[Humour] Most of us are in favour of organ donation right?

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Thank you. I appreciate your reply. I'm sorry that I've rubbed you up the wrong way.

This looks to me like a classic example of how a bit of mucking about between people who do not know one another can get out of hand on an anonymous forum. Those who do (sort of) know me and my sensa fumer would not have got so aeriated, but you don't, so I apologise.

I had abolutely no idea why you started to have a pop at me, actually. My spelling is poor, certainly (ahem). But this thread was 'about' organ donation, and I have strong views about this and have as much right to state them as the guy who said 'no'.

Obviously I'm aghast that you have built up some sort of personality identikit for me (snooty lab technician or whatever). If you have a genuine distaste, then just block me. Don't stalk me! I'm really not worth it.

Anyway, I suspect this is all just a misunderstanding. I suspect you are a lot like me - a stubborn b'stard who won't back down. My laptop won't let me do emojis right now so have a 'bowdown' and a 'thumbsup'.

(I am having massive problems with my lapop - apols if this post appears multiple times)...

Apology accepted.

Let's just press reset. Thanks for thoughtful reply.

 

[Saunders]

I don't accept your reasoning. I have not acknowledged anything. You (apparently falsely) gave the impression you abused human tissue as a medical student. I did not acknowledge that you did. I am not saying it has never happened, but equally I am not saying it does now, let alone is commonplace as you imply, and therefore a reason to not donate an organ, any more than I would argue that we should close all schools because sometimes teachers abuse pupils (etc etc).

Please point out where I have said I abused human tissue as a medical student or that i have been a medical student you seem to have serious problems with reading comprehension. I also dont recall using the word commonplace but hey seems you are used to defending this.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Please point out where I have said I abused human tissue as a medical student or that i have been a medical student you seem to have serious problems with reading comprehension. I also dont recall using the word commonplace but hey seems you are used to defending this.

<sigh>

I'm out.

 

[Saunders]

<sigh>

I'm out.

You accuse me of despicable acts and thats the best answer you can give ok good night

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You accuse me of despicable acts and thats the best answer you can give ok good night

No, you volunteered the acts....

 

[jonnyrovers]

Ok thanks, and you don't see this changing in future times?

The new 'opt out' clause does not give clinicians ownership of your organs, it changes the rhetoric and the mindset of the public. The measured, careful and respectful approach of health professionals towards potential donors and their families will continue. The mindset of the advocates, over time, will shift. We as a population will become increasingly aware of our potential to share our healthy organs with those less fortunate, and can make an informed choice in advance of sad times. I think that's a good thing.

There is not a power shift. The 'state' cannot control the fate of your organs. We are just being encouraged to be kind to our brethren.

In future times, as you say, things will change. You can't stand in the way of change, and I can't predict what that change will be. Change is essential for us to evolve as a society. Where healthcare is concerned, all change is very considered, measured, regulated, and governed in a way that protects us all.

You'll be ok.

 

[jonnyrovers]

I used to teach Med students about trauma management and I'd be lucky to get away without one of them defibbing me or stabbing me with a cannula.

Anyone working in this field will instantly see the holes in your silly claims. You don't get 'defibbed & stabbed' if you teach your students how to learn safely. If you haven't planned your teaching session sufficiently, and you haven't mitigated against the risk of personal harm, then you simply have nothing to offer the world of healthcare. You are promoting a world of 'us & them', 'I'm a paramedic so all student doctors are crap, I'm a midwife so all nurses are crap' etc etc etc....

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Anyone working in this field will instantly see the holes in your silly claims. You don't get 'defibbed & stabbed' if you teach your students how to learn safely. If you haven't planned your teaching session sufficiently, and you haven't mitigated against the risk of personal harm, then you simply have nothing to offer the world of healthcare. You are promoting a world of 'us & them', 'I'm a paramedic so all student doctors are crap, I'm a midwife so all nurses are crap' etc etc etc....

No. What I used to do was scenario setting so we had students working in extremis. We be in confined spaces and out of hospital, major incident events.
The students were not idiots but could be very Gung Ho (especially the rugger bugger ones) and get into daft situations with dangerous kit.

Besides, we used to stop them before any mad stuff happened but my point is that overly confident clever people can lead to catastrophe. We used to video them then watch back and say " you're waving an unsheathed cannula round there, you're standing in a puddle holding a defib" etc.

 

[1066familyman]

The new 'opt out' clause does not give clinicians ownership of your organs, it changes the rhetoric and the mindset of the public. The measured, careful and respectful approach of health professionals towards potential donors and their families will continue. The mindset of the advocates, over time, will shift. We as a population will become increasingly aware of our potential to share our healthy organs with those less fortunate, and can make an informed choice in advance of sad times. I think that's a good thing.

There is not a power shift. The 'state' cannot control the fate of your organs. We are just being encouraged to be kind to our brethren.

In future times, as you say, things will change. You can't stand in the way of change, and I can't predict what that change will be. Change is essential for us to evolve as a society. Where healthcare is concerned, all change is very considered, measured, regulated, and governed in a way that protects us all.

You'll be ok.

Yeah, it's almost as though Alder Hey never even happened.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I find it odd that many people don't realise that they can donate a kidney and live quite happily with one. I have been around for 50 years with just one kidney - having lost 1 to cancer when I was 1. My second has now given up. Lots of people do donate kidneys while alive, not just family. There are several schemes for donation.

 

[jonnyrovers]

Yeah, it's almost as though Alder Hey never even happened.

Fair point, but that was 30 years ago, was an isolated hospital not ‘the state’, and on the back of the investigation ‘the state’ changed the law to ensure it never happens again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1066familyman]

Fair point, but that was 30 years ago, was an isolated hospital not ‘the state’, and on the back of the investigation ‘the state’ changed the law to ensure it never happens again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, it wasn't an isolated hospital. And there were laws in place at the time which were broken. It did result in law change as well though, as you say.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Actually, it wasn't an isolated hospital. And there were laws in place at the time which were broken. It did result in law change as well though, as you say.

Given your raising this scandal is in the context of a conversation about whether or not doctors remove human tissue against the wishes of the dead, it can only be viewed as a rebuttal to [MENTION=28232]jonnyrovers[/MENTION]' patient explanation of how things work today and will work tomorrow with 'opt out'. The retention of tissue and whole embryos at Alder Hey was a disgraceful example of the arrogance alluded to by others in this thread, but it isn't an exemplar, let lone a reason to oppose 'opt out'. Not now. Perhaps you just raised Alder Hey as 'food for thought', but I would say it has relevance to 'opt out' only as a reminder that procedures, checks and balances always need to be in place. When people flagrantly break rules this is wrong. But the fact that rules get broken in every walk of human life is no more reason to oppose 'opt out' (if you do) than citing Beverley Allitt as a reason for bannng the practice of nursing. Given the history and scope for misunderstanding on this thread I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that you think the practice of nursing should be banned.

As an aside, and a comment on the gung ho attitude of some doctors ('rugger bugger' types), the process for selection of medical students is quite a challenge, and it is certainly the case that there is a cohort who have been traning to acquire the necessary CV (lots of volunteering etc) since early teenage and yet have little actual empathy and see medicine as a good way of earning a decent crust (or even making themselves a better marriage prospect). I know this because I have seen it, and because some concerned students have told me about it (both examples). We even have a number of students who do not 'believe' in science, gender equality, etc (this is here-say - information given to me by other students). However, once again, this is no more representative of the profession as a whole than the Russian nazi hoolies described in another thread are typical football supporters.

In the final analysis no legislation can make every aspect of every human activity 100% safe. But it is important to not make rules so onerous that processes are crippled and, in the present case, the supply of organs for transplant ceases (this is a consequence of 'opt out'). I'm happy with the current trajectory.