Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Ronald M. Davis and Phil H. Berry Jr naturally write from a medical
viewpoint, echoing our own BMA's recent call for an opt-out system to
replace voluntary organ donation.
It is difficult to imagine how operating on patients without knowing
their wishes regarding organ donation, rather than letting them die in
peace and with dignity, serves their best interests. We are assured that
the requirements governing removal of organs in prime condition inflict no
suffering, or even discomfort on the dying patient. Unfortunately the dead
are unable to return to corroborate this comforting belief.
No one can guarantee a foolproof opt-out procedure to ensure that
organs are never removed against an individual's wishes or religious
beliefs. How could one ever be certain every patient had been informed of
the opt-out requirement
and made a conscious decision whether or not to donate?
If our bodies are simply a source for harvesting useful spare parts,
why do we have expensive and elaborate funeral rights instead of simply
posting them into a hospital disposal shoot?
Enthusiastic support for a change in current practice tends to
confirm the views of patients who consider that doctors see them as a
collection of maladies and body parts, not as individuals. As far as the
UK is concerned, the proposal, coming so soon after the Bristol baby
scandal which included
removal of hearts without even notifying parents, seems singularly
insensitive. Under the circumstances, it is hardly calculated to help re-
build public confidence in the profession's respect for its customers.
Undoubtedly there is a need to increase the supply of suitable organs
but the BMA and like-minded institutions would be better advised to devote
some of their considerable resources to activating patients' natural
altruism by
producing imaginative schemes which help GPs to sign up donors. Perhaps
they could lobby the Department of Health to offer a financial incentive
for a minimum number of signatures. The precedent already exists with
targets for
child immunisation and cervical screening. This approach would maintain
respect for the principle of informed consent, crucial if doctor/patient
partnership is to become more than mere rhetoric.
Organ donation
Dear Editor
Ronald M. Davis and Phil H. Berry Jr naturally write from a medical
viewpoint, echoing our own BMA's recent call for an opt-out system to
replace voluntary organ donation.
It is difficult to imagine how operating on patients without knowing
their wishes regarding organ donation, rather than letting them die in
peace and with dignity, serves their best interests. We are assured that
the requirements governing removal of organs in prime condition inflict no
suffering, or even discomfort on the dying patient. Unfortunately the dead
are unable to return to corroborate this comforting belief.
No one can guarantee a foolproof opt-out procedure to ensure that
organs are never removed against an individual's wishes or religious
beliefs. How could one ever be certain every patient had been informed of
the opt-out requirement
and made a conscious decision whether or not to donate?
If our bodies are simply a source for harvesting useful spare parts,
why do we have expensive and elaborate funeral rights instead of simply
posting them into a hospital disposal shoot?
Enthusiastic support for a change in current practice tends to
confirm the views of patients who consider that doctors see them as a
collection of maladies and body parts, not as individuals. As far as the
UK is concerned, the proposal, coming so soon after the Bristol baby
scandal which included
removal of hearts without even notifying parents, seems singularly
insensitive. Under the circumstances, it is hardly calculated to help re-
build public confidence in the profession's respect for its customers.
Undoubtedly there is a need to increase the supply of suitable organs
but the BMA and like-minded institutions would be better advised to devote
some of their considerable resources to activating patients' natural
altruism by
producing imaginative schemes which help GPs to sign up donors. Perhaps
they could lobby the Department of Health to offer a financial incentive
for a minimum number of signatures. The precedent already exists with
targets for
child immunisation and cervical screening. This approach would maintain
respect for the principle of informed consent, crucial if doctor/patient
partnership is to become more than mere rhetoric.
Roger M Goss
BMJ Editorial Board
Patient Concern, PO Box 23732,
London SW5 9FY
Competing interests: No competing interests