January 14, 2008
Organ Donation
Gordon Brown's new plan for "presumed consent" for organ donation, modelled after the Spanish institution which boasts the highest number of organ donors in the world, is in my opinion, dubious. Despite good intentions, there seems to be obvious side effects resulting from the use of such a system.
Firstly, besides the obvious human rights issues - that we should get to decide what happens to our bodies after death, there are possible adverse side effects. By putting political clout behind this move, in a bid to get doctors and nurses to be more alert in identifying possible donors before their death, it could play havoc with the medical staff's subconscious. Assuming the patient has various organs suitable for donation, and has consented to donation after being sought out by donor coordinators, no one can possibly know if the medical staff would put less effort into keeping this patient alive.. obviously, the exception would be terminally-ill patients. Nonetheless, this could be a case of saving one at the expense of the other, and doctors have to make the choice between the one more easily saved, or the one that is harder to save, excluding the political/ reputational perks that go with making successful organ transplants.
Secondly, there is the matter of education of the public. With presumed consent, it is highly probable that a large majority of the general low-income population who are less likely to follow the news would remain unaware of this. Furthermore, since they have a higher mortality rate due to the high-risk, low-pay jobs, the living habitat or the decreased access to healthcare as compared to the wealthy, these would possibly make up the highest proportion of organ donors, especially under the "presumed consent" model.
There are also problems when it comes to tradition and culture of ethnic minorities in the UK, such as the chinese, muslims and hindus. There are cultural and religious taboos with regard to the removal of organs. Furthermore, there is certain emotional trauma to family members involved, especially if they had no inkling of the program prior to receipt of their recently deceased loved one's corpse. Imagine what you would feel during funeral preparations, you had to face a mortifyingly ugly slash across the body. Doubtless, it would have been sewn up. Yet such a sight would be an additional blow to the loss of a loved one.
These are just some thoughts that floated into my mind while i was browsing TODAY, bored at work! I guess the point that struck me most would be point 1, on how doctors and nurses could be influenced, and i feel that it is quite an important and intriguing issue - how such measures can backfire from being an improvement to a disaster to the healthcare sector although such effects may never be adequately proven by empiricism or statistics.
Gordon Brown's new plan for "presumed consent" for organ donation, modelled after the Spanish institution which boasts the highest number of organ donors in the world, is in my opinion, dubious. Despite good intentions, there seems to be obvious side effects resulting from the use of such a system.
Firstly, besides the obvious human rights issues - that we should get to decide what happens to our bodies after death, there are possible adverse side effects. By putting political clout behind this move, in a bid to get doctors and nurses to be more alert in identifying possible donors before their death, it could play havoc with the medical staff's subconscious. Assuming the patient has various organs suitable for donation, and has consented to donation after being sought out by donor coordinators, no one can possibly know if the medical staff would put less effort into keeping this patient alive.. obviously, the exception would be terminally-ill patients. Nonetheless, this could be a case of saving one at the expense of the other, and doctors have to make the choice between the one more easily saved, or the one that is harder to save, excluding the political/ reputational perks that go with making successful organ transplants.
Secondly, there is the matter of education of the public. With presumed consent, it is highly probable that a large majority of the general low-income population who are less likely to follow the news would remain unaware of this. Furthermore, since they have a higher mortality rate due to the high-risk, low-pay jobs, the living habitat or the decreased access to healthcare as compared to the wealthy, these would possibly make up the highest proportion of organ donors, especially under the "presumed consent" model.
There are also problems when it comes to tradition and culture of ethnic minorities in the UK, such as the chinese, muslims and hindus. There are cultural and religious taboos with regard to the removal of organs. Furthermore, there is certain emotional trauma to family members involved, especially if they had no inkling of the program prior to receipt of their recently deceased loved one's corpse. Imagine what you would feel during funeral preparations, you had to face a mortifyingly ugly slash across the body. Doubtless, it would have been sewn up. Yet such a sight would be an additional blow to the loss of a loved one.
These are just some thoughts that floated into my mind while i was browsing TODAY, bored at work! I guess the point that struck me most would be point 1, on how doctors and nurses could be influenced, and i feel that it is quite an important and intriguing issue - how such measures can backfire from being an improvement to a disaster to the healthcare sector although such effects may never be adequately proven by empiricism or statistics.
posted by sneakytrixie at
1/15/2008 07:59:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home