|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 26, 2019 22:27:25 GMT
The new law requiring people to "opt out" rather than "opt in" to organ donation, has been named after Max Johnson, whose life was saved by a heart donation, and Keira, the young lady whose heart was donated (story below). The Stoke City connection is that Max is the grandson of our own Nigel Johnson, Radio Stoke commentator. I don't know whether Max is a Stoke fan - but very well done to him and all the Johnson family, and of course Keira's family, for campaigning for this welcome change in the law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359682 |
|
|
|
Post by 4evastoke on Feb 26, 2019 22:30:03 GMT
I didn’t know that Malcom, wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Feb 26, 2019 22:41:43 GMT
"Please don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them here".
|
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 26, 2019 22:50:00 GMT
It’s been regularly featured up here on Look North due to Roger Johnson’s input as his uncle. A tremendous story.
(..and to be fair to Roger he has taken a good bit of stick from fellow presenters every time we have fallen to bits against a NWest team this season).
|
|
|
|
Post by adi on Feb 26, 2019 22:59:41 GMT
It’s a very noble thing to do and shouldn’t even need consideration. I imagine it’s hard for any family to go through when losing a loved one but they should draw solace from knowing that their loved ones passing may save the life of someone else. Let’s hope this means less difficult decisions and more lives saved.
|
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Feb 26, 2019 23:14:05 GMT
You don't own your body anymore. Bad law, I would carry a donor card but this is creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 27, 2019 1:28:09 GMT
A big change in the law which will hopefully save many lives. Respect to the two children and families concerned. As Max says, the more this is talked about at school and home the better. I've carried a donor card for many years - I wish more people did so.
|
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Feb 27, 2019 1:29:45 GMT
You don't own your body anymore. Bad law, I would carry a donor card but this is creepy. Then opt out. The law doesn't force you to donate. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 27, 2019 3:48:15 GMT
You don't own your body anymore. Bad law, I would carry a donor card but this is creepy. Then opt out. The law doesn't force you to donate. The law is now forcing people to make an unnecessary decision. I've had this conversation many times and many people are undecided, many people are for and many people against. It's putting that undecided faction in a difficult position.
It should be opt in.
|
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Feb 27, 2019 5:41:47 GMT
Then opt out. The law doesn't force you to donate. The law is now forcing people to make an unnecessary decision. I've had this conversation many times and many people are undecided, many people are for and many people against. It's putting that undecided faction in a difficult position.
It should be opt in.
In that case I would opt out until you know you are willing to be a donor. I would be opposed to any process that makes opting out a difficult process. The problem with opt in is that many people are willing to be donors but are lazy and don't register. That's an awful lot of willing donors who end up not donating. People who want to opt out, I expect, are more likely to be proactive about opting out compared to people who are willing to donate but don't register. |
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Feb 27, 2019 7:08:32 GMT
The new law requiring people to "opt out" rather than "opt in" to organ donation, has been named after Max Johnson, whose life was saved by a heart donation, and Keira, the young lady whose heart was donated (story below). The Stoke City connection is that Max is the grandson of our own Nigel Johnson, Radio Stoke commentator. I don't know whether Max is a Stoke fan - but very well done to him and all the Johnson family, and of course Keira's family, for campaigning for this welcome change in the law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359682Blimey. Some good news. Wonderful story. The only losers as a result of this law will, so far as I can see, be worms. Good show all round. Although btw, Malcolm - hasn't the poor chap faced enough adversity already in his early years? Should we be wishing a lifetime of misery, frustration and disappointment on him that supporting SCFC will inevitably entail? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 27, 2019 8:35:50 GMT
The law is now forcing people to make an unnecessary decision. I've had this conversation many times and many people are undecided, many people are for and many people against. It's putting that undecided faction in a difficult position.
It should be opt in.
In that case I would opt out until you know you are willing to be a donor. I would be opposed to any process that makes opting out a difficult process. The problem with opt in is that many people are willing to be donors but are lazy and don't register. That's an awful lot of willing donors who end up not donating. People who want to opt out, I expect, are more likely to be proactive about opting out compared to people who are willing to donate but don't register. You could easily turn that on it's head and say that some people might procrastinate or be too lazy to opt out. Many people won't have that conversation with their families until the time for harvesting comes. The conversation with the grieving relatives will be he/she hasn't opted out which doesn't necessarily inform them of choice.
We're going to have to disagree it's the wrong way around. Over the years there would be an increase naturally of people registering which would be attached to driving licence application, etc which forces people to confront the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Feb 27, 2019 8:47:14 GMT
I know this will open a can of worms and I am inherently in favour of donation, however the thought of my organs going to some gun toting drug dealer, smack head or even the likes of the ISIS woman fills me with sadness.
Yes, there is every chance it could go to a decent and deserving recipient, it’s just I would rather it go to this person than those who contribute nothing to society and continue to expect and will receive the ultimate gift of life from others. I know the authorities would never allow a form of good person eligibility as where do you start and stop with indiscretions and the administration of it, but it’s just how I feel and the thought of knowing my organs or those of my loved ones are propping up someone else’s lifestyle through their choices bothers me. Don’t expect I’ll care though when I’m dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Feb 27, 2019 8:59:12 GMT
My partner worked at a high level in the NHS and nursed many people in end of life situations. It often happened that patients who had opted in to donations and were in the last few hours of their life, had there decission reversed by grieving relatives, who refused permission.
I believe with this new legislation relatives can still withhold their consent.
Hopefully this change in law and the publicity around it will help to change people’s attitudes and understanding of this delicate subject.
Thankfully Max and his family have a future to look foreward to, thanks to Keirra and her family.
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Feb 27, 2019 9:16:16 GMT
Then opt out. The law doesn't force you to donate. The law is now forcing people to make an unnecessary decision. I've had this conversation many times and many people are undecided, many people are for and many people against. It's putting that undecided faction in a difficult position.
It should be opt in.
That's the situation now and not enough people are opting in, would you rather bury or cremate in preference to saving lives? Very selfish! |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Feb 27, 2019 12:43:06 GMT
The new law requiring people to "opt out" rather than "opt in" to organ donation, has been named after Max Johnson, whose life was saved by a heart donation, and Keira, the young lady whose heart was donated (story below). The Stoke City connection is that Max is the grandson of our own Nigel Johnson, Radio Stoke commentator. I don't know whether Max is a Stoke fan - but very well done to him and all the Johnson family, and of course Keira's family, for campaigning for this welcome change in the law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359682 His uncle Roger is a Stoke fan and grand-dad Nigel is so i would think it likely he is  |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Feb 27, 2019 12:45:05 GMT
I know this will open a can of worms and I am inherently in favour of donation, however the thought of my organs going to some gun toting drug dealer, smack head or even the likes of the ISIS woman fills me with sadness. Yes, there is every chance it could go to a decent and deserving recipient, it’s just I would rather it go to this person than those who contribute nothing to society and continue to expect and will receive the ultimate gift of life from others. I know the authorities would never allow a form of good person eligibility as where do you start and stop with indiscretions and the administration of it, but it’s just how I feel and the thought of knowing my organs or those of my loved ones are propping up someone else’s lifestyle through their choices bothers me. Don’t expect I’ll care though when I’m dead. If you or a family member needed a organ would you care where it came from? |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Feb 27, 2019 13:02:37 GMT
I know this will open a can of worms and I am inherently in favour of donation, however the thought of my organs going to some gun toting drug dealer, smack head or even the likes of the ISIS woman fills me with sadness. Yes, there is every chance it could go to a decent and deserving recipient, it’s just I would rather it go to this person than those who contribute nothing to society and continue to expect and will receive the ultimate gift of life from others. I know the authorities would never allow a form of good person eligibility as where do you start and stop with indiscretions and the administration of it, but it’s just how I feel and the thought of knowing my organs or those of my loved ones are propping up someone else’s lifestyle through their choices bothers me. Don’t expect I’ll care though when I’m dead. If you or a family member needed a organ would you care where it came from? It’s where my organs go and I’d prefer them to go to decent people who haven’t lived a lifestyle that has contributed to their need for an organ in the first place or who do little to contribute to wider society. On the flip side as a potential recipient, I would imagine anyone who is damaged through drugs,alcohol, smoking etc won’t have organs suitable for transplant. As for receiving a healthy organ from say a career criminal, bank robber, terrorist etc...well it could be their chance to finally do something good and make ammends for the misery they have caused others. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 27, 2019 15:41:48 GMT
If you or a family member needed a organ would you care where it came from? It’s where my organs go and I’d prefer them to go to decent people who haven’t lived a lifestyle that has contributed to their need for an organ in the first place or who do little to contribute to wider society. On the flip side as a potential recipient, I would imagine anyone who is damaged through drugs,alcohol, smoking etc won’t have organs suitable for transplant. As for receiving a healthy organ from say a career criminal, bank robber, terrorist etc...well it could be their chance to finally do something good and make ammends for the misery they have caused others. To worry too much about who your organs go to after death is to open a can of worms which is better left closed. I'm old enough to remember the first semi successful heart transplant by Christian Barnard in South Africa in the days of Apartheid. It prompted a discussion in that country in which some white people commented that they would be happy to have their organs donated after their death - so long as it was to a white person.  I'm not saying that you would ever suggest such a thing as was suggested in South Africa. But no transplant system would gain wide acceptance if potential donors started putting restrictions on who could be a recipient. How, for example, do you define "decent people"? Everyone would have their own individual prejudices. Would having had an abortion disqualify a potential recipient? For some people it would, for others not. How about religion? Even within religions, some people would only want their own particular "sect" to be included as potential recipients. Protestants might say no to Catholics (and vice versa) - or Sunni Muslims to Shia Muslims (and vice versa) - for example. Best leave such fine tuning well alone and either be prepared either not to donate - or to donate to all. |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Feb 27, 2019 16:43:05 GMT
I know this will open a can of worms and I am inherently in favour of donation, however the thought of my organs going to some gun toting drug dealer, smack head or even the likes of the ISIS woman fills me with sadness. Yes, there is every chance it could go to a decent and deserving recipient, it’s just I would rather it go to this person than those who contribute nothing to society and continue to expect and will receive the ultimate gift of life from others. I know the authorities would never allow a form of good person eligibility as where do you start and stop with indiscretions and the administration of it, but it’s just how I feel and the thought of knowing my organs or those of my loved ones are propping up someone else’s lifestyle through their choices bothers me. Don’t expect I’ll care though when I’m dead. I personally would prefer my organs to not go to someone who has opted out. |
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Feb 27, 2019 18:15:15 GMT
I believe that I am like many others who don't carry a donor card...an illogical fear that doing so would lead to something bad happening to me...crazy I know, but that's the way it is. I am pretty sure there are many more like me and I have heard this mentioned by those advocating the law change
On that basis I am 100% in favour of this change...
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 27, 2019 19:05:10 GMT
It’s where my organs go and I’d prefer them to go to decent people who haven’t lived a lifestyle that has contributed to their need for an organ in the first place or who do little to contribute to wider society. On the flip side as a potential recipient, I would imagine anyone who is damaged through drugs,alcohol, smoking etc won’t have organs suitable for transplant. As for receiving a healthy organ from say a career criminal, bank robber, terrorist etc...well it could be their chance to finally do something good and make ammends for the misery they have caused others. To worry too much about who your organs go to after death is to open a can of worms which is better left closed. I'm old enough to remember the first semi successful heart transplant by Christian Barnard in South Africa in the days of Apartheid. It prompted a discussion in that country in which some white people commented that they would be happy to have their organs donated after their death - so long as it was to a white person. I'm not saying that you would ever suggest such a thing as was suggested in South Africa. But no transplant system would gain wide acceptance if potential donors started putting restrictions on who could be a recipient. How, for example, do you define "decent people"? Everyone would have their own individual prejudices. Would having had an abortion disqualify a potential recipient? For some people it would, for others not. How about religion? Even within religions, some people would only want their own particular "sect" to be included as potential recipients. Protestants might say no to Catholics (and vice versa) - or Sunni Muslims to Shia Muslims (and vice versa) - for example. Best leave such fine tuning well alone and either be prepared either not to donate - or to donate to all. What about your organs going to a Manchester United fan Lakeland?  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 27, 2019 19:12:32 GMT
To worry too much about who your organs go to after death is to open a can of worms which is better left closed. I'm old enough to remember the first semi successful heart transplant by Christian Barnard in South Africa in the days of Apartheid. It prompted a discussion in that country in which some white people commented that they would be happy to have their organs donated after their death - so long as it was to a white person. I'm not saying that you would ever suggest such a thing as was suggested in South Africa. But no transplant system would gain wide acceptance if potential donors started putting restrictions on who could be a recipient. How, for example, do you define "decent people"? Everyone would have their own individual prejudices. Would having had an abortion disqualify a potential recipient? For some people it would, for others not. How about religion? Even within religions, some people would only want their own particular "sect" to be included as potential recipients. Protestants might say no to Catholics (and vice versa) - or Sunni Muslims to Shia Muslims (and vice versa) - for example. Best leave such fine tuning well alone and either be prepared either not to donate - or to donate to all. What about your organs going to a Manchester United fan Lakeland? Given that my organs will be 73 years old in April - I'd be delighted if they went to a Man U fan rather than a Stokie. I'd want Stokies to get a few more years out of any donated organ than they would out of mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 27, 2019 19:15:17 GMT
The law is now forcing people to make an unnecessary decision. I've had this conversation many times and many people are undecided, many people are for and many people against. It's putting that undecided faction in a difficult position.
It should be opt in.
That's the situation now and not enough people are opting in, would you rather bury or cremate in preference to saving lives? Very selfish! 67% are now opting in in England an increase of 10% in the last three years due to education and the various schemes. There's nothing selfish about not wanting your body harvested on your death it should be down to personal choice and with an opt in system rather than pressurising people with an opt out.
It will probably lead to more heartache with surviving relatives who haven't had the conversation. Much better to press forward with education on the matter. Then again it would be much better if this or any other government started to educate it's population on matters of health with obesity and type 2 diabetes on the increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by plymouthpotter4 on Feb 27, 2019 19:36:03 GMT
My partner worked at a high level in the NHS and nursed many people in end of life situations. It often happened that patients who had opted in to donations and were in the last few hours of their life, had there decission reversed by grieving relatives, who refused permission. I believe with this new legislation relatives can still withhold their consent. Hopefully this change in law and the publicity around it will help to change people’s attitudes and understanding of this delicate subject. Thankfully Max and his family have a future to look foreward to, thanks to Keirra and her family. I can echo this. Whether you agree or not with the new law the biggest barrier to organ donation is when families don't know their relatives wishes. Whether you opt in or opt out, just make sure you discuss with your loved ones what your wishes are. I saw Max just yesterday, will shout something Stokie at him next time. |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Feb 27, 2019 20:50:00 GMT
If you or a family member needed a organ would you care where it came from? It’s where my organs go and I’d prefer them to go to decent people who haven’t lived a lifestyle that has contributed to their need for an organ in the first place or who do little to contribute to wider society. On the flip side as a potential recipient, I would imagine anyone who is damaged through drugs,alcohol, smoking etc won’t have organs suitable for transplant. As for receiving a healthy organ from say a career criminal, bank robber, terrorist etc...well it could be their chance to finally do something good and make amends for the misery they have caused others. I was being the devils advocate in a way,if the donor of the organs you/your family might need had decreed it could only go to a certain class or creed and you could not receive a live giving organ how would you/your family feel. In my opinion the chance to opt out of the scheme if you so wish gives the scheme the biggest pool of donors and recipients to save lives i understand what you say about drugs etc. but they to have families etc. who would be affected by a premature death,and as for smoking in my youth smoking was recommended by doctors as a "cure"for people with "bad nerves"? |
|
|
|
Post by ursemboys on Feb 27, 2019 21:11:58 GMT
You don't own your body anymore. Bad law, I would carry a donor card but this is creepy. I get what you mean ,but we dont sort of own it once we are dead and if it makes some ones life better then great ,I do carry donor card but I get why they are doing this opt out.i know a few who say yeah I would donate but never get round to sorting a card . |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 23:40:41 GMT
Is it not better that your organs save someones life. Rather than rotting in the ground or being incinerated. If there are any serviceable bits left when I curl up me toes. They can have the lot.
Well done Max and Keira. Two very brave young people. I am proud to live in the same town as young Max. He has a very wise head on such young shoulders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 28, 2019 0:43:06 GMT
How do you know if you are currently opted in or out of organ donation?
I remember (before this change to the law) filling in a passport renewal form and there was the opportunity at the same time to fill in an organ donation form which I did. I thought I would receive some kind of confirmation or even a donor card but I never heard a dickie! No idea if my request was received and if I was opted in or out.
Either way does this law change everything? We're all in, regardless of what has gone on before, unless we explicitly opt out?
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Feb 28, 2019 1:41:38 GMT
In the US we opt in when renewing our drivers licenses. Organ Donor is stated on your license, which is the logical place since car accident,victims are one of the biggest sources of donors. One of the few things we seem to be getting right these days.
On the question of preferring to give an organ to a “worthy” recipient . I wonder how people feel about donating their livers to alcoholics such as George Best, who I believe had two liver transplants and still died from his disease. How do we judge a worthy recipient? This could potentially rule out entire groups of people such as alcoholics and smokers whose only hope is a liver, heart or heart-lung transplant.
|
|
