Organ donation and the B.M.A idea

[JonathanL]

Others have demanded more, but you would need a recent case for a better figure. I think attitudes may have hardened since the scandal first broke.

 

That said, it would depend on individual circumstances and the effect on the relatives. Trying to pass it off as trivial is despicable, even for a potential schoolboy.

 

I didn't pass it off as trivial.

 

Why would you need a more recent case? It's nothing to do with hardened attitudes. The parents brought an action for psychological damage due to the doctors breaching their duty of care to them. They were awarded a small amount of money. A small amount is all you are ever likely to get unless you have a complete mental melt down which is somewhat unlikely.

 

These sort of settlements are exceedingly rare and involve small levels of compensation, hardly suggestive of opening the flood gates to an immense potential for litigation, or however you phrased it.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

It is not just the compensation, Barristers don't work for peanuts, nor do the medical experts.

 

Any chance of an answer on the school question?

Edited July 4, 2013 by Gordon R

[JonathanL]

I think the costs awarded could go way beyond that if you can prove that by the organs being removed you suffer psychiatric injury,it would be how much injury as to the monies paid.

 

Will pass your birthday wishes on

 

The costs were awarded for psychiatric injury.

 

J.

[bruno22rf]

Aris-in response to your questions-YES -I would have taken an organ from anyone who was a match-If you stood by me long enough I would have popped yours out

[welsh1]

 

I didn't pass it off as trivial.

 

Why would you need a more recent case? It's nothing to do with hardened attitudes. The parents brought an action for psychological damage due to the doctors breaching their duty of care to them. They were awarded a small amount of money. A small amount is all you are ever likely to get unless you have a complete mental melt down which is somewhat unlikely.

 

These sort of settlements are exceedingly rare and involve small levels of compensation, hardly suggestive of opening the flood gates to an immense potential for litigation, or however you phrased it.

 

J.

in this case it opened the way for 1348 to claim, if they could prove psychiatric injury. this would mean a pay out of £3,707,000

 

 

 

The costs were awarded for psychiatric injury.

 

J.

that's what i said

Edited July 4, 2013 by welsh1

[JonathanL]

It is not just the compensation, Barristers don't work for peanuts, nor do the medical experts.

 

Any chance of an answer on the school question?

 

Cases which are only likely to bring low levels of compensation don't come to court that often because they aren't worth the hassle from the claimants point of view. Also, ones like these are are hardly every day occurences so aren't a carreer long source of income for lawyers.

 

Even if the opt-out system caused a ten fold increase in mistakes in taking organs from people who had not consented then it would still be a virtually insignificant increase in business for lawyers. It certainly would not be an opportunity for immense levels of litigation, or however you put it. The fact is that it would be of even less significance than the cases of tissue being illegally removed from babies and kept without consent as it seems that there would be far less likelyhood of psychological damage to the relatives.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

And the school?

[welsh1]

 

I didn't raise the subject of compensation, you did. Tell you what, you give me your assesment of how much compensation a family would get if their relatives organs were taken in the absence of their consent, along with a sensibly reasoned argument as to how you arrived at the figure and I'll respond with mine. No games or trying to evade the subject from either of us.

 

Over to you.

 

J.

Come on then,reasonable argument shown,probability to be able to sue with case laws provided,and how the figure was arrived at,over to you

[JonathanL]

in this case it opened the way for 1348 to claim, if they could prove psychiatric injury. this would mean a pay out of £3,707,000

 

 

that's what i said

 

You provided a link to a case where the award was £2,750;

 

FalconFN responded by saying that that was probably about the cost of a couple of months of dialysis;

 

In response to that you said;

 

"I think the costs awarded could go way beyond that if you can prove that by the organs being removed you suffer psychiatric injury"

 

The £2,750 was awarded for pyschological injury in the first place. That was the whole basis of the action. The fact that the case might have paved the way for others to claim is not the point you made. You said, quite clearly, that the costs could go up if you could prove psyciatric injury but pyschitric injury was the whole reason for the award of £2,750.

 

J.

 

Come on then,reasonable argument shown,probability to be able to sue with case laws provided,and how the figure was arrived at,over to you

 

See post 231.

 

In short, low and you'd get about three grand.

 

J.

Edited July 4, 2013 by JonathanL

[ack-ack]

Chuffing hell, its like poirot meets dougie houser.

[JonathanL]

Chuffing hell, its like poirot meets dougie houser.

 

Who's who?

 

J.

[ack-ack]

 

Who's who?

 

J.

You are the manifestation of both. No offence intended, i'm quite enjoying spectating on this one.

[welsh1]

 

You provided a link to a case where the award was £2,750;

 

FalconFN responded by saying that that was probably about the cost of a couple of months of dialysis;

 

In response to that you said;

 

"I think the costs awarded could go way beyond that if you can prove that by the organs being removed you suffer psychiatric injury"

 

The £2,750 was awarded for pyschological injury in the first place. That was the whole basis of the action. The fact that the case might have paved the way for others to claim is not the point you made. You said, quite clearly, that the costs could go up if you could prove psyciatric injury but pyschitric injury was the whole reason for the award of £2,750.

 

J.

 

 

See post 231.

 

In short, low and you'd get about three grand.

 

J.

Read my post again,you could claim if you can prove psychiatric injury,it would then be the level of injury(psyhiatric) as to the level of claim,the claim wasn't for this in the first place but it was awarded by the courts, that is what opened up for compensation for others.

The level could potentially go up as awards for children are comparability small against adults.

 

The original claim was for wrongful interference and negligence.

[aris]

Aris-in response to your questions-YES -I would have taken an organ from anyone who was a match-If you stood by me long enough I would have popped yours out

I might too. When one is in a corner with no escape except to compromise your ethics - it is a choice many would take. This is where the law comes in - to help us make those ethical choices.

 

There is a thriving trade in organ sales from India. People sell their kidney to pay debts, or to feed their families. Technically it is illegal, but it happens.

[welsh1]

Shall we stop this thread now? as it is 240 posts in and i feel like we are treading water.

 

I can dig up different case laws and obscure facts,but it is all meaningless until an actual mistake happens under the new system and a judgement is made.

 

Does everyone else feel like we have covered it all and some?

[Pole Star]

Did that stranded martian manage to get the next saucer off this planet ?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Pole Star

[welsh1]

Did that stranded martian manage to get the next saucer off this planet ?

only you could.

to be honest I think he now works in mcdonalds, likes the shape of the burgers.

 

have we now covered everything relating to this thread only

Edited July 5, 2013 by welsh1

[Gordon R]

Irrespective of all the differing views - mine included - I repeat that the thread has heightened awareness of the Organ Donor scheme on here.

 

I am grateful for this. It reminded me and I have spoken to my wife and two lads about it. I have also spoken to a few friends.

 

So with all due respect to everyone - the thread (good and bad) - has served a useful purpose.

[welsh1]

Good point Gordon, and one which I had lost sight of.

[aris]

Irrespective of all the differing views - mine included - I repeat that the thread has heightened awareness of the Organ Donor scheme on here.

 

I am grateful for this. It reminded me and I have spoken to my wife and two lads about it. I have also spoken to a few friends.

 

So with all due respect to everyone - the thread (good and bad) - has served a useful purpose.

 

Well said - debate is always good.

[Pole Star]

Well Gentlemen I am some what fed up with this one but I do think its a very delicate subject & to hear people refer to other peoples tragically deceased loved ones & talk of them as mere spare parts in a scrap yard to salvaged at will & at the earliest possible convenience & then casually say too bad their loved ones will just have to get over it

is in my opinion bordering on the edge of inhuman !.

 

Just imagine a prime unfortunate young victim cut up & salvaged at will ? how would you feel if it was one of your loved ones ? say all usable parts gone by the time you get there ? what would be left to bury ? just the scrap parts that no one wants ? & then some one just shrugs their shoulders & says tough luck its within the law ! dont worry you will just have to get over it , good bye ! .

 

Well that is cold cruel & inhuman but in Wales that is what is about to happen . On the other side of the coin what if you have a loved one desperately in need of a trans plant ? you have to hope some ones loved one will get killed in the prime of there life in order for your loved one to live but at the same time you dont want anyone else's loved one to get killed .

 

There is no easy answer to this & it is my view & the views of many that the law regarding this in England & Scotland is correct as it stands .

Last word on this lets hope it never happens to you .

 

ps JL the documentary about the strange unexplained side effects of transplant recipients you did not see did you ? Pity ? .

 

pps if such a situation happens to one of the welsh assembly members who voted for this I just wonder how they will feel ?

 

ATB Pole Star I think I will go down to the loch for a trout !

Edited July 5, 2013 by Pole Star

[JonathanL]

Well Gentlemen I am some what fed up with this one but I do think its a very delicate subject & to hear people refer to other peoples tragically deceased loved ones & talk of them as mere spare parts in a scrap yard to salvaged at will & at the earliest possible convenience & then casually say too bad their loved ones will just have to get over it

is in my opinion bordering on the edge of inhuman !.

 

Just imagine a prime unfortunate young victim cut up & salvaged at will ? how would you feel if it was one of your loved ones ? say all usable parts gone by the time you get there ? what would be left to bury ? just the scrap parts that no one wants ? & then some one just shrugs their shoulders & says tough luck its within the law ! dont worry you will just have to get over it , good bye ! .

 

Well that is cold cruel & inhuman but in Wales that is what is about to happen . On the other side of the coin what if you have a loved one desperately in need of a trans plant ? you have to hope some ones loved one will get killed in the prime of there life in order for your loved one to live but at the same time you dont want anyone else's loved one to get killed .

 

There is no easy answer to this & it is my view & the views of many that the law regarding this in England & Scotland is correct as it stands .

Last word on this lets hope it never happens to you .

 

ps JL the documentary about the strange unexplained side effects of transplant recipients you did not see did you ? Pity ? .

 

pps if such a situation happens to one of the welsh assembly members who voted for this I just wonder how they will feel ?

 

ATB Pole Star I think I will go down to the loch for a trout !

Having read your diatribe it is pretty clear that despite this massive thread you still don't actually grasp what the new system actually works.

 

It is NOT a right for the government, NHS or anyone to take someones organs under any and all circumstances. If you don't want your organs taken then you opt-out and they cannot be taken. Also, you can opt-out of having certain organs taken. If you don't opt-out then you are presumed to have consented. Further more, it only applies to those over 18. Parental consent will still be required for those under that age.

 

The notion that doctors will routinely hack people to bits for parts like a carcass in a slaughter house is cheap scare mongering and displays a basic lack of understanding of the the system is designed.

 

As for the stress to relatives. Well, perhaps it will be stressful but if a person is of legal age then they should have the right to determine what happens to their body, not their family. The family may not like it but families quite often don't like decisions their relatives make but they have to live with it.

 

The rather important point you are missing is that this system actually gives more autonomy to those who opt out. At present there is no legal way in which you can prevent your body from being harvested for organs as your family can give consent. If you opt-out under the new system then there will be a legal bar to your organs being used. So, if you have strong feelings on the matter you now have much greater scope to make sure your wishes are respected.

 

J.

[welsh1]

Oh j,

You just don't get it,it's not about having your organs taken without consent,it is the fact that governments have placed you in a position where you now have do something to stop them.

 

As you said your family can give away your organs,but i think they would also respect my wishes if i didn't want that to happen,All that would take is a conversation over the dining room table.Now i will have to fill in forms or go on line and fill them out,and as shown the nhs has a dire record of misplacing/inputting wrongly/wiping data so i can't say that i am happy with the thought they will get it right.

 

 

Next stop blood donation,you will have to opt out if you don't want to,or how about bone marrow tests,after all the register is very small,if everyone had to do it unless they opt out then it would only be for the good,right.

 

 

 

Any way after last night i have pickled my liver and kidneys,anyone who wants them is a brave person.

[JonathanL]

Ok, so you are now presumed to consent. So what? I just cannot see that it's a huge problem. It's an entirely reasonable point of view to start from; one that people are likely to want to help their fellow man rather than not.

 

So, you have to fill in a short form or tick a box on the internet - big deal. It's a tiny amount of effort, quite frankly and just one of those things that life throws at you. We have to do lots of things we might prefer not to have to do but again that's just life mate.

 

The objection to the system because someone might get it wrong is a tad ridiculous too. They might indeed get it wrong but if that is a reason for not doing something then we wouldn't do anything. We certainly wouldn't have an organ donor system as the things you are suggesting as potential problems with the new system can happen with the current one. With an opt-out system the worst that could happen is that someone who has opted out gets their organs transplanted so that someone in desperate need doesn't die. Hardly a massive deal.

 

J.

Edited July 7, 2013 by JonathanL

[welsh1]

j j j j

 

You do go off on one,

 

It is all about the government laying claim over you,all the other points are side issues, and you are spectacularly good at going off at tangents from the nub of the debate.

 

We live in a world where i am now a citizen of the uk not a subject.

 

Subject does what he is told

 

citizen has the right to be heard

 

 

The government should not be able to tell me what to do with my body(apart from the health implications of dead bodies lying around),it is the last little bit we all had left in how our lives are controlled by the state,and now without consultation the welsh assembly see fit to impose opt out on me.Not fair .Not right.