Talk:National Organ Donor Act, (665)

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/03/2024 1:08 PM

Tabled by Josef Kovac, MGA, as an independent member's bill. An act to facilitate organ transplants in Kodiak. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/National_Organ_Donor_Act,_(665) Voting set for 12 January. The Kodiak Republic Wiki National Organ Donor Act, (665) An act to facilitate organ transplants in Kodiak. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/03/2024 1:09 PM

@Assembly Member, debate is now open for this bill. Wayhe — 01/03/2024 1:12 PM Full support Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/03/2024 1:25 PM Mr President,

This has my full support. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/03/2024 1:27 PM

As a doctor yourself, I am interested in hearing your particulars for the support of this bill. Your profession has seen a lot of alteration during this term of office and surely has some opinion about the general changes, especially one such as this. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/03/2024 1:45 PM In regard to my opinion on the rapid change seen in the profession I practice, Mr. President, I am of the opinion that if a doctor is unable to accept the inevitable changes of his profession, then he should not practice in the first place. Throughout my two decades in the profession, there have always been changes here and there; it is only natural for medicine to advance with time. In fact, the very methods my own father, the late Edmund Sr., taught me, I seldom use today. Now, is that because I am using incorrect methods, or is it more likely a sign of change in the profession? I would argue, Mr. President, that is a sign that the general procedures of the medical profession have changed. And this is not at all a bad thing; rather, it is a showing that doctors are keeping up with the times as well as being regulated by up-to-date laws. As a doctor, and for all doctors, there exists a responsibility not only to care for a patient but to also ensure that you are using modern methods. After all, you don't hear any doctors in Kodiak using a saw to amputate a leg.

Therefore, Mr. President, it makes logical sense that I support these medical bills, not to benefit myself but to benefit my patients and even the patients of other doctors. In terms of my support for this particular bill, I have never done post-mortem organ transplants, to be honest. Although I have interacted with fellow practitioners that do, I'm fully aware of the drama around it. Personally, as a doctor, I would never do a post-mortem organ transplant, but that doesn't mean I don't keep myself informed. And I am of the opinion that having an opt-out system is beneficial, although I would prefer it to be compulsory. Insofar as I have always been perplexed as to why someone would need to opt out, after all, they won't need those organs when they're gone.

I hope, Mr. President, that has given some insight. And I'd be glad to elaborate further. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/03/2024 1:46 PM

Thank you, Dr. Maltravers, that is quite insightful. Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 01/04/2024 2:12 AM This has my support, organ donations save lives.

I have some questions and thoughts to bring to the floor:

If we want to be more thorough we may want a clause in Article One that explicitly states that organ donation is opt-in and therefore if a citizen is not on the registry then they will by default not be considered valid donors. In this case perhaps we might want to include that if the citizen is not on the registry then the healthcare provider/hospital/etc may receive informed consent and authorisation from the citizen's family.

On that note, do we therefore legislate the ability to register to NOT be a donor? i.e., an explicit opt-out. Which may be important to some people for various reasons.

---

In Article 3, this proposal seems to suggest that the family will have no say should the citizen in question be on the registry (per clause 3.4). I am comfortable with this being the position the assembly takes, but wanted to highlight this in particular.

We might perhaps want to extend this clause or make a new clause that surgeons will return the body in a state suitable for an open casket funeral if possible when performing organ extraction.

Especially considering the conotations of KROD 'seizing' bodies. I understand the intention though and my assumption is that it is intended that the family have the body returned afterwards, so perhaps rather than seizing the body we can word it as KROD can arrange to extract organs prior to returning the body to the family in said presentable state as much as possible. Obviously miracles can't be worked depending on the nature of death.

Of course this is assuming the assembly takes the stance that the final say is in fact the donors wishes as per their registration and no family consultation / decision is required. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/05/2024 8:17 AM

Just a few notes for the author.

1.2 Why should the national registry be limited only to those wishing to donate organs after death? Could this not also be a registry for donors wishing to give organs during their lifetime? I myself have considered donating a kidney or at least tissue and bone marrow. I do not believe that the registry should be limited to the deceased alone.

For 2.2, I would like to see that become the standard. It should be automatic that the recipient and the donor both are anonymous to each other and their families.

I, too, share concerns with Ms. Sousa. I find the use of "seize" to violate the idea of body autonomy. In the case of a corpse, the family has the greatest right to control what happens to that body, not the state. In this case, I believe better wording might alleviate any fears that donors, and their families, may have. Perhaps "If a funeral cannot be conducted without disrupting the organ donation process, the wishes of the donor will take precedence, and the donation will proceed." Something along those lines might provide a better wordage.

An interesting element to allow for a National Donor Day. A commendable effort and one that should, given time, encourage more voluntary donors. Josef Kovac — 01/05/2024 8:35 AM I've added a clause specifying that the registry is opt-in. At the moment, I'm not convinced that we should include informed consent. What if the family believed in donation while the "donor" did not? I like to avoid legalizing desecration.

I also don't think we need to create a non-donor list unless we include informed consent. Without informed consent, a non-donor list would be a waste of KROD funding.

I've changed the wording of the "seizing" clause to Mr. Kyro's wording. I've also added a sentence to ensure that the family can still hold a funeral after the donations are complete.

Pre-mortem donations are important, however, the donor is still alive. Because of this, they can give consent. The point of the registry was to allow the deceased, who can't give consent, the opportunity to donate.

I've changed the wording of 2.2 to be an opt-in instead of the opt-out. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/05/2024 8:48 AM

Indeed, living donors can provide consent. But with the creation of a national registry that allows for donors to match blood types and other genetic necessities in order for a donation to occur, I don't believe that, in good conscience, we can exclude them from a national registry. It's one thing if a person wishes to donate a kidney to a close relative or friend in need; it is another if someone across the country with the same rare blood type needs a kidney. I still believe that allowing volunteers to join the registry is just as important as allowing for premortem consent. Josef Kovac — 01/05/2024 5:02 PM I've changed the wording and added a clause to permit premortem donations, within reason. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/05/2024 5:30 PM

Excellent. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/07/2024 1:10 PM Mr President, given that this debate has fallen quiet, I motion to vote. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/07/2024 1:22 PM

Any one to second Dr. Maltravers's motion? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/07/2024 1:34 PM Second Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/07/2024 1:35 PM

The motion is seconded. If there is no objection, this bill will head to a vote tomorrow morning. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/09/2024 7:32 AM Mr President, may I enquire as to when this will go to vote? Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/09/2024 8:20 AM

I apologize, the election has distracted me. I will put this to vote now EasyPoll BOT

— 01/09/2024 8:22 AM

Question Does the General Assembly approve of the National Organ Donor Act, (665)?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [15 • 83%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 11%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 6%] 18 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (6 hours ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: c3bf3fb8 Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/09/2024 8:23 AM

@Assembly Member, voting for this bill has opened and will remain open for 72 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Yesterday at 8:55 AM

@Assembly Member, only one more day to vote on this bill. Be sure to cast your vote before the polls end. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Today at 2:21 PM

With 15 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 abstain, the National Organ Donor Act, (665) is passed by the General Assembly. This debate will be archived shortly.