Have you checked first that tattoos do not affect organ donation eligibility, or have any legal/medical weight whatsoever compared to, say, an organ donor card or check on your driver’s license?
It would be worth double-checking your local regulations, but tattoos do not generally restrict you from organ donation. You should make sure you get your tattoo from a licensed business, of course.
As far as legal status—that is a good question. I would think that as long as you updated it at least as often as you update your driver’s licence, it would remain a valid indicator of your intent. That might mean adding a date to the tattoo, and adding another one every few years. You might contact your local hospital and see what they would do if they had a fresh corpse with no ID but a organ donor tattoo…
I would think that as long as you updated it at least as often as you update your driver’s licence, it would remain a valid indicator of your intent.
Why? Doctors have procedures for how to deal with organ donations. That procedure means looking at driver’s license and organ donor cards. There are huge legal risks for them being creative.
I had to give up on trying to find out if a tattoo can count as consent on its own—I would guess that it would be iffy territory unless you had it notarized and witnessed.
It might still be worthwhile to have a tattoo; it does tell them that you have given consent, meaning that they will make an extra effort to look for consent (In the US this means a state database). This would only be relevant if you are found without your drivers license/ID. There are a number of fringe cases where you might be found dead and dying without easy access to your ID, but they are admittedly rare. They are also more likely to cases where your organs aren’t usable (fire, ravaged by bears, rip tide carries you out to sea). However, if the legal team gets any head start on finding a John Doe’s organ donor status, on average this is likely to result in increased organ salvage.
Here’s a revised suggestion, for social feasibility, effectiveness, and pain reduction: get a tattoo of a red heart and the words organ donor and your name in a protected area (e.g. on the side of your trunk, just below the arm pit). Until RDFI chips become common this is also probably one of your best protections against becoming a J. Doe (I mean, other than living a sane and safe life).
I had to give up on trying to find out if a tattoo can count as consent on its own
The core question isn’t whether it can legally count as consent but whether the process that a medical team uses when it finds a dead body recognizes the tattoo.
I am not a first responder, but if I had a pile of corpses and one of them had an organ donor tattoo, that corpse would definitely be flagged for special attention and quick transport to the morgue. I wouldn’t count on it being legal for them to make an extra effort to ID one body before another just based on (suspected) organ donor status, but making it into the refrigerator a bit earlier is a benefit.
I don’t have a driver’s license, but taking into account the possibility of …eligibility and what Tem24 said, it would seem definitely better to go about getting myself a card.
Sorry, I just thought somebody could have already asked that before.
I think that optimal design would include the red heart that is placed on driver licences (in most American states) and on NHS cards (in the UK), plus the words “Organ donor”. You might also want to include your organ donor ID, but you might not… in the US this is (sometimes? usually?) your driver’s licence number, which may not be something you need strangers to see when you are at the beach.
My understanding is that if you do not specify otherwise, it is assumed that they can take any organ they need, but if you wanted to clarify (or were worried that your relatives my get greedy about the parts you get buried with), I would expect that the words “no limitations” would be sufficient to allow the hospital to take any skin, eyes, etc., they feel they have a use for.
Optimal wording may be less important than optimal placement. I would assume on the chest over the heart would be least likely to be destroyed in an accident / most likely to be seen by first responders… Plus, if that is destroyed, the best organs are also likely to be damaged. However, if you want optimal, you should really get a set of tattoos—one for the chest, one for the stomach, and one for the neck(?).
I wasn’t arguing against the tattoo! It sounds like a good idea, and more likely to be seen than the card. (However, you should get the card and then plot the tattoo. A being on the local database and having your wishes known by your next-of-kin is your best bet to being effective in donating).
Yes, but I would rather suffer the small embarrassment of having the card with me on the beach than the pain of multiple tattoos, plus having to listen to my other-than-next-of-kin relatives’ sighs and moans if they see the ones on appendages etc. (I have not had a single one yet, but I assume there is pain involved.)
What would be the optimal wording for a tattoo asking doctors to harvest one’s organs for transplants if one happens to die?
Have you checked first that tattoos do not affect organ donation eligibility, or have any legal/medical weight whatsoever compared to, say, an organ donor card or check on your driver’s license?
It would be worth double-checking your local regulations, but tattoos do not generally restrict you from organ donation. You should make sure you get your tattoo from a licensed business, of course.
As far as legal status—that is a good question. I would think that as long as you updated it at least as often as you update your driver’s licence, it would remain a valid indicator of your intent. That might mean adding a date to the tattoo, and adding another one every few years. You might contact your local hospital and see what they would do if they had a fresh corpse with no ID but a organ donor tattoo…
Why? Doctors have procedures for how to deal with organ donations. That procedure means looking at driver’s license and organ donor cards. There are huge legal risks for them being creative.
I had to give up on trying to find out if a tattoo can count as consent on its own—I would guess that it would be iffy territory unless you had it notarized and witnessed.
It might still be worthwhile to have a tattoo; it does tell them that you have given consent, meaning that they will make an extra effort to look for consent (In the US this means a state database). This would only be relevant if you are found without your drivers license/ID. There are a number of fringe cases where you might be found dead and dying without easy access to your ID, but they are admittedly rare. They are also more likely to cases where your organs aren’t usable (fire, ravaged by bears, rip tide carries you out to sea). However, if the legal team gets any head start on finding a John Doe’s organ donor status, on average this is likely to result in increased organ salvage.
Here’s a revised suggestion, for social feasibility, effectiveness, and pain reduction: get a tattoo of a red heart and the words organ donor and your name in a protected area (e.g. on the side of your trunk, just below the arm pit). Until RDFI chips become common this is also probably one of your best protections against becoming a J. Doe (I mean, other than living a sane and safe life).
The core question isn’t whether it can legally count as consent but whether the process that a medical team uses when it finds a dead body recognizes the tattoo.
I am not a first responder, but if I had a pile of corpses and one of them had an organ donor tattoo, that corpse would definitely be flagged for special attention and quick transport to the morgue. I wouldn’t count on it being legal for them to make an extra effort to ID one body before another just based on (suspected) organ donor status, but making it into the refrigerator a bit earlier is a benefit.
I don’t have a driver’s license, but taking into account the possibility of …eligibility and what Tem24 said, it would seem definitely better to go about getting myself a card.
Sorry, I just thought somebody could have already asked that before.
I think that optimal design would include the red heart that is placed on driver licences (in most American states) and on NHS cards (in the UK), plus the words “Organ donor”. You might also want to include your organ donor ID, but you might not… in the US this is (sometimes? usually?) your driver’s licence number, which may not be something you need strangers to see when you are at the beach.
My understanding is that if you do not specify otherwise, it is assumed that they can take any organ they need, but if you wanted to clarify (or were worried that your relatives my get greedy about the parts you get buried with), I would expect that the words “no limitations” would be sufficient to allow the hospital to take any skin, eyes, etc., they feel they have a use for.
Optimal wording may be less important than optimal placement. I would assume on the chest over the heart would be least likely to be destroyed in an accident / most likely to be seen by first responders… Plus, if that is destroyed, the best organs are also likely to be damaged. However, if you want optimal, you should really get a set of tattoos—one for the chest, one for the stomach, and one for the neck(?).
Damn, I’d better just get a card then. Thank you!
I wasn’t arguing against the tattoo! It sounds like a good idea, and more likely to be seen than the card. (However, you should get the card and then plot the tattoo. A being on the local database and having your wishes known by your next-of-kin is your best bet to being effective in donating).
Yes, but I would rather suffer the small embarrassment of having the card with me on the beach than the pain of multiple tattoos, plus having to listen to my other-than-next-of-kin relatives’ sighs and moans if they see the ones on appendages etc. (I have not had a single one yet, but I assume there is pain involved.)