For anyone who has endured the agony of waiting for a suitable organ,
be it for themselves or a near relative, it is clear that more must be
done to increase donor rates. However, as praiseworthy as the idea of
presumed consent may appear, it is not as popular as one might suppose.
The World Medical Association believes that a potential donor’s wishes are
of ‘paramount’ importance, whether by agreeing to donate or choosing to
refuse. ‘Consent’ and ‘autonomy’ are considered to be essential concepts
of medical law, but both may be overridden should legislation be passed in
favour of ‘presumed consent.’ Moreover, Britain is a multi-ethnic
society and not all faith groups support the concept of organ donation, in
fact some cultures are strongly opposed to it, for example, those whose
faiths are Shinto or Rastafarianism.
If ‘presumed consent’ were to be brought into the law then a very
expensive publicity campaign would be needed in the interests of
religious/cultural equality and harmony, to ensure that each and every
member of the community was properly addressed. This would be time
consuming and expensive.
However donor lists might dramatically increase in the UK today,
without the need for such consultation. Rather than legislate for
‘presumed consent’ outright, it is suggested that Parliament legislate in
favour of ‘enforced choice.’
‘Enforced choice’ would involve an individual having to indicate
either a yes or no answer to a compulsory organ donation question, as part
of the procedures surrounding important personal applications e.g. driving
licences and passports. Failure to answer the question would invalidate
the application process/document in question.
The benefit of this approach is that it firmly supports the notion of
autonomy, by allowing free choice. Those who profess a desire to donate
would have no excuse not to add their names onto the donor register,
likewise those who do not wish to donate have the right to record their
objections in the same manner.
Rapid Response:
Re: Duty of a doctor
For anyone who has endured the agony of waiting for a suitable organ,
be it for themselves or a near relative, it is clear that more must be
done to increase donor rates. However, as praiseworthy as the idea of
presumed consent may appear, it is not as popular as one might suppose.
The World Medical Association believes that a potential donor’s wishes are
of ‘paramount’ importance, whether by agreeing to donate or choosing to
refuse. ‘Consent’ and ‘autonomy’ are considered to be essential concepts
of medical law, but both may be overridden should legislation be passed in
favour of ‘presumed consent.’ Moreover, Britain is a multi-ethnic
society and not all faith groups support the concept of organ donation, in
fact some cultures are strongly opposed to it, for example, those whose
faiths are Shinto or Rastafarianism.
If ‘presumed consent’ were to be brought into the law then a very
expensive publicity campaign would be needed in the interests of
religious/cultural equality and harmony, to ensure that each and every
member of the community was properly addressed. This would be time
consuming and expensive.
However donor lists might dramatically increase in the UK today,
without the need for such consultation. Rather than legislate for
‘presumed consent’ outright, it is suggested that Parliament legislate in
favour of ‘enforced choice.’
‘Enforced choice’ would involve an individual having to indicate
either a yes or no answer to a compulsory organ donation question, as part
of the procedures surrounding important personal applications e.g. driving
licences and passports. Failure to answer the question would invalidate
the application process/document in question.
The benefit of this approach is that it firmly supports the notion of
autonomy, by allowing free choice. Those who profess a desire to donate
would have no excuse not to add their names onto the donor register,
likewise those who do not wish to donate have the right to record their
objections in the same manner.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests