All of a sudden it goes ahead

It goes to Karl Lauterbach (SPD) and Jens Spahn (CDU), in the future, each as an organ donor, does not speak during the lifetime explicitly. However, the members will be asked whether the Deceased explained that he was against the donation.

The aim of the draft law is more an organ donor is clear. In Germany, about 10,000 people waiting for a kidney, a liver, a heart or another Organ. In many other European countries, the donor numbers are higher than ours. It must change something.

In many countries there is a contradiction solution. Even a, not even the relatives are consulted.

It seems simple: With the opposition solution to reach higher numbers of Donors. With the applicable in Germany, decision-making solution, the removal of organs only with the consent of the deceased or of the relatives is allowed to lower.

Jens Spahn tweeted in the run-up to the Bundestag debate, he supported the opposition solution, “because all others will not bring substantial improvements for the many thousands of patients.”

But this is a fallacy.

The key lever, the clinics are

2018 Doctors reported in a study in “German medical journal” that it is stuck in one area in particular: The clinics reported rare potential donors to the German Foundation for organ transplantation. You came to the conclusion: Would all of the hospitals, as some hospitals did in the framework of a model project, there would have been in 2018 instead of 877, approximately 2780 organ donation.

This would be a tripling of the Dispenser without having to replace the decision-making solution, by the contradiction solution!

Why not screw the politics of this obviously important Parking? The answer is astonishing: she already has.

The corresponding amendment of the transplantation act has already passed the Bundesrat. The transplant representative in clinics more time for this important task. Hospitals are compensated for organ donations better. Mobile teams of experts will in future assist hospitals for the brain death diagnosis.

And the Bonus for this amendment: None of these measures restrict the freedom rights of the citizens, as it is the contradiction solution would do. Congratulations, Mr. Spahn!

Whose bodies it goes?

Who is responsible for the contradiction solution, you must ask the question: Who would be? by the Amendment to the organ donor, no one is the decision solution It will be those people who could not deal with the issue, or wanted to.

Who has a clear opinion towards organ donation and this is a Pro or Contra on an organ donor card documented, and his family notified, for almost nothing changes by the contradiction solution. He must be only in a new tab, enter, or more to the Intervention of his family trust.

Anyone who feels overwhelmed, who doesn’t want to – decide – for whatever reason-or can be explained in the contradiction solution is simple for the donor. Who has no relatives to intervene, then, whose organs are taken.

Of course, these organs would save lives, and that is an Argument, difficult to counter. But this rescue would have at least price that not only those people donate organs, to this explicitly. This is a much higher price than the more generous quotas for TRANS-ation is planning to hire and better pay for the removal clinics.

Do you want to pay him?