BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Presumed consent - life after death

 
 
astrojax69
00:55 / 14.01.08
wasn't sure whether to post this is head shop or the lab, but thought the really critical issue was the one of 'presumed consent'.

scientists can build a heart from first principles, well almost, but the article also mentions the donor bank and trying to increase it.

that's good, prima facie, but i am a little worried about the capacity for science to cut up and used any and all dead meat at its whim unless while alive the meat made the right noise.

to declare up front, i am actually not so worried, in that if science wants my corpse thay can have it, but i worry about the potential drivers of an industry that then uses the corpse even when gathered in some nefarious way - with the evidence scattered far and wide and newly living again. i gather from alleged anecdotes that chinese prisoners provide organs, some executed on dubious grounds (well, all grounds for executions are dubious, but i mean in the china framework context), or people just 'dying - o my, oh well, we needed a liver' with few questions asked.

what protection for the vulnerable in the community is afforded by PMs and other figures of authority who seem to go with the flow like this?

what do others think about this? what is wrong with the concept of making the move to say yes, rather than having to make the move to say no?

should this be moved to the lab? to convo??
 
 
*
05:57 / 14.01.08
I'm looking at my advance health care directive form (which I haven't filled out, because I'm waffling about naming someone as my agent, and I don't want to do anything until I'm quite sure on that point one way or another). Now, in the US, you can tell someone you want your organs donated but unless they are your agent or your next of kin that actually has no bearing whatsoever. Your organs won't be donated unless someone with the legal authority to make that decision says so, or unless you have a legal copy of this form on file. The form allows you to specify which parts of your organs you are willing to donate and for what purposes (choices for the latter include: transplant, therapy, research, and education). Without this form, or the say-so of your legal next of kin or legally designated agent, your organs are going nowhar but into the ground or into the furnace or whatever. Unless something incredibly illegal happens, which is not what you're talking about here I think.

Now, the problem with this system is most people who would want to be organ donors don't have any idea how to become one. They often assume that their close kin will know that they would want to donate and would make the right choice (in the middle of their own grief) if they were to die. So I don't think presumed nonconsent is the way to go either. Ideally absolutely everyone should fully understand the issue and have their preferences on file, and they should confirm or update their preference every year, but how do you get people to do that when you can't get most people (myself included) to come in for a physical every year?
 
 
astrojax69
07:31 / 14.01.08
surely a conversation with your GP and the result on a file ze holds would settle the matter a lot more broadly than the US system you describe, zippy, while avoiding the presumed consent disaster that looms in the article i posted.

but i agree, it should be easy to register (australia has a donor register which the person signs up to themselves - easy, but i've not got much info on how well it works. am seeing my GP tomorrow, shall ask her...
 
 
astrojax69
07:31 / 14.01.08
)
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:54 / 14.01.08
Well in the UK Gordon Brown has said he'd quite like to change the system to opt-out rather than opt-in, although I seem to recall the Government backs the National Blood Service who don't want the blood of men who like to do anything other than stick their willies into a lady's Widdicombe. This would obviously lead to problems, either the National Blood Service have got to STOP BEING PREJUDICED FUCKS THANX! or gay men have to be rounded up and stuck on an island in the North Sea so that, in the event of their death, their blood and organs don't kill our children.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:07 / 14.01.08
Well in the UK Gordon Brown has said he'd quite like to change the system to opt-out rather than opt-in, although I seem to recall the Government backs the National Blood Service who don't want the blood of men who like to do anything other than stick their willies into a lady's Widdicombe.

From the UK Transplant website:

Can I be a donor if I have been turned down to donate blood?

Yes. The decision about whether some or all organs or tissue are suitable for transplant is always made by a specialist, taking into account your medical history. There may be specific reasons why it has not been possible to donate blood, such as having had a blood transfusion or having had hepatitis in the past. Or there may be reasons why you could not give blood because of your health at the time – sometimes a simple thing like a cold or medication that you are taking can prevent you from donating blood.

There are only two conditions where organ donation is ruled out completely. A person cannot become an organ or tissue donor if they have been diagnosed with HIV or have, or are suspected of having, CJD.


Which would seem to suggest that organ donation is a less discriminating process. But an opt-out donation system would, in theory, have more difficulty screening people on the nebulous basis of "lifestyle". As with blood donation testing for disease is done regardless. The perception that gay men are more likely to contract STDs than those "oh-so-careful" straight men is not based on any recently done studies (to my knowledge).

but i am a little worried about the capacity for science to cut up and used any and all dead meat at its whim unless while alive the meat made the right noise.

Ignoring for a second my normal irritation at colourful depictions of "science" as a generalised monolithic force that ignores bothersome questions of ethics, I think it's fairly important that the reason for the "dead meat" being cut up is actually analysed a little more deeply.

We're talking about organ transplants used to help others live less painful or longer lives (longer lives due to having functioning organs rather than in a "mwoo haa haa I am rich and shall live forever on the organs of the innocent" kind of way).

I accept that people, for one reason or another, might be a little uncomfortable with the thought of someone harvesting their organs before absolutely everything can be done to save them. Or uncomfortable due to spiritual reasons. But at the end of the day what's wrong with them being the ones who have to write off an say they don't want to donate? My personal view is that it makes it easier for people to donate.

what protection for the vulnerable in the community is afforded by PMs and other figures of authority who seem to go with the flow like this?

What protection is there now to stop the vulnerable signing a doner card? What do you mean by "the vulnerable"? People who cannot make an informed consent? This could be covered though and they could be automatically excluded from donation.
 
 
Twice
18:51 / 16.01.08
Whether or not the State, or perhaps our fellow citizens, have an inherent right to our organs is going to be a long argument. It's possible that the argument is unnecessary. I assume that the government has studied the alternatives long and hard and am a little confused as to why it appears that they are heading towards the inmposition of assumed consent. He said that such a system would be modelled on the sucessful Spanish system. If this is so, assumed consent is only a small part of the story.

As a cadaveric transplant recipient, I often find myself in a minority opposed to compulsory donation. My reasons for this are personal, subjective and perhaps not helpful here. However, I would point out the Spanish system has particular elements as effective as assumed consent which I would like to see given more attention.

It would also be worth looking at the so called Scandinavian System, where education and the common practice of Living Related Donations (LRD) has reduced waiting lists considerably. A 1999 Austrian study said

Organ allocation in other regions of the world is organised somewhat differently. In countries with a very high organ supply (e.g. Spain with an exceptionally well developed deceased organ procurement system or Scandinavia with a very high living donor rate) mostly local sharing is attempted. Large minorities wihin the population as in the UK or the USA lead to an inequity of access to organs if the focus of allocation is too much on tissue-matching and therefore in these countries more emphasis is put on non-HLA [human leukocyte antigen – tissue matching] factors.

The success of the Spanish system is undeniable:

the demand of transplants has led to the development of a permanent network of trained medical staff responsible for the organ donation and removal process in all centers accredited for that process. In Spain, this activity received a specific budget, like any other medical activity in hospitals, and the responsible staff became accountable for performance. This system dramatically increased the number of potential donors referred, not only young donors with trauma, but also elderly donors dying from stroke. The effect was that the donation rate increased by more than 100% in 10 years (from 14 to 34 donors per million population).


This BBC article gives and idea of how the system works in Spain.

Spain has 35 organ donors for every million people in its population - that is three times the UK rate of 12.9 per million. While the law presumes consent, the doctor who set up their system says in practice families are always asked for consent..."During the early 1990s we had a 30% refusal rate, at the moment it's about 15%"...[Dr Rafael Matesanz] points to Rioja, a small region of Spain in terms of its population. Seven years ago it was languishing behind many other regions in organ donation...In 2003 a new transplant co-ordinator was appointed and the change has been quite remarkable. This individual doctor has galvanised the regional hospital to such an extent that last year they had the equivalent of 74 donors per million population, double the already high Spanish national level.

Dr Matesanz sees no reason why the Spanish system could not be copied with equal success in other countries including the UK.

"We know that in 2005, 45 British people died in Spain, 45 families were approached and said yes. So while the family refusal rate in the UK is 40%, for British people in Spain it is zero."


But that's not the whole story. Merely introducing assumed consent in the UK wouldn't do much to decrease the number of people waiting for transplants, even if it was compulsorily imposed. Our transplant units are designed to cope with the current supply of organs; there's no point having a bunch of empty beds and underused surgeons, waiting for the flow of organs to increase. There will need to be corresponding increases in staff and facilities to carry out the increased number of surgeries, and if we are to follow the Spanish system, there will need to be similar investment in coordination staff and public education. For years, governments have helped fund advertising which encourages the public to carry donor cards, and for years has failed to answer the question "Why?". Despite assumed consent in Spain, it appears to be better training and education which has made their system sucessful.

(Apologies for slack linkage. astrojax: why did you put this in Head Shop? It's dark in here, and fusty, and I don't like it.)
 
 
astrojax69
22:54 / 16.01.08
sorry...

but the reasons were much as you have covered - i for one would be interested in hearing of your experience, esp in that i'd expect a recipient would be generally in favour of presumed consent, not against it.

i find myself undecided - on one hand it seems a good practical solution provided the opt-out system is practical and efficient. on the other hand, it prescribes the uses for my body and it seems to contravene something deep inside that wants me to be the owner of me.

practicality vs selfishness - who wins?

and can i ask (don't feel obliged to answer or even discuss) if the transplant has been wholly successful and recovery in full? godspeed.
 
 
Twice
18:37 / 17.01.08
Well I hesitate to discuss how I feel, here, but I’ll give it a go.

While I was waiting for my transplant (kidney), a number of my friends and family wanted to explore other ways to make my time on dialysis more manageable and my future more secure. I’m short on a reference, but I was told at the time that around 10% of people on the renal TX list die before a transplant becomes available. One person, who was a quite good friend, argued long and hard for the foreign purchase option. At the time, there was a deal of publicity about the harvesting of organs from Chinese execution victims. My friend felt this would be sensible; I was appalled. My father made great efforts to secure charitable funding for a dialysis machine in order that I could dialyse at home and increase my independence. When we approached my hospital with this suggestion, my renal consultant said “Lovely. We would be delighted if another machine were made available to the unit. However, your daughter will have to wait in turn until one comes available for her to use. I will not have people in my unit who have advantages over the person in the next bed.” I agreed. Eventually, I got a machine at home. I didn’t jump the queue.

The transplant list is a mysterious thing. It is commonly claimed that it works on the basis of tissue matching, and organs are offered to those whose match is best. This is not entirely true. While it works like this in general terms, there are times when a patient who is becoming acutely ill is offered a non-ideal match. With heart transplants, this is more open, with campaigns often made on behalf of specific patients. Likewise bone marrow. With kidneys, acutely ill patients are sometimes offered imperfect organs, because the need is dire. This is what happened to me. My science will fall down greatly, here, but I will try to explain tissue matching as it was explained to me. Very simply, tissue is matched on three criteria marked by numbers 0, 1 or 2. A genetic twin would have a 0:0:0 match, and variants thereof for suitability for transplant. The closer to this you can get, the less immune suppressive drugs are required to maintain the transplant. Anti-rejection drugs tend to be, sadly, nephrotoxic. I was offered a kidney with a 2:2:2 match, and it was explained to me that this was the minimum they were prepared to risk. I was given a 60% chance of getting through without rejection. Very seriously, I was offered the opportunity to refuse the organ, although it was explained to me that it was felt that the situation was urgent. I mulled it over for about half a second.

Being on dialysis is a bit like watching your friends get old. Your faculties deteriorate very slowly and in such a way that you hardly notice the change. You always feel ‘normal’, but you are just less able. Having a kidney transplant is like having the lights switched on after a long darkness. In brutal terms, if your kidney works immediately (as mine did; I pissed 18 litres in 24 hours), it’s like recovering from the worst hangover in history. Twenty four hours after surgery I suddenly realised I could smell again, and hear things clearly, and think clearly and see properly. It is a quite amazing experience.

From the moment I woke up, I knew that the kidney in my groin was mine. It is not borrowed. It is not a loan. It was a gift. I never, not for one second, felt that I had had another person’s vital organ in my body. Mine. A life saving gift. I never tried to find out much about the donor. When I was lying in bed before the operation I saw the courier arrive with his picnic box, and I knew that it had my kidney in it.

He was a year older than me; he lived in Cardiff; he died of a brain haemorrhage. He gave me a gift.

You see, astrojax asked the question “practicality vs selfishness”. I love that man who gave me his organ, although I never knew him. He, and his family, were selfless. I had no innate right to his kidney; neither will I have an innate right to the next organ I will (hopefully) get, now that his is failing. He has given me seven years of life, and I am proud that I have made good use of those years.

I have no right to expect another person to do that for me. I had no rights over his body. I have been kept alive for 30 years by artificial means, and I am mightily grateful for that. Natural Law, if such a thing exists, would have seen me off as a child. I’ve spent large portions of my life nose to nose with Death, and I’m not afraid. If somebody gives me more life, I will do the best I can with it.

Sorry. I’ve just dirtied Head Shop.
 
 
astrojax69
06:58 / 20.01.08
beautiful, toes, really lovely. i am very moved by your account, especially the rationale about the gift. and I suddenly realised I could smell again, and hear things clearly, and think clearly and see properly. is just poetry.

i have qualms about harvesting organs, too. as you eloquently put it, we have no rights but it makes a great deal of common sense to provide for others when we can; but surely this must be a considered response to our own lives and how we've lived and experienced them, not some forced bureaucratic machine inflicting a 'choice' upon us.

thanks for a deeply personal and insightful post.

my dad had a cancerous kidney removed a few years ago, though while not as debilitating as the need to dialyse, it was a trying and emotionally-draining time for the family. he's entirely fine now with one still very healthy kidney, but i can empathise somewhat with your experience.

i am listed as a marrow donor and all our family are registered donors in australia - do you find yourself advocating listing as a donor to people you deal with, or do you remain quietly assured that your life has been led in its own path and others will find their own way, too? (you don't strike me as evangelical...)
 
 
Peach Pie
11:45 / 10.04.08
One thing that troubles me: I've heard suggestion that the method for determining death - lack of brain stem activiity - may be inadequate. The organs must be harvested while the body is still warm; the patient may be alive in some senses while s/he is being cut open.
 
 
Twice
09:19 / 11.04.08
I imagine that's why next of kin (currently) have the last word. I suppose those making these decisions have to make their own standards according to their own ethical stance. The word 'inadequate' might be troublesome in its own way, too.

I mean, when it comes to point of death, science and personal opinion will probably at odds for some time. For some, death may occur at the point where there is no hope. There is a lot of anectdotal evidence of 'a moment' of death which lies outside of science. If the only way to reconcile the two is by waiting for the body to get a bit smelly, then call it: there would be no transplants.
 
  
Add Your Reply