Presumed Consent in Organ Donation??

[aREDSKIN]

I realize that it's just a resolution under consideration but what kind of pandoras box would this open up? IMO this is just so wrong. If people feel stongly enough to donate their organs upon expiration then they would have taken the necessary step to do it legally and without gov't interference.

AMA urges new organ donor laws

CHICAGO, June 14 (UPI) -- U.S. doctors suggested Monday that one way to obtain more donor organs is to assume people would want their organs to be used by someone else.

At the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, members considered a resolution urging states and the federal government to copy European laws that assume people want to be organ donors unless they specifically decline.

"We have to do something to change the system," said Dr. Stephen Schwartz, a psychiatrist in Huntington Valley, Pa. "We are standing by idly while people are dying. We can't stand by and let them die."

According to statistics from the United Network for Organ Sharing, about 6,000 people in the United States -- 17 people every day -- die because they cannot get an organ that could keep them alive.

The process is known as presumed consent for organ donation and the AMA resolution calls for its adoption nationwide. An alternative proposal, called mandated consent -- in which individuals are required to disclose whether or not they wish their organs to be harvested -- also is under consideration.

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/06140000aaa04844.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking

[Leonard Washington]

i heard you have to pay extra property tax if you're an organ donor in VA. i also heard that the doctors are more willing to let you die if you your organs can be used in another transaction.

[jenmdixon]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ORGAN_DONATION?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jun 15, 8:50 PM EDT

Plans Outlined to Boost Organ Donation

By MIKE COLIAS

Associate Press Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- The group that sets U.S. hospital accreditation standards unveiled proposals Tuesday to close a growing gap between the number of people willing to donate their organs and those who need transplants.

One strategy would urge hospitals to halt the common practice of seeking a family member's consent for organ donation if the would-be donor has already registered to donate after death, according to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.

About 85,000 people are on waiting lists to receive an organ such as a liver or kidney, and some 6,000 people a year die while awaiting transplants, the United Network for Organ Sharing says. Both figures are at their highest levels since donation lists began.

"Until supply catches up with demand, we'll have a growing public health problem," said Dennis O'Leary, president of the joint commission, which held a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

Laws in 39 states say no consent from the next of kin is needed if donors declared their intention to donate, according to the report.

"We've seen far too many times when ... the family's views on donation may actually trump the decision of the donor," said Ronald Davis, director of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention at the Henry Ford Health System.

But O'Leary said hospitals fear the bad publicity and threat of a lawsuit if they move forward without consent.

The commission's report also recommends studying disparities in transplantation rates among ethnic groups. For example, the report says black patients wait an average of 1,603 days for a kidney transplant, versus 675 days for whites.

The report says the disparity largely is because there are fewer black donors to match organs with recipients.

Recent efforts to educate minorities led to a 24 percent increase in blacks donating organs last year and a 20 percent increase in Hispanic donors, according to Elizabeth Duke, administrator of the federal Health Resources and Services Administration.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[jenmdixon]

I think a big part of the problem is education, both on the part of the medical field/NIH (in not getting the word out enough in schools, hospitals, casual office visits, etc.), the insurance companies (for not detailing in plain English what the cost would be to the donor - none, in most cases, I think), and on the part of the potential donor (they are not talking about this with their families to make sure that their wishes are known, are not discussing this with their doctors in advance, and are not making sure that their wishes are documented on their drivers licenses or anywhere else, in many cases - it's just too morbid).

Although this is a laudable cause (trying to save people), that doesn't mean that the right should be given of harvesting organs or tissue of a living person to another person without the donor's consent (or the guardian of the donor, in the case of children). Even though I am a firm believer in organ/tissue/marrow donation (I am a registered donor), I can understand why other people would not make the same decision (my husband is not a potential donor) and those people who choose not to be a donor should have their wishes respected.

Hm. Just had a thought. How would this affect stem cell research, or other such types of research? If you take the consent part out of the donation process, would that make it easier for the medical profession to move ahead with that research?

edited to say that I am sure that our resident medical professionals will be sure to chime in, I hope, with their views...this is an interesting topic