'Presumed Consent' Organ Donating
My girlfriend and I have discussed (okay, argued) the pros/cons of presumed organ donation consent, but I didn't realize such a policy was being considered here in Canada.
CBC.ca : 'Presumed consent' option for organ donations sparks debate
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:20:16 EST
Currently, people wishing to donate their organs must actively sign a donor card -- by default, a person's organs will not be harvested post-mortem. The advantage to this system is that those who consent to donating their organs fully understand what it is they are consenting to; there is no risk of offending the religion or family of someone opposed organ donation because only the organs from those who have given prior consent will be harvested.
The disadvantage of this 'opt-in' system is that (I suspect) a large number of people do not give consent to having their organs donated because of apathy, laziness, or lack of knowledge (they may not realize they can donate organs, or that they must explicity give consent). It would be interesting to poll random people and see how many would agree to donating their organs but just 'haven't got around' to signing their donor card.
Out of every 1 million Canadians, only about 14 donate their organs.
From above article
Presumed consent is just the opposite -- everyone's consent to donating their organs is assumed (the default is "yes, I want to donate my organs."). Those who do not wish to donate their organs must proactively exclude themselves. This system makes more sense to me.
First of all, let me clarify one point: I do not think organ donation should be mandatory. A person should not be required by a law to donate their organs. It should remain a voluntary practice so those with personal or religious objections are not required to violate their beliefs. Presumed consent != mandatory donation.
The advantage of presumed consent: it makes more organs available for the many people awaiting transplants. All those people who don't sign their donor card, other than for moral/religious reasons, are now donors.
Here's why it's a more practical system:
The people more likely to come forward and express their position on organ donation are obviously those who have a strong opinion of the subject. This means that currently, the only people who come forward to be a donor are those who feel it is important to do so. This leaves a lot of would-be donors off the list, even though they may not necessarily object to being a donor.
I expect the people who do not wish to be donors feel strongly enough about the subject that they would take measures to ensure their organs are not harvested. Doesn't it make sense, then, that they be the ones who come forward to express their opinions? That way, all the non-donors (who don't care either way whether or not their organs are harvested) are on the donors list.
Tracking the 2% who don't wish to be Donors would be easier than tracking the 98% who do wish to be Donors or don't care.
*Source:Presumed Consent Foundation.
NOTE: Statistics are American, not Canadian (although I assume Canadian stats would be similar).
The implementation of such a policy would have to be very cautious (althought it has been done in Spain and Italy). At some point people would need to have their options presented to them to ensure everyone is given an opportunity to opt-out. For example, people could be prompted when applying for a driver's license (as the article suggests). However, not all people get a driver's license, so an even better idea would be to include it as part of the application for a Canadian Social Insurance Number.
I admit that I haven't signed my donor card (purely out of apathy), but now that I'm thinking about the subject I can see why it's important do so (even though I don't plan on dying soon). I'll have to see how I go about becoming a donor...
What remains for sure is that despite a dire need for organs, Canada lacks an effective organ-harvesting strategy.
Coming up: Tomorrow I go in for surgery to have my wisdom teeth removed. Going to make the parents buy me a big juicy steak tonight, because for the next week I'll be confined to Lipton's Chicken Noodle Soup (assuming the blood I swallow doesn't provide adequate nourishment...gross).

5 Comments:
I must say, you raise a valid point. The statistics are quite alarming, and it really makes you think about how many lives could be saved if the system was changed.
P.S.- Good luck on the wisdom teeth tommorow !
All I have to say is that if people want to donate an organ and the policy is going to be that anul, then the people should put in writing or sign a donar card.
All I know is that my life is a lot better then living off of a dialysis machine. Yes, I have received a kidney transplant November of 1999.
Presumed consent is great. If it's important to you to NOT have your organs donated then you will make the effort to opt-out.
Thanks for the comments.
I also submitted this story to Newsvine, where someone pointed out that you see those "Blood: It's in you to give" ads all over the place, but have you ever seen an "Organs: They're in you to give" ad?
I guess I've always felt a little funny about people pulling my insides out when I die, I don't know why... but I really won't be needing them anymore, and likely someone else will.
Presumed does make sense.
Blast... missed first comment.
Yeah, I also wish you the best with the wisdom teeth.
Post a Comment
<< Home