The Welsh have a couple of weeks left during which to comment on the proposed introduction of theft by the state presumed consent. Despite the high level of donation in Wales – higher even than some of those states that already have presumed consent – they still want to press ahead.
There are dissenting voices who do see just how this proposal looks to potential donors:
“It may be counter-productive,” argues Dr Blackford.
“People may be slightly concerned that there’s this presumption that their organs don’t belong to them, but belong somehow to the government – it may put people off.”
“We’ve already got fantastically good organ donation rates in Wales – they could be higher, but we’re doing better than the UK average, and that’s before any change in the law.”
She’s right, it certainly puts me off. I travel to Wales fairly frequently and I don’t particularly wish for my consent to be presumed should anything unfortunate befall me on the M4. My consent may not be presumed, that is presumptions in the extreme. You want my bits, you ask, which is the proper thing to do. It is not up to anyone, least of all the state to take without asking.
But her argument did not convince Melanie Wager from St Athan, who underwent her third kidney transplant in 2010.
“It has made such a difference – not only to my life but to my family’s life as well,” said Ms Wager, who believes a change in law would help the 300 people in Wales on a waiting list for a transplant.
“People will have their lives saved rather than die on the waiting list,” she said.
“I do believe that there will be an increase in organs available – because it has been proven in other countries which have this legislation.”
Well, to be fair, Ms Wager is a vested interest, so I’m not too sure we should be placing too much weight on her opinion. Whether it makes a difference is moot. That some good may come of it, does not justify the means. The ethics remain static. It is unethical to take without asking, even if the taking is for a good purpose. It is unethical to presume consent because presumed consent is not informed consent and anything less than informed consent is theft. We have ethics for a reason – slippery slope and all that. No, it’s not a logical fallacy. Give an inch, they will always come back for a parsec or two. As for her last comment, that Wales already has a higher donation rate than Belgium, which uses presumed consent, somewhat undermines her point. There are other means. Use them. Do not take without asking. That is theft.
I see they’re having a “consultation”. Foregone conclusion then. Huh.
Of course.
For Zog’s sake, it’s the 21st century and we’re still hacking bits off cadavers to stuff into people to keep them alive. With all the problems that creates (such as a lifetime of immunosuppressive drugs, for example). You’d really think they’d have concentrated on things like stem cell research to allow us to effectively “grow” our own replacement organs if necessary by now, which would make this whole thing an irrelevance.
Mind you, if I could effectively replace my lungs and liver at will, what would the incentive be to stop drinking and smoking?
Now there’s something for the tinfoil headgear brigade to take & produce a more eloquent theory with…
@Zaphod – The biggest problem is that we are making cars & motorbikes TOO SAFE! Not enough fit, healthy, people are getting their heads smashed in traffic accidents that leave the rest of their body re-usable. Murder & suicide alone simply cannot keep pace with the demand.
I suggest studying the 1970s SF works of Larry Niven, about a future Society where organ transplantation is simple, reliable and risk-free – and everyone wants it. To the point that laws provide for death penalty & ‘harvesting’ even for minor crimes, and there is an illicit ‘market’ for parts. [See ‘the organ bank problem’ in – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organlegging ]
The notion of “presumed consent” by the state, in any area, makes me shudder.
Not many muslims in Wales then?
I’ve said this several times, but will repeat. I’m sure that muslims would have a thing or two to say about the possibility of their organs being used to keep joos alive. Or any other “infidel” for that matter.
And they seem to have no problem making themselves heard when their upset….
No informed consent means no consent.
If you suggested to poor Ms Wager that somebody with a dire need of sex, possibly with a shortened life-span of their own, could have sex with her on a presumed consent basis so long as she happened to be unconscious at the time, then I doubt she’d say “Allright then, just this once”.
“underwent her third kidney transplant in 2010”
Three? How many more kidneys does Ms Wager want? The rest of us poor suckers get by on two for our entire lives. Perhaps a limit of two transplants per person should be discussed. After that sunshine, it’s just tough luck.
Particularly considering at least one other person has had to die to keep her alive.
I think that’s one of the aspect that I find distasteful about the whole thing – a bit like the vultures circling the dying animal, just waiting for it to expire. That person’t death is fortunate for the recipient, and is a gift. We are seeing it almost being referred to as a right. It is not. And, yeah, three does look a bit greedy…