Organ transplant operations are increasing all the time, as medical science and techniques continually improve.

If organ donation increased to make supplies too plentiful for our own use, I feel that the next level would be the sale of excess organs to the highest bidders, possibly other countries, in another attempt to raise funds towards the ever increasing costs of our health service. Could this back fire, as we could no doubt end up back where we started, because, as a nation we seem to provide for all others without counting the cost? Then we would have to import organs. Could this ultimately become big business?

Quote from debate in America during 2001:

'The black market trade in human organs is already thriving. Entrepreneurs offer the opportunity for British patients to receive privately financed transplant operations in India and Malaysia. An American citizen was recently arrested in Rome for offering human hearts and pancreas glands for sale to Italian doctors. In February, two Chinese government officials were charged with the sale of the organs of executed prisoners. In February, two Chinese government officials were charged with the sale of the organs of executed prisoners. In 1983, Dr. Barry Jacobs requested that the U.S. government create a fund to compensate the families who donate the organs of deceased relatives, or ‘cadaveric donors’. Dr. Jacobs also proposed to set up a business that would buy kidneys from living donors for transplantation in American patients. The proposal raised popular opposition. The National Organ Transplantation Act in 1984 still prohibits the sale of human organs from either dead or living donors.'



Do you think it is better to donate rather than face the possibility of our organs being taken without consent?

Do you think that organ donation should be compulsory or should we be given the choice of either an ‘opt-in’ or ‘an op-out’ scheme?

Do you find this to be an ethically, acceptable proposition or not?

Since when has any government let ethics stop them making money?

Maybe this could be a way of reducing the N.H.S. deficits, and bringing those empty mothballed wards back into use at the same time.

You die, you get resuscitated, then get moved to the special wards till your organs are needed, all the while they can farm your blood, which has a monetary value abroad as well.

All in all a bit like the book and film 'Coma'.

IMHO if you would accept an organ donation in a time of need you should be willing to donate if and when you don't need. My husband was against donation for years but when his last driving licence came through there was a part asking would he donate in the event, he asked my opinion, I put it to him if I were in in need would he want me to have someone else's donated organs to which he replied yes and then the lightbulb appeared above his head so to speak.

My dad was dying last year. He had end stage kidney disease. Yes he was on dialysis 3 times weekly but he was ill every day in between. Yes he was on transplant list but we weren'thope ful. After all who would give a kidney to a 74 yr old? They do try to transplant similar ages of organ. But in august last year a wonderful family sadly lost their 67 yr old father. And amazingly they gave six people the chance of a new life, one being my dad. Post transplant is very GCSE with intensive appointments , ups and downs. But he is 7 months post transplant and i have my dad back. My children have their granddad back, and my mother has a pretty healthy husband again.
So why am I telling you this. We will always be forever grateful for that amazing family. Just seeing our family go through this has encouraged four of my friends to get a donor card . I do believe it should be opt out. Unless you have specific religious reasons why can't you make the circumstances of your death help others? Financially i don't believe it is going to make the NHS money. Post transplant care and medication is exceptionally high. Its cheaper to let the people needing organs die . The hospital expect the patients doctor to refuse to supply the anti rejection meds due to their costs. . . Then they pay them.
This is just my opinion but i have my dad "back" they expect kidney to last up to ten years . . . Im just making most of every day .

What a wonderful story Jinxi.

If I pop my clogs and there are bits they can use they would be most welcome.

i myself have been on the organ donation register since i was 17, i am now almost 36, but when i was 32 i was diagnosed with end stage kidney failure and had to have dialysis 3 times a week untill i recieved a transplant from a very kind family who had just lost there father,if it had not been for this kind family i probably would not be here today, so i am all for making the donor register a opt out system where you are automaticly put on it at birth.there is a lot of people out there that are not willing to donate but they would accept a donated organ if they or one of there loved ones needed it.in the uk alone a average of 18 people a day die due to there not being enough donated organs.
I also agree with jinxi about gps refusing to perscribe anti rejection tablets due to the cost so there for if they do end up selling extra organs to fund the nhs i dont think it is a bad thing,but this will more than likely never happen due to the amount of people already waiting for a transplant.

In reply to your comment about registering people at birth. Do you think that is fair, considering a baby or child cannot make a decission to opt out. Let us remember the horrendous affair which took place at Alder Hey Hospital a few years ago, when they had organs which had been preserved. The trauma it caused the bereaved families could not be justified.

There are also Jehova's Witnesses who would not accept that idea and other religious groups to which this would be against their beliefs. Maybe an age of 18 or 21 years would be a better option to make it compulsary.

what about a system were you could be payed legally for your organs ???

its certainly no more radical than getting people to donate from birth in my opinion ,and im sure there would be plenty of people willing to do it for profit at there own risk ..

obviously there is not enough people voulenteering to donate at the moment othertwise there would be no shortage ..

and as for the alderhey thing yes that did leave a very bad taste so to say ,but i feel although its relevant its not really comparable ..
but it does also beg the question do we really ultimately have a choice anyway ???

That's one option I suppose NON_CUSTOM, but not much good to you if you're dead.
If payment is given during a lifetime of health, we all have to die of something and maybe, by that time our organs might not benefit anyone (being diseased for example). Then the problem would arise from the so called legal owners of the organs, wanting their money back, which may not be possible.
I am very divided on this. Part of me is very much in favour, but tinged with worry for the recipients of organs, in case they receive organs from a diseased body which had not yet been identified, which happened very recently.
Don't know the best option but I agree that choice probably won't come into eventually.