After attending the launch of the Gift of Life campaign here at Parliament House, I’m shocked at the small number of people who have signed on to donate their organs in death.Â
There are almost 2000 people in Australia on organ transplant waiting lists at any given time. Some of them will die waiting. The Australian Organ Donor Register is Australia’s only national organ and tissue donor register and serves as a lifeline to the people on those waiting lists.
The Donor Register ensures that your consent (or objection) to donating organs and/or tissue for transplantation can be verified by authorised medical personnel, anywhere in Australia. In the event of your death, information about your decision can be accessed from the Donor Register, and provided to your family.
Due to confusion between several systems, operating at both a state and federal level, it is important that you register on the National Donor Register, and talk with your family before registering your decision.Â
If you haven’t registered, or are unclear if you are on the register, I encourage you all to fill out the registration form, or check with Medicare.
Ways to register for Organ Donation
- Visit your local Medicare office
- Telephone: 1800 777 203
Terry Connelly Memorial WalkÂ
Australian Organ Donor Awareness Week will this year be held from Sunday 17 February to Saturday 24 February 2008, and aims to raise donation rates in Australia by focusing on the pressing need for organ and tissue donation, encouraging families to discuss their wishes, highlighting the success of organ transplantation in Australia and promoting the registration of consent on to the Australian Organ Donor Register.
Just one part of Australian Organ Donor Awareness Week is the Terry Connelly Memorial Walk at 7am on Wednesday 20th February, around Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra.
The walk commences at Regatta Point and heads clockwise around Lake Burley Griffin crossing Kings Avenue Bridge, then on to Commonwealth Avenue Bridge and finishing at Regatta Point. Enjoy a free BBQ breakfast on the grass after the walk.
The website to register for the free event, the Terry Connolly ORGANised walk is http://www.giftoflife.asn.au
Enrolment forms for the Organ Donor Register will be available; as will a free breakfast!
Come along at 6.45 am.
Thanks.
And what are the Green Representatives In N.S.W. and the Federal Senators,going to do about the failures of the export called Education…taking over Tourism import s I suppose where individuals go to places like India to pick up some kidneys etc!?.When the Education exports leave Sikhs wondering wether state governments on the financial drip,and thus cannot break its own legislation jam and lock to stop students losing their money,any problems in Tasmania re shortages of hairdressers and cooks..seeing you people are about being the purist of world saviours..could you do something for these people as a example of your own worthiness,and say gaurantee them working places,as Sydney s melting pot and our Education moron regulators,are killing people by their ineptitude for the sake of their regulations.Crisis management suggestions please!?Bob!I suppose you can make a case with Acres newspaper for assistance!?And what about gun clubs in Tasmania,and Police kiosks!?
Tim - re your remarks on Hoyden.
As for my views - i consider myself a moderate and will admit that i do not like Nettle’s views on many things - winding back the clock on Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and other “Life on Mars” type anachronistic things in particular.
I distrust Lee Rhiannon for much the same reason - her family’s marxist background - her parents were both important members of the CPA and she grew up in a marxist atmosphere.
The world has changed and for better or worse will not change back
In any case Nettle’s dreams of re-nationalisation or even nationalisation and a return to socialism-marxism are dashed by Section 92 of our constitution.
Wrong Tim, UT. It’s me who commented at Hoyden…
Certainly I have no problem with anyone having differing political views, but I do have a problem with using spurious arguments to attack those they oppose.
But do let’s keep to thread, keeping the discussion of that issue in the thread at Hoyden and leaving this thread to Tim N’s important organ donation discussion.
3 Unknown Troper, I absolutely adore Kerry Nettle and Lee Rhiannon for exactly WHO they are! Very refreshing in the world of today!
Organ donation is one of those nice policies, very popular. However what is the total resource consumption (cash, medical facilities, expertise, CO2 emissions) tied up in organ donation and subsequent recuperation of the ill and lifetime anti-rejection medicine support?
Why is a single rich westerner who can feasibly get an organ and follow up support a more worthy human being than the probably hundreds of third world humans who could instead have been helped with those same resources?
In truth how many people will die in the next 50 years from a shortage of donated organs? On the other hand how many will die from heat stress in the next 50 years. How many will die in storms we wouldn’t have otherwise had. In a crisis (such as we are now in) we really can’t spare resources away from addressing the crisis.
Blind trust in the Greens isn’t better than blind distrust of them.
These people are well meaning but still fallible human beings (if they object to this sentence then we all should be extremely concerned).
My main worry is the extent to which their influence operates in areas where they are not expert.
My main hope is the Greens actually achieve positive forward steps towards emission reductions. Its what they campaigned on, so lets see some follow through. Maybe I am wrong but so far I haven’t really seen an actual step achieved by the Greens in respect of reductions, just lots of words and opportunistic usurping of the high moral ground. Despite this I still voted Green.
A post from Brian Bahnisch on another thread seems to suggest that Greens initial kneejerk assumptions about Garnaut (as recorded on this blogsite ) may be dead wrong (which is great news). So maybe these Senators can work constructly with Garnaut for positive outcomes and set aside the apparent current strategy of prejudging and attacking. That might make it more likely my main hope materialises.
Waaaay back when I were lad, when I went for permit to drive, there was a tick box option if I want’d be organ donor. Consequently I have been a potential organ donor since 1975, but it seems this option put me in the minority.
Now, if one were an organ donor unless one ticked the box not to be, how many donors would would there be by default? I suspect a very simple change to an application form would eliminate the body parts waiting list.
This is of course quite a separate discussion to Jethro’s ‘just because we can, should we?’ statement - I tightened up on the original a bit. That said, a logical extrapolation of Jethro’s direction ends with involuntary euthanasia. “Sorry mate, but that kidney you want will save 300 lives, oh and the pain relief as you die will save another 30, so you can’t have that either.” Economic rationalism at work?
Or perhaps it’s not economic rationalisation if we sacrifice a few for the many, maybe this is for the common good? Whatever, it’s a brave new world of yours Jethro, better pass me the Soma.
mcfarm@7
Its a big ethical divide you so easily leap between:
a) choosing to direct available public resources to where they can do the most good and
b) taking body parts from people against their will for the greater good.
The logical extrapolation you use fails at this divide.
Mcfarm, I find the whole notion of switching organ donation from being an opt-in scheme to an opt-out scheme deeply unsettling.
When you got your license in 1975 the national road toll stood at around 25 fatalities per 100,000 people per year, through improvements to road safety this level is now reduced to under 10 fatalities per 100,000 per year. This is great news, unless of course you are in need of a donated organ.
Not and ethical divide Jethro, an ethical slide. It’s rarely black or white and usually shades of dirty grey. And just how can we be “taking body parts from people against their will” when we don’t actually know what their will is or was?
You were advocating we examine the current allocation of resources and suggested a reallocation based on the all people are created equal premise - affluent westerner vs third world poor.
It is eminently logical to allocate resources where they will do the most perceived good. However wars are still fought over such issues, so although logical it ain’t practical at this point in time. Last time I looked the nation state still existed.
Now within Australia, given that we have limited resources, is one kidney worth 10 well housed and educated indigenous Australians? See, not such an ethical divide is it? Or is it? Perhaps we can do both, but at the expense of…….?
Zoltar, why are you uneasy about an opt out system? We can’t opt out of death, and we aren’t given much choice about taxes either. At least with an opt out clause we would be given a choice - at every renewal, and any other time too. I can cancel my organ donors card at any time and without reason.
Ok whilst I’m solutioneering, give the applicants a choice; a) I opt in, b) I opt out - must chose one. That would answer the ‘what was their will’ question. Offer the choice at every renewal too.
Yes, good news about the road toll, but not every one dies in a car crash. Fatalities of the general population are 100%, and a few of these organs must be useful too.
Admittedly not everyone drives, but a large percentage of the population does and keeps their licence on, or close to, their bodily person. In the absence of identity papers (not going there), the driving permit opt in/out option is probably the best we can do.
Mcfarm, I am uneasy about an opt-out system because of the thinking that underpins it. It is effectively saying “your body remains the property of the state, and at the time of your death it shall be scavenged for parts, unless you specifically inform us not to.”
When the default position is for your organs to be harvested, people no longer choose to be organ donors, they choose not to be, and as a consequence, receiving an organ can no longer be considered “a gift”.
Yes, 100% of people die, but most don’t leave a healthy corpse. The point I was trying to make with the road toll is that the death rate of otherwise healthy people through accident/misadventure is in decline.
There is no rational reason why anyone should refuse to be an organ donor. Therefore everyone should be a donor by default. Your body should become the property of the state after you die, you don’t need it, and burying/cremating your body wastes space and resources. You could donate your corpse to a specific institution in your will if you like, but if you don’t specify, then the state should decide what to do with your corpse.
Can someone please explain why making organ donation opt-in is a good thing?
Does anyone seriously think a family member should be given the power to bury/cremate the corpse before it could be used to save someone else’s life?
Conor, I’m wary of saying that corpses should become the “property” of the state. I’d say the body becomes property of the next of kin with the strings of organ donation attached. Once the donated organs have been removed, the family are free to do with the body what they wish.
I definitely agree with opt-out organ donation. I have a feeling most people generally don’t care what happens to their bodies once they’ve died. Capturing this apathy and the tacit consent it brings means saving lives where previously we would rely on people going to the trouble of filling out a form and caring enough to save another’s life.
If people have a problem with organ donation, they will opt out. For the rest of the population, let’s use what they can give us.
Hi folks,
this is a peculiar discussion. I’m a loud and proud donor A, but out of respect of everyone else, I will not try to enforce my beliefs onto everyone else. And as such, I’d have to agree that it is extremely disrespectful for a government to enforce an opt-out arrangement for organ donation. The idea behind it is that one must truely think the decision through and chose to donate. To have the governement simply take the organs from a deceased person is disrespectful to the wishes of the person and his affected family.
Therefore my thoughts on resolving the issue are to speak out to kids at schools about how organ donation saves lives. And when they get that choice from “ticking the box” in forms such as car liscence, they have in their minds the significance, and their choice is based on what they truely believe to be morally and spiritually correct.
As Ali G puts it well - respect, eva ‘eard ov it?
Peace out people
Sam, Can’t agree with the “strings of organ donation’ being attached to corpses.
My partner and I discussed what we would do when the kids were little if something terrible occured. He was willing to have all their organs donated, except their eyes. It made him physically ill to think about it. There may be something to the eyes are the window to the soul.
Now the kids are of reason, they have stated very strongly that they would like any bit of them that is useful to be donated, (The eldest would also like to be eaten by a Tasmanian wedge-tail eagle but that would be pushing it) so he will abide by their wishes.
But if one of the kids had died when they were little and the hospital had insisted on removing their eyes against his will, it would have made a bad situation even worse for him. The families wishes must be taken into count and with education etc. hopefully no families will object.
Judith, I agree with what you’re saying with regards to the donation of child organs. Would it not make sense for parents who object to the donation of said organs (especially those who have had the discussion) to fill out a form regarding the non-donation of the organs?
Then when the children turn 18 the responsibility of opting out of organ donation becomes theirs. Until that point, it rests with their parents who are legally able to make such decisions on their behalf.
Sam, I don’t know whether most people are organised enough to send in a form whether they support organ donation or not. It’s also something that parents don’t like to think about and maybe subconsciously avoid.
The death of a healthy young person is often unexpected and parents might not be contactable in the right time frame. If organs are taken by the hospitals who assume that the parents are pro-donation because there is nothing on the computer against it, it could damage the reputation of the organ donation service.
Devestated parents going public to say that their child’s organs had been taken without their consent, and perhaps in the face of their religious beliefs could make the ‘angels’ into ‘body snatchers’ in the eyes of some people. I think the staff like to reassure grieving parents and relatives about it being a dignified and respectful process before taking the organs too.
It could put staff at more risk in an already stressful environment as well if they had to explain to relatives of any age that organs had been collected without their consulation.
That said, I think if someone has the donor mark on their licence that families shouldn’t be able to over-ride the deceased wishes. I also think the hospital if they can’t contact the relatives in that situation, should proceed. It’s striking the balance.
Some countries might be ready for organs being taken automatically, but given Australia’s low donation rate, we might not be ready for it yet. Education may bring that around.
People writing here have mostly approached the organ donation issue from the position of the deceased, or from the position of society as a whole. I feel that both of these are self centric world view approaches.
For many people the choice of whether to donate or not donate is not an individual decision, its a collective decision. Springing such a collective decision upon someone when they go to perform the individual act of getting/renewing a driver’s license is a poor approach to gaining consent - those in doubt will quite rightly tend to opt out.
I feel that the decision over organ donation should be left solely in the hands of the next of kin. The donation/non-donation decision is of an equivalent class to decisions concerning burial/cremation or a religious/non-religious funeral - though the time pressure is not. One would hope that the next of kin would respect the wishes of the deceased, but it should be remembered that it is the next of kin that have to live with these decisions - and not the deceased.
Judith, I mostly agree with your thinking.
Vicki, children can not express “what they truly believe” if they’ve been indoctrinated. How about we let them make up their own minds, as adults, preferably after they’ve been exposed to arguments both for and against donation, and hopefully they will communicate any wishes on the fate of their organs to their next of kin.
Zoltar
You are indeed correct. I did not mean to indocrinate children. For example the question lies - where are the faucets of information both acceptable and effective? We do not want to persuade (or even brainwash), merely inform and hope that people make an informed decision about organ donation that they feel to be correct for themselves. And for example my thought was at school - say in year 10 science (before it becomes an elective and therefore misses a considerable audience) someone will speak out about how organ donation saves lives. And as young adults, they may ponder their priorities, they may discuss it with their parents and hopefully come to a conclusion that they will abide by in life. Or they may not give a bugger (as with a lot of teenagers in schools). But my thoughts are that teenagers are more receptive to arguements than adults because teenagers are still developing their opinions, whereas adults tend to have their opinions already set. That is just a personal thought, I may or may not be correct.
Just as a side note - I recall in year 12 biology we did have someone come in to talk about blood donations and blood products derived from donations. That was a very interesting class. My fear of blood has not resided unfortunately :-/ In second year immunology I almost passed out from attempting to collect a couple of drops of blood from my friend to do some tests. In my entire life, I’ve never come close to experiencing that. It’s ironic that I’m a lab technician :-/
A V8 supercar driver’s organs have saved seven lives. ABC News
Some car drivers’ organ donation stats for ewes according to Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and happiness”:
Drivers licence applications, ‘tick a box’ or leave blank.
Opt in box only = 42% of drivers in the scheme. Default = blank = not a donor
Opt out box only = 82% of drivers in the scheme. Default = blank = a donor
But of most interest is my suggestion above of; opt in or opt out, but must make a choice.
Choice of opt in or opt out box = 79% !! No default, must make a choice.
This means, when given a choice, 79% of people will donate their organs.
The authors contention is that people need a ‘nudge’ (removal of default) to make a real choice.
Tim Norton, these stats may be worth following up and presented to those in positions of influence. They are American stats, but are probably translatable to Oz.
Mcfarm, I’m not sure how transferable those numbers are to the Australian situation, but what interests me most are the 79% and 82% figures. Which by my reading means that 18% of people are prepared to publicly admit that they don’t want to donate their organs, and if push comes to shove a further 3% are prepared to admit that they are against their organs being harvested. Perhaps this disparity comes about because a drivers license is not a private document, its quasi public, you can be asked to produce it as an identity document by a whole raft of people. Some people do not want to reveal their organ donor status to loved ones, let alone to complete strangers, so marking this “choice” on a license can be regarded as an unnecessary invasion of privacy. But why stop there, why not emblazon other “in case you die” information on your driving license too, mahogany or pine, funeral or cremation, religious or non religious service, contact details for next of kin, etc etc.
If we are going to compel people to make an organ donor decision when renewing their license, they should have: at least 3 options, yes, no, or next of kin decide (or others such as leaving your body to science); and, the option to have this decision publicly viewable on the card, or merely recorded in a database. Then again, could the next of kin trust what they are told about the contents of a database, when doctors/hospitals/patients are desperate for organs.
Don’t see the problem Zoltar, if in doubt - opt out. Pretty simple really.
The third option as you suggest is ok, but I see it as - when in doubt pass the buck. But I suppose if you don’t trust ‘the system’ the third option would satisfy that need.
Should have added that if people must make a choice, the shortage will evaporate and remove any fears of ‘organ harvesting’ from those with the potential to live. So the desperation for organs would dissipate.