Should we move to an ‘opt-out’ system of organ donation?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
What's going on?
This week the family of a schoolgirl in Wales made the brave decision to allow their daughter's organs to be used in transplant operations after she died of an asthma attack.
Although it’s difficult to comprehend the pain her parents felt as they were asked, their decision resulted in five other children receiving healthy organs and possibly saving their lives.
This comes after an NHS survey revealed that, in order to make organ donation a normal part of UK culture, a majority of people would back moving to a system where patients are automatically placed on the donor's register, and have to "opt-out" if they do not wish to donate.
The Welsh Government is proposing to introduce a "soft opt-out approach" from as early as 2015.
Have they got the right idea?
Case for: Save a life
Every year a staggering one thousand people die waiting for a donor organ. 90% of people in the UK said they would allow their organs to be used – and yet under a third of us have joined the Organ Donor Register. It’s an individual choice, and the opt-out option would be there if you chose it. If tragedy struck, what better way could your body be used?
Case against: State intrusion
It may seem the height of selfishness to wish to keep one's own organs after death. For certain, there's little use for a fine pair of lungs or kidneys six feet underground. But this isn't simply a question of medical need, it's another example of unwarranted state intrusion into the lives of citizens. By forcing me to "opt-out" of organ donation, the state effectively rules that my body is on loan for as long as I live - but after death reverts to their care. I for one believe that my corpse is my own, and I'll decide how to dispose of it myself.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments