The Archbishop of Wales has spoken out against proposals to change the way organs are donated in Wales.
He’s right. And it won’t necessarily increase availability of organs. People have to die first and opt-in or opt-out, a live donor isn’t a donor at all and some, incensed by this proposal will definitely opt out. Donation is a gift and a gift it should remain. The availability of the technology does not mean that the state should decide for us whether to give or not.
George Orwell wrote better than he thought regarding a fictitious ever increasing authoritarian state that imposed its will on its citizens for the supposed greater good, me thinks!
George Orwell wrote a satire on Stalinism. Orwell was no “small state” libertarian. He was far more interested about in whose interests the state operated than its size. A small state that invariably operates in the interests of the financial elite would not have been favoured by Orwell.
Roger’s statement stand alone. No one has commented bout Orwell’s regard or otherwise for a big state, merely his comments on authoritarianism.
“Roger’s statement stand alone”
Except that Roger’s comment was a misrepresentation of Orwell’s political position. Orwell most certainly did not object in principle to the state acting for the “greater good” and 1984 is in no way an attack on such behaviour.
Roger hasn’t misinterpreted anything: “regarding a fictitious ever increasing authoritarian state that imposed its will on its citizens for the supposed greater good That is an accurate description of the warnings in both Animal Farm and 1984.
“People have to die first and opt-in or opt-out, a live donor isn’t a donor at all and some, incensed by this proposal will definitely opt out”
No doubt some will opt out in protest but I think that will be a far, far smaller number of people than those who have no problems with being a donor but never got around to getting a donor card. Like me, for example, until I eventually pulled my finger out and got a donor card a couple of years ago. I have no doubt that the net result of this measure will be far more organs available for transplant.
Whether they do or not does not alter the immoral nature of the proposal. If you want something that does not belong to you, you ask, politely, you don’t assume.it’s yours for the taking.
“Whether they do or not does not alter the immoral nature of the proposal. If you want something that does not belong to you, you ask, politely, you don’t assume.it’s yours for the taking”
Whatever. That is a philosophical difference that we will never agree on. I limited my comment to your claim that it would not necessarily increase the availability of organs. I disagree because I think the number of people to take a strong exception to this are pretty small and far exceeded by people who think like me.
It won’t necessarily increase the availability of organs. People have to die for that to happen and they have to die in the right circumstances and their bodies ripe for harvest. Opt-out, which is always an egregious principle – won’t change that and there will be some who will vigorously oppose it. Where there are opt-out systems there is no clear evidence that this is the reason for higher rates of donation where that has occurred. So it’s all based on assumption.
Sure, many will take the same line as you have because unfortunately the many have been conditioned by successive governments into thinking that stealing is okay if you want something that doesn’t belong to you and it’s for “the greater good” the three most chilling words in the English language.
If they bring this in this side of the Severn, I will, most definitely, be opting out, which is a reversal of my current position of allowing donation providing they ask.