Bill would make Coloradans organ donors by default

[greg10]

Hopefully this is not a double post:

Bill would make Coloradans organ donors by default
January 19, 2011 By KRISTEN WYATT , Associated Press

(AP) -- Some Colorado lawmakers say their state should be the first one where people become organ donors by default, even though other states' efforts have been halted by worries about making such a personal decision automatic.

Senate Bill 42: http://goo.gl/MlKSw

[plugger]

   If you aren't going to use it, ought to lose it I say. 

[thegrammalady]

i think we would be better off to make it impossible for family members to change a donation. if you sign up to be an organ donor your family shouldn't have to give permission. my kids know i will come back and haunt them if they deny organ donation. i want what ever can be used used.

[paul.karen]

Hopefully this bill wont pass.  Im all for organ donation but not without consent.

Im with Grammalady if you sign to donate nobody family or not should be able to say otherwise.

[greg10]

I understand everyone's position on this.  It is really a political decision and in the present climate of government distrust and distrust of the medical profession, this will not likely pass in a 'red' state.  But who knows? it may pass in a borderline 'red' state such as Colorado.  The recent rejection by Coloradoans of the constitutional amendment on rolling back the federal government mandate on health insurance may signal a change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation
"Faith in the medical system is important to the success of organ donation. Brazil switched to an opt-out system and ultimately had to withdraw it because it further alienated patients who already distrusted the country's medical system.[19]"

http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_16517068
"But Colorado voters — who just 14 years ago backed Bob Dole over Bill Clinton during Clinton's big-margin re-election — also ushered in a Democratic governor, retained a Democratic U.S. senator and a Democrat majority in the state Senate, and rejected a constitutional amendment that attempted to give individuals an escape from the federal government's mandate of health"

[Sax-O-Trix]

Removed post as I am not allowed to express an observation on this matter without being personally attacked for it...

[cariad]

Reminds me of the movie "Coma"... 

The opt out policy reminds you of a film about the black market organ trade?? 

[Sax-O-Trix]

Removed post.

[cariad]

Considering how many people are illiterate, poor and at a disadvantage in this country, yes, it does remind me of black market organ trade.  I think an opt-out program would be akin to stealing from a whole class of underprivileged people.  If someone wants to donate their organs, then they have the option of signing their driver's license stating that fact and informing their families of their wishes.   The powers that be can't even "inform" enough people now about donating, but a law is being considered to basically make it automatic if you don't "opt-out"?  No thanks.

Are you aware that they already do this in Spain, approximately 2% of the population opts out, and that it has become a model that other nations look to emulate?

If you can pass your written and driving test, exactly how illiterate can you be? And I have an enormous problem with equating disadvantaged with 'too dim to understand organ donation'. The poor and disadvantaged are overwhelmingly the ones who are in need of transplants, and therefore have been schooled through experience on what it means. Do not underestimate this population.This opposition to the opt-out scheme on this site strikes me as positively bizarre. We are now more concerned about corpses than living human beings? What exactly is the danger in using organs that the person themselves may not have wanted to be donated? How would we know? We can be absolutely paranoid and worry that they might have just changed their minds right before they died, so we better not risk it. I'm sure there are people today who have the organs of someone who would have opted-out under this system. Right now we put it in the hands of the relatives. Yes, they can override someone who has designated themselves an organ donor, but they can also decide to donate the organs of someone who never signed up to be a donor. Worry too much about the rights of the dead and we will have even fewer transplants in this country.

The analogy to a bad 70s horror film is senseless fear-mongering. I suggest that if your state ever enacts this legislation that you simply opt out. You could also refuse a cadaver organ on principle.

[plugger]

As a living donor, I haven't missed my donation.  I don't see how a deceased donor is going to miss theirs!

But it looks like those who worry too much have won the day for now:

Colo. legislator dropping organ-donor proposal
DENVER (AP) – A Colorado bill that defaults all driver’s license applicants as organ donors is unlikely to become law this year.

Democratic Sen. Lucia Guzman told KUSA she is dropping her proposal that the state change to a “presumed consent” system.

That system automatically classifies all applicants for driver’s licenses and state ID cards as organ and tissue donors unless they opt out. Such donations are used in several European countries but have raised ethical concerns in the U.S.

The Colorado proposal was introduced lat week and sparked fears and opposition from many.

Supporters say they will drop the proposal for now.

http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/Colo_legislator_dropping_organ-donor_proposal_114394054.html

As for "ethical concerns", what looks unethical to me is letting a lot of people suffer when help could be available.

[cariad]

Removed post as I am not allowed to express an observation on this matter without being personally attacked for it...

Where exactly were you personally attacked?

I am stating my opinion on the matter same as anyone else. Your statement was basically saying "let's protect the underprivileged from their ignorance". Who says that just because you are poor you are incapable of understanding the opt-out system. That strikes me as condescending. What of the poor people who desperately want to donate, who is going to look after them? As it is, our system makes no sense because it is not enough to simply sign up, you must then lecture your relatives on what to do if you were to tragically become a candidate for cadaver donation.

I say let's presume the best of people - that they would like to donate to spare those that they've left behind. Anyone who does not feel this way can easily preserve their organs for the coffin flies. (They are generally first on the scene after a death.)

[rocker]

I'm fine with donation by default, but it really does not hugely increase donations.

I recall that one study found that the largest increase in donations was achieved by training the donation team in communication techniques, ie, how to ask relatives in a sensitive fashion.  I know that when my father died and my stepmother was approached, I strongly encouraged her to donate whatever was needed, but said it was ultimately her decision. She was so freaked out by the callousness of the people that approached her in her grief, she said no.

[Chris]

Maybe I misread the article in the transplantnews I get from ATA, but thought I read that most states follow the wishes (can't think of the term used) of the donor if their drivers license is signed instead of the family having the final say. If I remember correctly the article said this is followed in 35 states.

[greg10]

Maybe I misread the article in the transplantnews I get from ATA, but thought I read that most states follow the wishes (can't think of the term used) of the donor if their drivers license is signed instead of the family having the final say. If I remember correctly the article said this is followed in 35 states.

Laws that oversee donation vary from state to state.    http://donatelife.net/CommitToDonation/

Should Laws Push for Organ Donation?
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/should-laws-encourage-organ-donation/
"Changing the law will not in itself suffice. As the experience with presumed consent in Western Europe shows, education of the public and constant training of hospital personnel are essential. But, the numbers from Europe show what can be done — significant increases in organ supply with a shift in the law."

[paul.karen]

Senseless fearmongering?  How did this make it to this thread?

One can have an opinion i would hope without being labeled.
And if you think a program like this wouldn't bring not just organs but all body parts to a black market i would say think again.  We already have funeral homes stealing body parts for profit.  Bones-organs-skin all are sold on the black market.

So it isnt senseless fearmongering it is more a proven fact.

[rocker]

We already have funeral homes stealing body parts for profit.  Bones-organs-skin all are sold on the black market.

So it isnt senseless fearmongering it is more a proven fact.

Do you have a reference for these proven facts?

  - rocker

[plugger]

I'm having problems with the black market theory.  Black markets emerge when there is less of something and more restrictions.  The state bill mentioned should increase transplants and be less restrictive, therefore making a black market less able to operate.

[wj13us]

Just to clarify.  There is a black market for body parts (cadavers) but it for teaching facilities that use cadavers.  Seems not enough people are leaving their bodies to science and it seems there are big bucks for bodies.  However, by the time a body gets to the funeral home it is way too late for anything to be transplanted.  Besides the chain of custody for a transplantable organ would be too difficult to "slip in" one from a funeral home.  I did not read the proposed law but I doubt it will allow the state to take a whole body for teaching purposes.

Bill

[paul.karen]

Its not just organs that are taken from corpses.   Also skin eyes teeth bones ect ect.

Here in Jersey they xrayed a corpse in a large trail that made national news.  They xray showed clearly that the corpses legsbones had been replaced with PVC.  His foot if i recall was a beer or coke can stuffed back into the mans skin.
This was not an isolated instance to new jersey although this operation went on from 2002-2006.
 Rocker yes i have references i read the paper daily here in Jersey.
Why would i make things up???
 Im all for organ donation.  If done by choice.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/attorney_general_shuts_down_2.html

Or jjust google stolen body parts im sure one or more items would come up/

Also the stolen body parts which were used for living patients like skin for burn victims ect ect.  These items were never checked for HIV=Hep ect ect.  Since they were stolen.  So innocent people may have contacted diseases due to people stealing organs/body parts.

[Chris]

Paul.Karen,
 I remember that story, it spanned many more states as the investigation went on. It happened in my state, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and a couple other states. One company that was caught was owned by a dentist selling body parts that were marked incorrectly as safe were he bought parts from a funeral home. This lead to many cases where people had to have surgery to remove parts due to risk and some had already caused death.
 
Were we the only ones who payed attention to that news Oaul.Karen?

[wj13us]

I did more research myself because the info I got about selling body parts was from a 60 minutes segment a few years ago.

So far this article sums it up best.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-04-26-body-parts-cover-usat_x.htm

But as I though its non-organs that are a problem.

Bill

[paul.karen]

And here i always thought the skin was the largest organ of the body.  I must be wrong.

Instead of saying it i may as well just post the link.  If you dont trust this link just google illegal organ trade in the USA.  it happens like it or not.  Americans do STEAL organs to sell on the black market.  it is big money.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/09/not-just-urban-legend.html

[cariad]

Senseless fearmongering?  How did this make it to this thread?

One can have an opinion i would hope without being labeled.
And if you think a program like this wouldn't bring not just organs but all body parts to a black market i would say think again.  We already have funeral homes stealing body parts for profit.  Bones-organs-skin all are sold on the black market.

So it isnt senseless fearmongering it is more a proven fact.

Paul, it is not 'more a proven fact' that passing a bill such as this would encourage organ trafficking. In fact, as Plugger stated, quite the opposite. If it's happening now, you can hardly say it's the fault of this bill. And I am not labeling anyone, that is nonsense. I am criticizing a debate style that generates fear rather than relying upon reasoning - take an extreme example of something that people recognise as a crime, then try to tie it to current legislation up for debate. The film Coma?? Come on! Let's try to deal with reality here.

We are fortunate to have real life examples of countries that have tried opt-out (Spain, I believe Belgium as well) and we can learn from them. Cadaver organ donations have increased in those countries, I would say rather dramatically. Google it for yourself. I know you have argued for donors being allowed to sell organs - well, we have a real life example of that, too, in Iran. Which country would you rather emulate? Crime should certainly be addressed, but there is crime in live organ donation as well. Do we chuck the system, or continually work to improve upon it? If you are on the transplant list (and I honestly do not know if you are or not) do you intend to ask doctors exactly how they came upon this organ to make sure it was not illegally trafficked? Or would just have to trust your doctors and hope for the best? I know what my choice would be.

Obviously I would hope that any people involved in backing this legislation would insist that it is written as tightly as possible to prevent anyone gaming it. But then, that happens no matter how careful people try to be. A common myth is that people should never sign their licenses to be a donor because then if you get into an accident, no one will try to save them. Perhaps there is an example of this happening - do we eliminate cadaver donation all together.

One of the articles linked discussed how devastating this was for the families. Yes, I bet. That is the group I am concerned about - the survivors, the living people. As a good friend of mine has said, when someone close to you dies, do whatever you have to do to be at peace with it, because the dead don't care. In other words, donate the organs or don't, have the funeral however you want or skip it completely - the dead really don't care.

[murf]

Maybe I will be out of line on my comments so my apologies to any one who may be offended. My own point of view is that once I pass away, anybody can have access to any part of my mortal remains. I keep my spirit and no one can touch that. I have been pushing for the opt out system in Western Australia through letters to the newspaper and contacting local politicians. I seem to have hit a brick wall. The greatest argument is to think about it for a while. But I don't have a while. As a case in point, after five years of waiting for a transplant, I have recently been taken off the list. Logic also seems to suggest to me that the opt out system would quell any illegal trade. Trade only becomes prevalent when there is no supply. So simply put, the more kidneys available, the less black market. BTW, a survey in WA showed 75% agree with the opt out system similar to the Spanish model.

[cariad]

OK, so I just looked at the Newsweek article that you linked to, Paul. This is the same article that I mentioned when we were discussing whether organ sales should be legalized. Nancy Scherper-Hughes is well-known in the anthropological community, and this article is about her catching American doctors willing to sell her kidneys from live donors. This has nothing to do with funeral homes selling body parts, this has to do with creating an underclass of living people in economically depressed countries (such as Brazil) who are being used by doctors at our own hospitals. What does this have to do with opt-out? Instead, this article goes toward arguing against a system that you said you would support, that of creating a cash market for organs in this country.