Dear Editor
Given the long-existing acute shortage of organs due to unwillingness of people to donate their organs after death, a presumed consent system is recently suggested in Hong Kong to help cope with the problem. I am writing to account for the long negative response to organ donation and express my views on the presumed consent system.
Hong Kong is mainly composed of Chinese population. And, although it is a cosmopolitan, many traditional Chinese perspectives, values and moral code, which are implicit yet understood most of the time, are held by many people. Death is commonly regarded as a taboo subject in Chinese community. People do not take the initiative in signing the organ donation card since such action reminds them of death.
Besides, the mainstream Chinese population much prefers preserving the bodies entirely, even after death. They somehow reckon donating organs is equivalent to destroying the bodies, which is not auspicious. Organ donation, in some sense, contradicts Chinese cultures about “wholeness”.
The above perspectives hinder much people’s initiative in committing to giving their organs. But what escalates the matter is the refusal of organ donation from the grieving families, though the dead might have signed the donation card. Actually, the donation card is granted the legality, yet the authority or hospitals often accept the refusal from the families in the name of humanism, while at the same time, at the expense of patients’ opportunities to get organ transport. This “humanitarian” practice, which in fact undermines the legal power of the current voluntary organ donation system, explains much of the shortage of human organs.
That’s why the presumed consent system, in which all individuals are automatically considered donors after death unless they register to opt out of the system, is proposed. Under this proposal, doctors are allowed to remove the patients’ organs right after death. This is unlike the present system in which the doctors have to consult with the dead’s family. This enhances effectiveness.
Though with sound effects and having been implemented in several countries, such automatic-donor-system may spark much controversy. The key issue lies on the ownership of one’s body. One owns his entire body when he’s alive. But what about after his death? Would the body become a property of the family or a national asset? Do people have the right to decide where their bodies go and what their bodies are used for even after death? Of course, if the proposal is really put in place, people can always register to opt out of the system. But above all, it should be a personal decision, and the government is not granted the right to presume every citizen to be an organ donor in the first place.
Also, when the doctors are allowed to remove the organs right after the death of the patients, would the doctors’ decision on when to stop the treatment on a dying patient be influenced? If so, it would be too unfair to the patients.
What’s more, if there’s strong opposition from the deceased’s families, will the authority once again choose the “humanitarian” side, “respecting” the family’s will and alleviating their grieves by preserving their beloved’s bodies? If that’s the case, it will make no difference from the present donor-card method. What actually contributes to the severe inadequacy of organs is the neglect of promises about donating organs after death.
I agree that the proposed system would help save more lives in principle. However, it will also bring about a dilemma between life-saving and ownership of one’s body. I suggest the government put more effort into promoting and enforcing the current scheme.
Yours faithfully,
Chris Wong