Bits of my body being donated when I die.

An interesting point further down the board regarding whether the law/legislature/whatever re. organ donation should be changed.

In other words, should the present system where I can opt in if I want to (with a Donor Card), be altered so that I must opt out of having my organs donated when I am finally hit by a bus?

I personally think this is a sound idea. Part of the problem with opting in is that I am forced to get off my fat backside and register my willingness to donate. Despite being full of good intentions - "yeah, I'll get round to it. Just let me finish this game of Pro Evo 5, phone someone up, surf the net..." - it never actually gets done.

Perhaps people would have the same inertia if they were forced to opt out?

Anyway, my point is this. Like it or not, my bits of body are mine to do with as I please (certainly in life, if not death.) So how about this?

"I am willing, upon my death, to donate my organs to those people who are in need of them - with the exception of people who have in some way abused their body, or have offended the moral sensibilities which the corporeal me would dislike, were I still alive to voice my opinion."

This, then, would preclude a George Best from benefitting from my innards. A BabyJLWBL, however, would be entitled to ransack my bits and pieces in order to, hopefully, increase her quality of life.

Is this a viable scenario? Should I be 'allowed' to exclude certain individuals from receiving my organs? What if I, as a fat pizza-eating blubber mountain, require an organ transplant? Would the doctors ignore the piece of paper from Deceased X which declared: "No fatties get MY organs?" Do I have any rights once I'm dead - certainly, you can libel me as much as you like. That Neutrino? Yeah, he loved stretching the anuses of small boys. My relatives can't do a thing about it, regardless of the gravity of the allegations.

That said, when I make a will - 'X gets all my money!' - it is difficult, but not impossible, to contest my desires.

Thoughts? Or should I just **** off?

 

Can you leave me your brain?

 

RE: Can you leave me your brain?

My dad has the family brain cell this week.

I'll ask him if he'll lend it you when he's done.

 

I just wouldn't bother

if you are so short sighted. Cutting off noses to spite faces comes to mind.
Let's say that someone hadn't become a donor because they didn't want their kidney to go to an Asian (ref Little Britain in reverse this week)or a fat slob and the "powers that be" couldn't guarantee who was going to benefit. Then let's say you need a kidney but it isn't available even though you are a slim Arian. See the problem?

 

No mate it's actually quiet easy to contest a will and quite often they are.
There are some people you should not leave out of your will.
For example, if you left a dependant out of your will they could apply to the Courts for a share of your estate.

The most important thing is that you make a will, if you don't your estate is carved up according to the Laws of Intestasy. This could mean your assets going to someone you don't want them to.

74% of people die without making a will which leaves their loved ones in an uncertain and stressful position when they die. Most people assume that the Spouse or unmarried partner will inherit everything.This is not the case.

I read a case last week where a guy had two children to his wife who he left for another woman but did not divorce. He then had two kids with his new partner and he died without making a will. His legal wife got his personal chattels and the first £125k of his estate, the rest of his estate was shared between his 4 kids and his legal wife who got a life share. His partner got nothing and has to leave the family home when her children reach the age of 18.

It makes sence to have a Will writen and then you know where your estate will go.
Telling people verbally or in a letter is not a legally enforcable Will.

Check out the Supporters trust web site.Look for National Legal Services.
Plug, Plug, Plug



s

 

Imagine this scenario

Those sorts of conditions to donation are a nightmare to apply.

Firstly a tissue match is needed, ruling out the majority for each organ.

Imagine the follow:-
Someone dies tragically but they were thoughtfully on the Donor Register.
Their organs were harvested according to their wishes and were tissue typed.
All were found suitable recipients. The heart had only 1 tissue match, a 50yo male who had been a lifelong smoker and homosexual.

He was informed of the tissue match and had been admitted and prepped for theatre. The organ was being flown from Aberdeen to Brighton. The transplant co-ordinator does a check of the donors register entry and finds the clause that 'no one who has abused their body or would has displayed behaviour I believe to be morally corrupt shall receive my organs'.

So what should the co-ordinator do?

 

RE: Imagine this scenario

This is the question. I don't know what the co-ordinator would do.

I guess I was playing devil's advocate. I can imagine it being an ethical nightmare, though.

That said, I would not want my organs to go to Best. Just because he had more natural talent for a particular field than I do, does not mean that my body parts should prolong what I see as being a catastrophic existence.

I must say I've clouded the issue further in my own mind, though. :s

 

Try this

all the recipients failed to meet the conditions of the donation?

 

Quick before you get hit by postman pat againff

 

That'll teach me to go putting dog shít through letterboxes, won't it?

******* Postman Pat indeed.