Organ donation and consent
The Government plans to introduce an opt-out system for organ donation. (https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2022/11/21/plans-for-soft-opt-out-organ-donation-system-to-go-to-cabinet-by-end-of-the-month/)
This is a system whereby organs will be removed from patients’ bodies upon death, for transplant, if they have not expressly forbidden it. Otherwise, consent will be presumed.
The opt-out regime is based on the assumption that when inevitable death is approaching, the State or the hospitals own our bodies and can dispose of their parts, unless we or our family explicitly object.
This principle is not acceptable, even if it is motivated by the noble intent of addressing the problem of shortage of organs for transplant in Ireland.
Donation should arise from an informed and deliberate decision.
An opt-out system does not properly respect the principle of informed consent.
If the current opt-in regime is not adequate to satisfy the need for donors, it could be improved so that every patient, when visiting their GP or a hospital, should be explicitly asked to express their option on the matter.
An opt-out system is detrimental not only for those who are not aware of the details of the legislation, probably the majority of people, but particularly for vulnerable groups in society such as those who do not have adequate language skills, or cannot fully consent.
Donation must remain a choice freely made and taking without asking is not giving. Our organs are not at the State’s disposal.
@angelobottone Is this also an argument why abortion should be permitted without restriction at any time, because no one has the right to demand use of your organs without your consent, even if they need them to survive?
@Adrasteianix No, The foetus cannot demand and so the relationship with the mother cannot be understood in the same terms.
@Adrasteianix Comparing pregnancy to organ donation is a poor analogy, as I explain earlier. But if you really want to argue in those terms, the conclusion is the opposite of what you suggest.
The state can't compel anyone to donate a organ or anyone to get pregnant. Once the donation has happened, or someone is pregnant, the action cannot be reversed otherwise you kill the recipient, or the baby. But I still believe it is a bad analogy comparing something that could last nine months and happens naturally to an artificial procedure that is much shorter. The equivalent of an abortion would be interrupting the donation of the organ in the middle of the transplant procedure, causing the death of the patient. Again, bad analogy but still morally wrong.
@angelobottone It may not be as much of stretch as you think, especially when we are discussing informed consent, which was the original topic. Pregnant people are routinely required to have compulsory surgery for someone else's benefit. Most of the time, pressure is enough to get them to acquiesce, but at least in my country, there are examples of court-ordered surgery.
@angelobottone Interesting. It is not the recipient who is usually demanding use of the organs, it is often, including in your missive, the 'state' who, in the interest of preserving life, that is intervening on behalf of the person who needs use of the organs.
Why would it make a tangible difference who needs your organs to survive? Isn't the question the same? Can the state compel the use of your organs without your consent to save someone's life?