

I think the biggest problem is the fact that families can override the wishes of the person that owned the organs before they died, and this should be tackled first.

I also think that an opt-out system would allow people that have a specific objection to exclude themselves - so anyone that has a particular reason (be that cultural or religious or whatever) not to want to be a candidate for donation has to express that explicitly.

So do you accept that people have perfectly valid reasons for refusing to be an organ donor?

And that some cultures believe that it's perfectly valid for families to make decisions about the bodies of deceased relatives, and that it's valid for them to have this belief?


Opt out systems don't generally work because there are always so many people who don't know about their rights, or even that such a system is in place, or who never get around to the paper work.

Well, in most countries it is illegal to sell your organs I believe. India has also outlawed it now. If this was changed perhaps the situation would be bettered.

I think it is perfectly valid not to be an organ donor. I think those moral scruples should though also lead to you not accepting an organ from somebody else.

sprout

Yes kea, I do accept that there are perfectly valid reason why poeple might not want to donate their organs - have I said anything that makes you think otherwise?

I don't think it is valid for the relatives of someone that has decided for themselves that they want to donate their organs to refuse for whatever reason.

Sprout, I agree, if you decide against donating for whatever reason you should also decide against receiving an organ...

I think I'm right in saying that burying the body whole and unmutilated is very important in some (and maybe all) branches of Judaism. I remember hearing a Jewish woman being interviewed about the illegal retention of her dead baby's organs, and what a shock it was to discover years later that the organs had been retained. This was interesting, because before this I had struggled to fully understand what all the fuss was about, because for me the person is not the body.

It's not obvious to me that the deceased should have any say in what happens to their bodies after their death. I instinctively think that the deceased's wishes are important, but I'm not sure I can see the argument as to why this should be. Can anyone help me out?

Imagine that I had no objection to organ transplation, but my family do have strong objections for whater reasons - probably religious. If I'm dead, it can't affect my interests whether or not my organs are donated, because I'm, er, dead. Conversely, imagine that my family want to donate my organs against my wishes - again, I'm dead. Why should it matter what I think?

Where does this animal option ruled out come from - they're still using valves from pig hearts for people with valve failure.

Compatability decides who gets what organ - not if they've been on a transplant list for 'n' years. There will always be more donors required, however for the time being we still own our bodies.

Hopefully now that non-familial live donors are allowed it will ease the kidney situation somewhat.

If I was very rich and chose to leave all my money to, say, a friend and my parents objected because the typical practice in their culture is that the money should go to my sister, what should happen? Is this different for body parts?

Another example - I don't believe in the christain god, and I have made it very clear to my nearest and dearest that I do not wish to have a christian burial after I die - if fact I want to be buried at sea (or something). Would it be right for my family to give me a christian burial?

I don't see why they shouldn't if it was important to them - What does it matter to you ?

You're dead.

From: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn231.pdf

>>"The most common source of organs is from patients who have died in intensive care but whose vital organs other than the brain are being maintained by medical support. ... Numbers in this category have declined over the last decade due to improvements in paramedical care, [...] and a simultaneous decrease in the number of deaths from road traffic accidents."

Concerning the UK/Spain comparison, it might be worth noting
http://www.etsc.be/documents/Road_accident_data_in_the_Enlarged_European_Union.pdf
(table 3, page 9)
that the road traffic accident death rates per head of population for the UK are now (2003,2004) roughly half those of Spain, making international comparisons per head of population possibly particularly tricky. Going further back in time, the UK:Spain difference was somewhat larger, today's figure being the result of an erratic decline from 1:2.77 in 1991

If RTAs were the *only* source of organ donors and the current figures are representative, and the ratio of number of deaths to usabale donors was similar, the relative lack of accident fatalities in the UK could bring the 12-to-33-per-million donor ratio between the UK and Spain down to something like 12-to-16.

Sorry that was in rely to the second question - as regards the first what you do with your money is up to you.

I have wanted any usable bits of me to go to the nearest teaching hospital(if the individual organs weren't usable) since I made my first will aged 25. All my family and friends know this and it has been discussed many times. I was beginning to think I was getting too old and infirm to be usable, but an acqaintance in her eighties made it to the nearest hospital immediately post mortem and various bits have been used successfully.
I have benefitted greatly from medical advances over the last sixty years and, being an atheist, feel I should return the favour if possible.

I agree that there's a strong intuition that the wishes of the dead ought to be respected, but I'm not sure where this intuition comes from. That's what I'm curious about.

If I ask not to have a Christian funeral because I'm not Christian, then perhaps my family would respect my wishes out of respect for my memory. But if my family were staunchly Christian and felt that they would be *harming* me by not giving me a Christian burial, or if they felt that they couldn't have a proper funeral without it being a Christian one, it's not so obvious. What if I had many relatives who didn't know that I wasn't Christian, and would be devestated by the news?

If a deceased relative left money in a distribution which I thought was grossly unfair, but which benefited me, would it be wrong for me to redistribute my share to those who I felt were harshly treated? Would it be wrong for all of the beneficiaries to decide to redistribute among themselves?

Why should the wishes of the dead be respected when they impose unfairness or reduce happiness among the living? I think there might be an answer, but I'm not sure what it is.

I think memorial services/funerals should be about the deceased - not the survivors. The last thing we can do for our loved ones is to honor their wishes concerning the disposition of their bodies and to send them off in a way that reflects their own beliefs. This includes memorial services and organ transplants - when their wishes have been clearly stated.

Otto, what you do with the money is up to you, but would it be right for the parents to say that for cultural reasons the person who has left the money has no say in what happens to it after they die? And to insist that the intended beneficiary should not receive any of it at all?

<> (kea)

This is also true of opt in systems. I seem to recall (and I could be wrong) that on Canadian driving licences you could check something that says in the case of your death (presumbably in a fatal car crash) that you would like your organs to be donated.

But otherwise, how would someone who wanted to donate their organs go about it? I honestly don't know, and I have no problem at all with whatever bits of my body being used after I'm gone to help others.

An opt out system clearly would not work because, as someone pointed out, the state doesn't actually own our bodies. And it presumes that most people would want to donate their organs after death, which I think is a huge presumption to make within multi-cultural societies.

I think the most positive government action to take would be to have campaigns about organ donation (much like they have for blood donation) and set up easily accessable places where people could go to sign up as organ donors.

az

As to redistributing an inheritance - it would be your right to do whatever you please with your inheritance, just as the person who left it to you had the right to leave it to whomever he pleased.

If I am ever fortunate enought to amass a considerable amount of money and property to leave behind, I hope I have the sense to give it to the people I want to have it while I'm still alive.

>>"What if I had many relatives who didn't know that I wasn't Christian, and would be devestated by the news?"

You mean, would be devastated by the *truth*?
Would the relatives really rather be lied to?

What if you had become Muslim (rather than atheist/agnostic) without telling all your relatives - would you need to have two seperate funerals with half a body each, or one burying a dummy corpse in order to not hurt people's feelings, with only a few people knowing the truth?

I suppose it depends how much you lied to your family when you were alive.

Probably the best bet would be to bung yourself off a ferry carrying an anvil as soon as you felt unwell.

I agree that the deceased's wishes about organ donation should take precedence over the wishes of relatives, also that you should not be able to receive a transplant if you are not prepared to be a donor.
Many people have become blood/organ donors after they, or a close relative has been a beneficiary.

It's not always easy, though. My mother-in-law died recently & the family knew that she had been keen for any bits possible to be used for donation/research/education. She was particularly taken by the idea that chiropody schools need feet. However, when the doctors at the hospital were alerted to this, they just said that they didn't think anything would be useful, because she was insufficiently healthy & normal. They had no idea about donations for chiropody & invited the family to research this, a task they felt unable to manage at the time.