Mother denied daughter's organs...

[stogie bear]

Mother denied daughter's organs...

A mother who urgently needs a kidney transplant has branded the system which denied her the organs of her dying daughter as "ridiculous".

Laura Ashworth, 21, from Bierley, near Bradford, West Yorkshire, died on 2 April, two days after an asthma attack.

Her mother Rachel Leake, 39, has kidney failure, but Ms Ashworth's kidneys were given to strangers.

Despite her personal wish to help her mother Ms Ashworth's organs went to others on the transplant waiting list.

Ms Ashworth, the mother of a two-year-old girl, was on the NHS Organ Donor Register, which records a person's wish to donate organs after death.

She had also told her mother she would be prepared to be a "living donor", but had not begun the formal process.

As a result Ms Ashworth's kidneys and liver were given to three patients on the UK Transplant waiting list...

The whole story is here...

Here's an interesting dilemma for a lot of people including the medical profession and the family...

But I found myself feeling angry that the dead girls organs were whisked off to save strangers despite the girls own wishes to help her own mother.

Surely the girl should be able to save her own mother before some strangers she's never met, right?

I'm afraid that if this had been me I would have stipulated that my organs could ONLY BE USED to help my family and if that wasn't possible they should be destroyed!

But that's me!

Were the medical people right? Should the people in most need and longer on the waiting list take precedence over the girls own flesh and blood?

I don't think so.

[katoeylover]

Its an ethical and moral question.

The donor list is there and you move up as others ahead of you get organs.
Can you decide where your organs should go? I think not, you either give or dont, you cant have a jew saying no arabs/muslims or a racist saying no blacks, so where does the line get drawn.

In this instance the daughter should have put it in her will, not as a last minute, by the way.

[Monkey]

(stogie bear @ Apr. 12 2008,17:12) Were the medical people right? Should the people in most need and longer on the waiting list take precedence over the girls own flesh and blood?

Yes I think that's fair.

Having said that I don't know how sick the mother is and what her quality of life is but if other people urgently needed bits as a matter of life and death and the daughter was on the 'public' list then that's fair imo

Perhaps the daughter should have ripped up her donor card and left her bits to her mum in a legacy or something...

[stogie bear]

you either give or dont, you cant have a jew saying no arabs/muslims or a racist saying no blacks...

Why not? It might not be tasteful and politically correct, but a person should have some TOTAL control over how his own body is used in the event of an accident.

And on a similar issue...

I'm about sick of seeing doctors, nurses and ambulance crews wasting all their time and resources on druggies and drunks, especially in the A & E hospitals.

At the moment it's about 'the greatest (medical) need' and this is the order in which patients are treated.

That's fucking bullshit. It should be about how much you are gonna be worth to society if your ass is saved.

Drunks and druggies should have their own special hospitals to fuck off to and leave us normal folk the fuck alone.

[stogie bear]

(Monkey @ Apr. 13 2008,01:34) Yes I think that's fair...

Welcome back mate...
I hope you are doing OK...
Hope next year is better than this one.

[Monkey]

(stogie bear @ Apr. 12 2008,17:38)

(Monkey @ Apr. 13 2008,01:34) Yes I think that's fair...

Welcome back mate...
I hope you are doing OK...
Hope next year is better than this one.

Thanks

Yeah, me too, roll on 2009...

[Naang Faa]

Almost but with my record..errrr

Last week there was a discussion program here on Thai TV about
people refusing blood transfusions from Katoey or gays,despite the
blood being screened and they want the right to deny their blood
to Katoeys and gays also...whoppers!
Anyhoo,as Monkey puts it,fair enough.If there is a more urgent case
then it's the Dr's job to attempt to save lives..I do think though that the
self inflicted folk,the druggies alcoholics and the lung cancer from smoking
should pay their own medical expenses...
And for the record I paid for every single surgery i have done refusing to
be a drain on the NHS ...even counselling at £150 per hr..
x

[stogie bear]

about people refusing blood transfusions from Katoey or gays, despite the
blood being screened and they want the right to deny their blood to Katoeys and gays also.

And so they should. Anyone should be able to give blood to whomever they damn well choose.

If the hospital doesn't like that attitude then refuse the blood.

About the only thing we truly own is our own bodies. It's the only thing that we can make better or destroy at our own whim.

For me personally I don't give a hoot who gets the good bits of my rotten carcass, but I do strongly believe that everyone should be able to decide how they share theirs.

[Naang Faa]

Whats the point of discriminating against someone who can't
help what they are..
Will my blood make them TS? are they judging me on the things
i did in my life? Will their blood make me a narrow minded pathetic
bigot?
x

[stogie bear]

But those arguments are surely for those on the receiving end of blood transfusions, right?

"I don't want the blood of a Christian/Chinaman/Salesman!"

You can exercise your pompous right to discriminate when you're about to die and see how long the machine goes bleep bleep bleep!

For those with a plan I'd say it's worth donating your body in much the same way as you would donate your house and cash...

It's YOUR body, NOT the National Health's! And you should be able to do with it what you like in much the same way you can divide your house and cash in your will.

[rxpharm]

As a health care professional, I have to strongly disagree with the comments regarding blood donations. I have seen the benefits that blood donations do, and have been a recipient of this as well.

Specifying who can receive donations is discriminatory, adds complications to the process and totally negates the whole point of donating blood, which is to save a life.

Can you imagine a dr. in the ER saying to the blood bank - now have we got 5 pints of blood that has not been banned to an overweight, balding UK man who loves lbs? Right and while they are scanning the system to see if there is enough of the right type, and if the donor does not object to the recipient the victim dies from lack of blood, because too many donors have placed restrictions on their donations.

Get real! The current system works well enough, thanks very much! When I donate blood (25 pints so far) I do it because I know it can help someone who needs it - and it is up to the dr. to decide who will receive it.

As for the story featured in the post - KL had it right - we don't know the whole story and if the daughter had made it in writing with the help of a lawyer, then the mother probably could have had the kidneys.

[stogie bear]

Yes yes yes yes... A very reasonable and socially appropriate reaction.

But there are millions of people who don't care (like me) who gets their bits in a crash. There are millions who don't allow any kind of donorship at all.

There are even some who wish to decide for themselves how their body parts are used after they die.

That's NOT an unreasonable demand.

With the technology we have available to us today we should easily be able to get bits of dead people to the bodies of live ones and STILL respect the wishes of the doners.

The problem is really that there is no sensible scheme that 'banks' everyones wishes before they have a crash and die.

How about having a global online database where everyone in the whole world can sign up and decide how their remains are used.

It's SO SIMPLE...

All a hospital has to do is go on line and in a second she'll know exactly what to do with the dead persons good bits...

Hmmm... could be a good idea for a website...

[kahuna]

(katoeylover @ Apr. 13 2008,02:25) Its an ethical and moral question.

In this instance as rxpharm has pointed out it's more likely a legal issue...get the lawyers involved and you can throw ethics and morality out the window...

[terryw]

I have seen the story on Sky News today. The mother is seriously ill having had a kidney transplant 7 years ago - the kidney is now failing.

The daughter expressed her wish verbally that one of the kidneys should be used to help her mother - she did not inform the National Organ Donor Register. The hospital was not prepared to act upon a verbal request.

The mother is now looking after her daughters 2 year child. Her sister has volunteered to donate one of her kidneys - the transplant is scheduled for June.

Personally I think that the behaviour of the hospital is morally a disgrace but I suppose that those responsible will hide behind their lawyers.

[pacman]

Not one post here that I don't agree with at least part of it.

I can't see how blood donations in any practical way could be separated & no Govt will be introducing that legislation anytime soon.

Organ donations are entirely different & despite the sheer frustration experienced by those on the waiting list, is there any reason why
there couldn't be an over-rider in favour of immediate family members?

The mother-daughter situation cited here is absurd & no-one would have denied mum's right to one of her daughters kidneys.
Two others would still have been saved, it's just another case of political correctness gone mad.

Naang raises an interesting point about donated blood making someone TS. While there is no evidence that a strangers blood affects the recipient -
there is a mountain of evidence of character transformation after receiving donated organs.

Check this link for the latest confirmation       http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1774

The good news for Naang is my offer of cut-rate counselling, let's make it 100 quid an hour, I'll supply the beer & the friendly shoulder.

Can't be fairer than that.