I commented yesterday on the behaviour of the authorities in Wales – the Celts have in place a government that is increasingly totalitarian in nature – shaming even ours. While the presumed consent bill on organ donation has been burbling away for a while now, they are about to publish it:
Legislation to change the organ donation system in Wales will be published on Monday.
The Welsh government wants an opt-out scheme, which means everyone is assumed to have consented to becoming a donor when they die, and only those who object will be taken off the register.
So, the assembly in Cardiff has presumed to own the bodies of the Welsh people. It has decided on their behalf what is to become of their mortal remains – unless they specifically object. In any other sphere, opt-out is rightly regarded as unethical as it assumes informed consent, yet is clearly nothing of the sort. It relies on apathy or a failure to understand or appreciate the implications to work. It is deeply immoral.
But church leaders have opposed the changes and the Law Society has called for more clarity on what role will be left for families when a relative dies.
I don’t often find myself in the same camp as the church, or lawyers for that matter, but they are right. It is not up to the state to make such decisions on our behalf. It is up to us to make an informed decision having been availed of the facts. The justification – that the end justifies the means – is simply not good enough. Presumed consent is not consent at all. It is the state sequestering the bodies of the dead in order to divvy up the spare parts. Unethical, immoral and plain wrong. Opt-in combined with sufficient information with which to make an informed decision is the only ethical and moral option.
One is inclined to wonder if this is why they are so keen to eradicate smoking – got to keep all those spare parts in good working order, eh? You look after that body – after all, you are only a tenant until the state has need of it.
Thankfully, I no longer live in Wales.
“the Celts have in place a government that is increasingly totalitarian in nature – shaming even ours”
Seriously, the Scots and the Welsh have no idea where their governments would take them. The history of licensing in both countries is that they make England look like The Hellfire Club. Both countries had their smoking bans earlier. If you look at the case of the man who was caught having sex with a bicycle, that would not be illegal in England.
XX only those who object will be taken off the register. XX
Aye RIGHT boyo! In the same way that getting you name taken off the cold call telephone lists is so succesful, do they mean?
I can see this ending in ten years time with a scandal uncovered about hospitals harvesting these organs and flogging them abroad.
“So, the assembly in Cardiff has presumed to own the bodies of the Welsh people.”
Overreaction, much?
Governments in the UK are *elected*. And the UK electorate, while not always the most scintillating of conversationalists, *are* educated by any objective standard. That they may also be apathetic and willing to spend hours watching glorified karaoke shows is beside the point: They have access to every piece of information they could ever need—and then some. You may have heard of that “Internet” thingy; apparently, it’s quite popular.
You cannot argue in terms of “uninformed consent” unless you can prove it exists in this context. I find it very difficult to believe that nobody understands what “organ donation” means in this day and age.
But massive generalisations are fun, aren’t they? Never mind that context is also a crucial component in a debate. We’re not talking about donating every corpse to science. We’re just talking about doing the same thing to dead bodies that’s been done to machines for generations: stripping them down for parts, leaving only what remains to be dropped into a six-foot hole, or burned to ash and sprinkled over some rose garden.
Bury it, burn it, chuck it off the side of a ship wrapped in a sack, chop it up for cat food, or strip it down for spare parts. The body is just a machine for carrying your Id. You’re going to be dead anyway, so it’s not as if you’ll be alive to care. That’s kind of the point: British society is increasingly secular, so old religious taboos aren’t as strong as they used to be. And that’s a good thing.
IF the Earth’s population continues to increase as rapidly as it has in recent generations, I guarantee you that there will come a day when someone genuinely offers up the “Soylent Green” solution as a means to reduce humanity’s pressure on land and resources for food. Looked at entirely objectively, there’s no reason not to.
How in the world did *not* wanting to save another’s life by default become the ethical and moral choice?
*Non-consent* is the “unethical, immoral” option. And that’s assuming you believe either of those to be of any relevance to a rapidly cooling biological machine anyway.
XX Governments in the UK are *elected*. And the UK electorate, while not always the most scintillating of conversationalists, *are* educated by any objective standard. That they may also be apathetic and willing to spend hours watching glorified karaoke shows is beside the point: They have access to every piece of information they could ever need—and then some. You may have heard of that “Internet” thingy; apparently, it’s quite popular. You cannot argue in terms of “uninformed consent” unless you can prove it exists in this context. I find it very difficult to believe that nobody understands what “organ donation” means…XX
Makes no bloddy difference HOW “well informed” the public/voters are, are ignorant, imbicilic scum, that put a cross next to the name of any silly bastard that will give them a 0,0000002% tax decrease, and FORGET that the same arsehole they voted for, will be selling their kidneys on E-Bay two minutes after the election.
And the same goes for ANY issue they “feel strongly about”, from nuclear power, to farting in the bath. As soon as they see that Tax cut figure, they open their legs as wide as a Liverpool dock road whore, and let themselves be rodgerd by any passing politician that smiles nicely.
No. It is a reasonable assessment of a state that is so out of control, so arrogant and bloated that it seeks to impose itself where it has no business being.
Quite apart from being a strawman visible from space, this is nonsense. These informed people are not queuing up to register. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that they do not want to. Yes, an assumption, but no more of one than those who favour presumed consent are making. Unless people are specifically asked, we don’t know and it is arrogant to make assumptions on behalf of others.
There is only one way that you can be sure that someone consents and that is when they say “I consent”. If not, no consent has been given.
Your attempt to bring in situational ethics doesn’t apply as context is irrelevant. The principle stands. If someone has something that you want, you ask. Taking because you presume that they no longer want it is theft. This is always unethical and immoral.
Just because the technology is available, it does not place an ethical responsibility on anyone to make themselves available. The decision is a personal one and should always remain so – it is nothing whatever to do with the state and the state has no place assuming consent. Just because a majority voted for a government doesn’t make it right and it isn’t.
XX The principle stands. If someone has something that you want, you ask. Taking because you presume that they no longer want it is theft. XX
Spot on LR.
“Unlawful aquisition of property belonging to another, with intent to permanantely deprive the owner thereof.”
Theft.
This is not changed because some two bit arsehole who got the “best end” of the votes of the 15% of the electorate that were bloody stupid enough not to be able to think of an excuse not to go and vote, changing HIS definition of what is “lawful”, does NOT change the MORAL fact that it is theft.
If this was the case, Nürnberg would never have happened, because what they did, was LAWFUL in time and place.