Blathering in the Groan’s Comment is Free, Polly Toynbee goes for the ad hominen approach to discussion; labelling anyone who objects to the idea of presumed consent as being superstitious or reactionary:
Gordon Brown has made a bold move on organ donation. It will lead to a knock-down, drag-out fight with the forces of superstition and reaction – but the spirit of the enlightenment will win. When you are dead, you are dead. Living people matter, but dead bodies do not.
Polly is anything but enlightened; however, that’s not the issue. Nor, for that matter am I going to fisk this piece of cack, because it misses the point in its entirety and therefore is not worth the effort. Those of us who object to presumed consent do not do so because we are superstitious (some may, but the religious who believe that bodies must remain intact at interment can opt-out, after all). We do not object because we are reactionary, nor is it about ownership of the corpse, so let’s not get diverted by these strawman arguments. No, our objection is about something rather more basic than that.
This is all about how a civil, civilised society works. If you want something that does not belong to you; in a civil, civilised society, you ask. In a civil, civilised society, those who no longer have a use for, say, their organs, may give them freely and unconditionally, because that is how civil, civilised people behave.
To presume consent and to take, without specifically asking, is neither civil, nor civilised. It is theft.
There is another argument as to the ‘right’ of one person to have bits of another. There is a difference between asking nicely for help, which most would give, and demanding body parts as a right.
A difference a reasonable man can clearly discern. The government and Polly “soylent green” Toynbee are not reasonable people…
There’s a delightful little letter here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/
article3186560.ece
Last letter (of 3) from Dr P Harkin. Made me smile.
Indeed.
I guess I’m going to have to be a dissenting voice here.
I think the major thrust of Polly’s argument is a good one, and making this an individual vs the state issue is missing the point. The costs of this to the individual concerned are zero (like Polly said, if you’re dead you’re dead), and the potential, direct, benefits to other individuals are great.
I understand the principle-based point you are making, but on this one I am of the opinion that the pragmatic argument (that this will increase levels of organ donation) is stronger. And the facts of the matter are that for various reasons a pitifully low proportion of the population are registered as donors – much lower than in many other countries (before you ask, yes, I am on the donor register).
Yes, I understand that. However, once we accept that consent is presumed for whatever pragmatic reasons, it will be abused and, frankly, I cannot and will not accept that the state – or anyone else for that matter – has the right to presume anything about my wishes.
If they do this, I will opt-out. At present, while not on the register (I used to carry a card but lost it some while back), my wishes are clearly understood by my immediate next of kin.
I’m sorry, but while I appreciate the needs of recipients, the principle is an overriding one. And, let’s be clear here – a significant part of the problem is a massive bureaucratic inability to match donors with recipients expediently, Mrs Longrider who works in the NBS and is therefore closely associated with the donation organisation assures me…
As I’ve said (and blogged) before, I have carried a donor card for ages (30+). However, if they go ahead with this presumed consent, I will immediately opt out (no doubt the government will make this very difficult for me) in protest. It is simple.
I carry a donor card; if they bring this in, I will opt out. And then I shall make a living will opting back in on my damn terms.
Ian, I’m sorry but the ends do not justify the means. That way leads to gulags and gas chambers.
DK
P.S. Can I get Godwin’s prize?
I didn’t know Godwin did prizes, but you’re welcome.
Harsh as it may sound, if the consequences of remaining with no presumption means less organs available, I’m inclined to say that that is the price of a free, liberal society. The opposite is one where the state decides what is or is not pragmatic on our behalf, makes presumptions on our behalf – and that, no matter what the cause (in this case, one with which I am sympathetic) is unacceptable.
When you add to this the incentives and pressures lined up alongside the presumption of consent, you have a recipe for abuse and hastening death for the purposes of harvesting.
How can a f-ing woman like that be taken seriously by any sentient human being?
I presume that’s a rhetorical question.
Strong civil libertarian that I am, this is one I can’t get concerned about. I understand the principle of your argument but I feel that the overall benefit to society, and the benefits to individuals, significantly outweighs the ‘it’s better for people to volunteer’ argument. I would against a system that did not allow the individual to opt out, or did not allow the relatives to decline. As Doctor Jonathan Miller said, ‘that would be totalitarian’. In the best of all possible worlds it would be best to rely on ‘opt in’ but we don’t live in such a world and in the meantime people are dying for the want of donors. Changing the presumption to assumed consent does not affect anyone’s sovereignty over their own bodies as they may freely opt out without sanction. Therefore I think the proposals are proportionate and reasonable. Unfortunately, since it is this government proposing it, people suspect the worst.
Actually, I don’t consider this a civil libertarian issue. Nor do I consider it one of sovereignty over bodies. I regard it as an ethical one. The proposal is relying on a combination of apathy and ignorance on the part of prospective donors. While offering an opt-out, it relies on people being too lazy or insufficiently informed to do so – this is the only way that it would successfully increase the number of available organs.
In no way is that informed consent – and, as such, is highly unethical. Pragamtism and the public good are not sufficient arguments for what is an unethical concept.
The most recent proposals put forward by the Transplant Taskforce are much more in line with a high standard of ethics in that they are looking at improving coordination (which is one of the major problems) and informing people. That is an excellent way forward and one that I fully support.
I will never be persuaded that presuming someone’s consent is ever an acceptable way forward. The only way you can guarantee that someone consents, having been fully appraised of the situation, is to ask them, not to make presumptions.