Brits ready to presume consent to organ donation
posted at 9:15 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
My libertarian side bristles at the thought of government staking a claim to my organs, my atheist side whispers that I won’t need them when I’m dead and other people will so stop being so superstitious. Tiebreaker goes to the atheist as long as there’s an opt-out provision, just because demand is great and much good would be done by recycling the supply (there’s a libertarian argument, I guess). I suspect most people are in my boat: Instinctive squeamishness stops me from acting affirmatively to sign any parts away, but knowing that they’re going to be taken away doesn’t bother me.
Although this does:
The Government will launch an overhaul of the system next week, which will put pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more “potential organ donors” from dying patients. Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they “convert” into donors and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor co-ordinators as patients approach death…
While polls show 90 per cent of Britons are in favour of organ donation, 40 per cent of relatives refuse consent for the organs of their relatives to be donated, a figure which rises to 75 per cent among black and ethnic minorities. To solve this, the organ taskforce plans measures to boost donation, including putting pressure on doctors to identify patients as potential donors before they have died…
Dr Kevin Gunning, an intensive care consultant at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, and a member of the UK Transplant’s advisory group, said the measures could put doctors and relatives under pressure. “If, as a doctor you have turned your thoughts to your patient being a donor when they are still living, that is a real conflict.”
Did I read that first paragraph correctly? They’re going to move to a opt-in default — and then introduce quotas?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I don’t like it. It’s ghoulish and smacks of the ultimate nanny-statism.
I’m an organ-donor myself, and I think the ad campaign we’ve had in the states to encourage donation has helped increase supply, although I don’t have any numbers to back that up.
Does anyone know if numbers of organ donors have increased since that campaign started, I believe in the late nineties?
joewm315 on January 12, 2008 at 9:19 PM
what happens when the morlocks want the eloi’s livers ?
William Amos on January 12, 2008 at 9:20 PM
This will cause a huge headache when a moslem won’t take a Jew’s organs…etc, etc.
SouthernGent on January 12, 2008 at 9:21 PM
People should be allowed to sell their organs for a profit. Period. I don’t care how disgusting it sounds: There is no legal reason to outlaw the practice if there can be sufficient regulation to prevent harm to the organ recipients.
Damian G. on January 12, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Larry Niven predicted this 30 years ago.
Next step, executed prisoners will have their organs confiscated.
A few steps later, Jaywalking is capital offense.
I am scared.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 12, 2008 at 9:25 PM
My epithet will read, he used them all very well.
And therefore unusable to others.
Like you say, you can’t take them with you. So why leave anything behind?
I just don’t want them to take em before I do leave. But given the state of health care in Great Briton, I sure they’ll be dieing to save the patient before the harvest.
Kini on January 12, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Unacceptable.
And it isn’t “superstition” that I will need them later.
It’s suspicion that I will need them again in the here and now and all that “pressure” on doctors will end up pressuring me to die before I’m good and ready.
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 9:30 PM
The number of donors went sharply up when China presumed consent from its prisoners.
The more important question is did the number of accident survivors go down?
pedestrian on January 12, 2008 at 9:31 PM
It seems like this video is called for.
BillINDC on January 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I simply have no desire to donate my organs. I don’t like other people that much. I will do what it takes to avoid “donation”. If it means wearing a suicide belt and bombing an organ bank, then I’ll do it at age 90.
If women have a right to abortions, I certainly have a right to my body parts.
thuja on January 12, 2008 at 9:32 PM
They’ll take my organs away? Over my dead…oh, wait.
Let’s try this again…you can pry my organs from my cold…no, that’s not right.
I think I’ll settle for a very liberal ‘my body, my choice.’
James on January 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Give up your damn organs when you’re dead, stupid people.
But that parted quoted above does seem ghoulish.
frankj on January 12, 2008 at 9:38 PM
…and who are you talking to?
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Due to heredity, I can’t donate my organs. However, if I were able to I would. But I don’t like the idea of the government presuming anything. If someone doesn’t want to donate their organs, for whatever reason, I think those wishes should be respected by everyone.
Kowboy on January 12, 2008 at 9:39 PM
A free market solution. I like it, and it sounds very effective.
Great question.
joewm315 on January 12, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Sorry, I’m on the “harvest away, I’m dead anyhow” list, but I don’t think they should presume consent, sorry, I find that disturbing. My libertarian side won this one, Britain’s Nannyism really is turning it into Airstrip One.
Oh, and I agree, you or your estate should be allowed to sell your parts if you consented in writing to it before you kicked.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Everyone against donating their organs… not necessarily anyone reading this blog. I’m just shouting at the thunderstorm.
frankj on January 12, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Yeah, give up your damn money when you’re dead, too, stupid people…the government knows best. All hail the soylent factory.
James on January 12, 2008 at 9:46 PM
The bigger question is…..
I didn’t know Allahpundit is a libertarian!
Kini on January 12, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Here’s a disturbing article about organ donation:
http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070808byrne.htm
alegnab on January 12, 2008 at 9:51 PM
It’s a simple matter of incentive. What gets rewarded gets done. Hospitals rewarded as high “converters” of people into organ banks will also have a noticeably higher death rate.
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Squeamish arguments aside, I wonder if the reason they can’t do this is the same as for blood donation: if you start paying money, you’ll start getting many more donations from people with diseases.
For blood, they can test for some things, but it’s expensive/impossible to test for everything, so they have to rely on people’s honesty and charitable intentions. In the case of organs, does anybody know how extensive any standard testing is currently, or do they just rely on honesty in most cases? I’m guessing that the critical issue here is timing.
So maybe for certain organs for which timing is less critical, this could be a possibility. In general, I agree with the sentiment that the enormous amount of good that a market for organs would offer far outweighs being uncomfortable with the idea.
tneloms on January 12, 2008 at 10:00 PM
This sounds like a great story line for
“Sands of Passion”!
canopfor on January 12, 2008 at 10:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJnFOTkV214
Live organ donation…
Monty Python Style!
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 10:06 PM
O/T
Come to think of it…
Michael Palin for President!
Campaign slogan “We humour you so you’ll humour us”
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 10:10 PM
The thought just occurred…
What if your religion of peace body rejects your infidel organ transplant?
Kini on January 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Negative campaign ad:
“I Fart in your general direction”
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM
That ‘red meat’ graphic takes on a whole new meaning in this thread AP.
AUINSC on January 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Darn, now I’ll have to go back to youtube and find the “Grim Reaper” clip.
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Now that’s funny…lmao.
I’m donor on my D.L. then Orygun I see gave an illegal immigrant convict a lung transplant…I said to myself…huh? Ain’t givin no steeenking organs to illegal killers.
oldernslower on January 12, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I will never agree to donate my organs. It’s much too dangerous. Doctors are beginning to become rewarded for getting people to donate. I’m afraid to enter a hospital and basically have the doctor try to kill me to get the organs. With “futile care” and “death with dignity” frequently becoming buzzwords in the medical profession, and especially with a drive towards cutting costs for the terminally ill, doctors have every incentive to pull the plug quickly in order to get the organs while they’re still viable.
If you agree to donate your organs, you’re giving a license to a doctor to murder you.
Sydney Carton on January 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Consider it just an expansion of the Death Tax.
snickelfritz on January 12, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Not sure anyone will want any parts with all the milage I’ve put on them, but they’re welcome to them if they can help.
I support this opt-out concept, as long as it’s for organ donation only for medical neccessity.
michaelo on January 12, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Someone joked about the Death Tax, but its a totally apt description. The state won’t allow you to sell your organs before you die, when the money could do you some good, but presumes to come along after you die and just take them for free, without bothering to compensate your estate. That is totally a Death Tax.
mpbk on January 12, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Sydney Carton on January 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM
That has GOT TO BE one of the most uncaring and selfish statements I have EVER seen on this site!
Organ donation is a wonderfully generous “Last Act”. Literally, giving a part of yourself to someone else in need, how much more selfless can you be.
While I’m sure, over the years, there have been some mistakes, I would gladly trust the system to follow my instructions. Have a living will, designate a power of attorney, and listen to your personal attorney.
Giving life to a dying man; sight to the blind; or helping a child live a fuller life. Come on…
The oversight required just to give makes it difficult for the doctor. They make no money on your gift.
Think again.
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Are Brits still “Subjects”?
If the answer is yes then they are property of the crown.
/s
TheSitRep on January 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Aside from my misgivings about the government unilaterally deciding to take my organs (and the abuse that could eventually lead to), what does being an atheist have to do with anything? I’m a Christian & an organ donor (well, it’s on my DL, at least). In fact, I argue with people that we shouldn’t be nearly as worried as some people are about what happens to our bodies after we die.
In fact, atheist or believer, shouldn’t we all realize that the essence of our personalities — whether a “soul” as I believe, or simply the neurochemical process that is your consciousness — are gone when we’re dead? Shouldn’t we both have the strength of our convictions and not care about our bodies when what makes us us has moved on?
NptPrchr on January 12, 2008 at 10:35 PM
FloridaBill, Sydney Carton’s statement speaks not one whit to his selfishness or unselfishness. His statement was about his lack of trust in the system. You trust it. He doesn’t.
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 10:39 PM
And, FloridaBill, nobody is talking about doctors making money on the “gift”. They’re talking about the doctors and hospitals being rewarded with a government pat on the back–and possibly government funding?–for “converting” patients into organ donors as it says in the article.
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Reminds me of Monty Python’s “Meaning Of Life”:
“Can we have your liver?”
“C’mon, love, it won’t hurt.”
“You’re not really using it now, are you?”
Being a Buddhist, I am not supposed to get piercings or tattoos, or mutilate my body in any way except for medical purposes. And when I die, I am supposed to be cremated whole. Are they taking religion in account or just assuming everyone is automatically a donor? Scary…
Timothy S. Carlson on January 12, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Welcome to the Brave New World of the Labourite Socialist Collective of Britain/Province of the EU.
.
By this measure, the British Government has now given itself the right of ownership of everyone’s dead bodies. I don’t think it hyperbole to wonder how far it is from the right of ownership of everyone’s dead bodies to the right of ownership of everyone’s live bodies.
.
Some things you must do; some things you mustn’t do; all for the person’s own good and the good of society, of course.
DavePa on January 12, 2008 at 10:53 PM
The daughter of a long time friend of mine had a kidney transplant on Christmas Day and I think quite differently about being a donor now. But honestly we have to fight governments giving themselves rights to our bodies before they decide they have rights to our thoughts and beliefs. Before long that soylent green thing will come to pass.
Buzzy on January 12, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Timothy S. Carlson on January 12, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I was unaware of that aspect of the Buddhist religion, my apologies.
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 10:41 PM
No one wants a “Government” employee or Doctor “Deciding” to “Kill You” to give life to someone else. But, truthfully, if you were laying on a stretcher, with a crushed skull (and no hope of regaining your former life), wouldn’t you want someone else to live?
Be realistic.
Creating a living will (and keeping a copy of your information in your wallet) allows the doctor/hospital to contact THOSE THAT YOU DESIGNATE to make the end of life decision – FOR YOU – AND BASED UPON your written instructions. Surely, religious reasons aside, you
would want to help your fellow man?
Obviously, this is a very personal decision. Perhaps my comment was a bit strident, I apologise for that. Organ donation is, however, something I would recommend everyone consider, at the least.
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I’m a donor. I just don’t know if anyone will actually want them when I’m through with ‘em. I do know some who have had transplant reguarding kidney’s. Both ultimately rejected them and one is now dead. I guess I would like to know what the long term success rate for transplants really is before the government starts to require such things.
On another note some folks think the reason we have two kidneys is so we can give one away.
boomer on January 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Why does the British medical system begin to remind me of zombies? How creepy would it be to have a bunch of doctors enter your room wondering if your delicious kidneys and brains would work better in another patient.
lorien1973 on January 12, 2008 at 11:22 PM
I would donate my organs if I actually believed that the doctors would do everything in their power to try to save my life if I were under their care. Unfortunately, that is not the case today with the current medical system.
However, given the nature of the medical system, there is no possible way I would permit them to take my organs now. Hospital “ethics boards” are all about finding ways to cut costs by murdering people who they deem to be “terminal.” There might have been “mistakes” in the past, but nowadays I believe that it’s intentional to bump off people who are hovering at the line in order to save costs and to get the organs.
I’m not saying that all doctors are potential murderers. They probably think they’re doing good, by ending a life in pain and saving someone else’s with the organs. But it’s still murder if they do it, and I just don’t trust them to avoid the temptation.
Sydney Carton on January 12, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Uh, sure, it’s easy to be realistic about a crushed skull. If that were the only possible situation, we wouldn’t have an argument. Neither I nor Sydney Carton ever made the statement that donating organs was not a wonderful thing for the recipients and an unselfish gesture by the donors.
But you talk like doctors and “the system” will all be equally trustworthy on close calls, uncertainties, or situations in which the medical proxy seems open to pressure.
You’re taking a lot on faith that I’m not willing to, nor Sydney Carton. It doesn’t make me unselfish. It makes me more cautious to preserve my own life first before seeing how my death might benefit others.
Anwyn on January 12, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I’m someone willing to donate too.
Success rates, by my thinking, have nothing to do with it.
It’s not the gift (or whether it’s successful), it’s in the willingness to give. If you’re going to die; live in a vegetative state; or live in a state of diminished capacity (that is unacceptable to YOU). Then direct your executor accordingly. If, on the other hand, your religious, or other beliefs, prevent you from donating then so be it (I, certainly, would not want to force my opinion on you).
But don’t reject donating out of hand based upon “The System”. Most health care professionals know the ropes and the rules. No “Doctor” is going to individually decide “You Die and The Other Guy Lives”. There are a lot of others involved (nurses, other doctors, and etc.), It’s not a one person decision.
FloridaBill on January 12, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Oh so its just an argument between libertarian or atheism. Gee well thanks for clearing that up for me Allah. For a minute there I thought that system could be market driven as opposed to the humanitarian angle. I mean murder for profit whoever heard of such a thing? Damn that Robert Kennedy!
sonnyspats1 on January 12, 2008 at 11:47 PM
I don’t really mind being a default organ donor, as long as there’s an opt-out. It should definitely be there, though I wouldn’t take advantage of it personally.
But not in the context of socialized medicine. That’s the evil we need to fight. Organ donation is a side issue. If the state takes over medicine, I will opt out of organ donation, in protest, if that is permitted.
Splunge on January 12, 2008 at 11:54 PM
The solution to your dilemma, AP, is that the government cannot decide what is and is not yours. It could be that you’d like for your family to have a fully intact body to remember you by. Why? is none of their concern.
AbaddonsReign on January 12, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Organ donation creeps me out. There’s just something that rubs me the wrong way about someone yanking organs from my body while my heart is still beating. I know that’s not a good reason. Brain dead is brain dead, and there’s no coming back from that. Maybe it’s that I also am wary of “the system” failing.
And of course, the real libertarian solution here is to let people sell their organs. Boo! Hiss! Immoral! Whatever. It’s your body and you should be able to do what you want with it. I think people might be a little more willing to be a donor if they knew that it’d mean they wouldn’t have to burden their family with funeral costs. There would certainly be no shortage of kidneys.
Mark Jaquith on January 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Thanks for that.
I’m an organ donor but I can’t really say that I hope you get to use something of mine one day.
Mojave Mark on January 13, 2008 at 12:04 AM
What’s funny is that you don’t get paid for your blood, but you do get paid for donating plasma (they take your blood, separate out the red blood cells, and give them back to you, keeping the rest — you can donate twice a week for about $20 a pop). I don’t think disease is the reason they don’t pay you for blood. It may just be that there is a sufficient population of people who wouldn’t think to hold out for money. Suckers.
Mark Jaquith on January 13, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Here is a very civil, acceptable solution (Yeah. Sure it is!)
Since so many people think that religion and the belief in the after life is bogus.
Since so many people think that humans are not special, but only like any other organism, plant, or animal.
Since so many people believe that abortion is good, keeps the baby from being born so she won’t one day stub her toe and “Ouch!” experience some discomfort, pain, or inconvenience (We can’t have anyone experiencing any of that now, can we), or that some woman might not finish earning her Bachelors degree in Women’s and Lesbian Studies because she is pregnant.
Since people are worried about Global Warming cause by mankind who are nasty demons raping the earth and destroying it.
Since so many people scream “We are overpopulated! We are overpopulated! What are we going to do? We are using so many of our resources!”
Since so many people think that old people have nothing to offer and would be better off dead.
Since people want to help reduce population and reduce exhaustion of natural resources.
We can set an age, say 37 years of age.
Everyone who reachers their 37th year reports to the local recycling spot where their body parts are removed and sent to a body parts warehouse for use by those who really need them.
Only people between the ages of 5 and 25 are permitted to receive these recycled organs.
Those above 30 are less persons than those below because they are closer to death, hence, on a sliding scale of who is human and a person, and who is not, they are lower on the scale.
Those below five are lower on the scale of Humanity and Personhood as well, for they are not as developed as those from five years of age till 25 years of age.
Those are the people who would benefit the most from the donations, and are more deserving of the label “Person” and “human” than any of the others, therefore, they should be the recipients.
Another use of the body and body parts, those who are not used as donors can replace animals in medical and science experiments, for truly animals are sometimes more “Human” and more a “Person” than some lousy, nasty old human being, and also those in their thirties and up, and below five, are not as fully human as the others.
I think that is a great idea!
Human haters will be happy.
Animal lovers will be happy.
Global warming alarmists will be happy.
Overpopulation alarmists will be happy.
Body parts recyclers will be happy.
Abortion advocates and euthanasia advocates will be happy.
Environmentalists will be happy.
There will be plenty of organs for those who need them, and less filthy vermin human beings to mess up the world.
Sounds like a plan fit for a moonbat!
William2006 on January 13, 2008 at 12:32 AM
You’ve all read about the Chinese Deathmobiles last year didn’t you? Pretty chilling stuff. Reminds me a bit of Rock Hudson in Seconds. Maybe some organs transplant better if you’re still alive while they rip them out of you.
Mwaaaahahahahaaaaaaaa.
Coronagold on January 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Sounds a lot like the plot to “Logan’s Run.”
Mojave Mark on January 13, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Soylent Green Google it! NWO ‘optimized’
sonnyspats1 on January 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Actually, this fits well with the British headlong rush into self-destruction. Seems a good partner for their mission to diminish (or totally remove) religion from the life of their multi-culti citizens.
Their policies have already removed most of the population’s sense of national identity (read Melanie Philips’ “Londonistan” to see how well this is working out. Not.). Now they’ll get rid of that squeamish bit about body ownership. Pretty soon they’ll have a country of good little obedient sheeple, fully dependent on the government teat.
OTOH, I’m a bit surprized that they’d be willing to do anything to increase the incidence of transplants, since they’re expensive to perform and support. Cheaper to just let the poor sods die while on the NHS waiting list.
And let’s see how well their muslim guests react to this, too.
bofh on January 13, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Many reasonable people are afraid not that they’ll have to give up their organs when they’re dead, but that they’ll have to give them up earlier. Horror stories are out there, and the hospital has a financial (and, in the British case, a mandated) incentive to get your organs while they’re at their best, i.e., as close to the moment of death as possible. Perhaps this should be accompanied by draconian penalties for anyone found manipulating a potential donor’s life (and/or death) for the sake of the organs? Just a thought….
calbear on January 13, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Solvent Green meet 1984.
unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM
If anybody would like to read some classic science fiction on the topic of organ harvesting, I would recommend Larry Niven’s, A Gift from Earth.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 3:10 AM
I’m on the donor list. They can have everything so long as I’m not a cadaver in a university. I’ve had anatomy. I know what they do with those dead bodies. But, if my donations will allow someone else to live, have at it. I’m also on the bone marrow donation list. Those of you who are so afraid somebody is going to kill you for your body parts (ha!) should at least consider bone marrow donation. Then again, most people really don’t give a shit unless they or their love ones are the one who are sick.
Blake on January 13, 2008 at 3:55 AM
No need to worry…I’ve opted out of the receiving end already.
James on January 13, 2008 at 7:55 AM
I do not want my organs going to demoncrats or RINOs.
saved on January 13, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Soylant Green is people!!!! It’s people!!!!!!
The Brits stick organs in all their food, so keep an eye on that kidney pie next time, mate.
Hening on January 13, 2008 at 8:01 AM
If you have a spine injury…donate your legs early.
tomas on January 13, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Having it opt-out seems reasonable to me – you’re still at liberty to keep your organs. The idea of hospitals/doctors having incentives to up the number of donors does seem bad though.
passingtramp on January 13, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Those three posts appeared in sequence, and all three made me laugh.
How clever!
The concern I have is that they need to withdraw your organs before you are completely dead. This can cause a problem.
When you run a race in track and field, you want to run PAST, or THROUGH the tape, so you actually push beyond it and don’t slow down as you are approaching it.
When you break something in martial arts (other than your hand or foot) you want to break through the object and beyond, drive through, not just aim for the top of the object.
If you are injured and they don’t do everything they can to save you because they want to get your organs, you might be the “lucky” one who could have survived, but they stopped short.
If that doesn’t bother you, then it doesn’t matter, but if you don’t like that idea, then it does matter.
William
William2006 on January 13, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Dennis Etchison got here first; I think the book was “The Dark Country”. Chilling stuff.
I don’t care what happens to my ‘remains’. They won’t be me anymore.
Doug on January 13, 2008 at 9:24 AM
How about a rule you must be a donor to be a recipient. Fill out a legal form when you get your license. Not a donor when those kidneys fail equals no name on the list. It wouldn’t take too many deaths before people decided what was in their best interest and take personal responsibility. Law would not apply to children of course.
frreal on January 13, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Ridiculous.
You know what would help lessen the shortage of organs for transplants?
Legalising trade in organs!
I honestly don’t know why it is illegal.
It would fit in inside a free market – the idea is inconsistent with socialised medicine.
monkeywrench on January 13, 2008 at 9:52 AM
IF they made it mandatory, it may be a good way to “self-deport” a certain segment of the socitiy. I would cough up a liver when dead to free my daughter from that looming mess that awaits us all.
rgranger on January 13, 2008 at 10:14 AM
This is a very bad idea. Those on respirators (and maybe those who hit their heads and go unconscious for more than say – two hours) will certainly start experiencing an early demise.
I do believe that permitting citizens over 25 years old to offer a kidney or a piece of their livers, etc., for a price, ought to be considered.
sinsing on January 13, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Necrocard
aengus on January 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I had been been discounting the visions of Britain becoming the stuff of “1984″ legend. The more I hear of their policies and their attitudes I not only believe that Britain could not only become such a state, but that it is well on the road to such a society – all to favor the left.
I can see a time when those who need medical treatment would avoid hosptials in such a state, where they are considered not as patients needing care, but organ donors, when they check in.
I would be interested to know who, what politicians or “leaders” and groups, are proposing such left wing lunacy. We hear of these type of polcies but finding out who proposes them and makes them mandatory is difficult.
omegaram on January 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I’m a donor, but I’m against this program.
It should be an “opt in” rather than “opt out” deal. The default position here is that your organs will be taken unless you do something about it – not right.
forest on January 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM
The British Government (i.e. the Labour Party) writes the legislation. I wish I could be more specific and tell you which MP came up with this piece of craziness but it could have been any of them, they’re all in tandem pretty much.
aengus on January 13, 2008 at 11:30 AM
My solution?
Treta your body so poorly that by the time you die (in your mid forties) nobody will be able to use them.
Capitana on January 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
I’m very surprised by your comments AP.
Squeamishness over doctors using bits that you’re never going to need again and then to turn around to suggest that religious people might be superstitious if they don’t tick the donation box?
Lack of donor organs is a universal problem. In Australia where we have the opt in system, we have had cases of family members overruling the deceased wishes on harvesting, so I’d be in favour of an opt out system.
And I say this Christian who has been a card carrying organ donor since the age of 15 – when I die, the doctors are welcome to anything they can use (I’ll try to leave it in good condition).
BTW AP Nick asks, do you hoard parts for cars you no longer own?
– Nora
The Thin Man Returns on January 13, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Let’s see, here…Allah’s squeamish about losing his organs, when he’s an atheist and (presumably) believes that his last breath will shake hands with his last sentient thought.
The Christians are all fully aware of their continuing life as well as the fact that our bodies are temporary and disposable, so we (presumably) have no problem vuluntarily donating any and all baggage that we will not need in the next life.
And libertarian anti-big-government Christians will be screaming bloody murder over the policy, while insisting that they should all voluntarily pledge their organs.
Great fun all around.
Jaibones on January 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM
My organs are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna git.
Kini on January 13, 2008 at 5:32 PM
When dusk approaches, I will sell everything, move to Vegas, and go out in a blaze of booze drugs and whores.
The only safe thing to do with my corpse will be to burn it.
In a blast furnace
On another planet
LimeyGeek on January 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Comment pages: