There’s a fairly long discussion developing over at CiF prompted by the recent story on driving licence applications, on the matter of organ donation. For the most part, it is a well trodden path. This one is like those discussions on religion or global warming in that positions seem to be fairly entrenched and no one is changing their mind on the matter.
The Guardianista majority opinion is that donation is not only a good thing, but that we should be pretty much obliged to give – a civic duty, if you like – and those who refuse are castigated as selfish.
Sure, there is the utilitarian argument that once dead, who should care what happens, and that argument does have mileage. The argument that rather than allow the organs to rot (or be incinerated) it is better that they are reused by a recipient whose own organs have failed. Again, it is difficult to argue against such reasoning.
However…
That medical science has developed in the last half century to enable the transplant of organs thereby extending the life of those whose organs have failed is no mean feat. Like other medical advances, it has led to an expectation of extended life. This does lead to other problems, of course – Alzheimers for example, is now more prevalent as the population faces greater exposure to age related ailments.
But, just because medical science has developed to a point where parts of us can be reused to enable others to carry on for a bit longer, it doesn’t place any obligation on anyone to make those parts available. A gift is just that, a gift, given freely with goodwill. I am noticing in these discussions both here and in the MSM that there is a growing backlash against the assumption that just because the facility is there, we should all embrace it and become a part of it with the state taking control of the decision making. The underlying assumption being that the failure of many to register is based upon inertia. This assumption is itself unethical. If someone decides not to register whether it is from conviction or laziness, it is their decision and theirs alone. It is not for anyone else to make presumptions about what they may want to do. The end does not justify the means. If they do nothing for whatever reason, even laziness or the “euww” factor, then nothing it is. So be it, accept it with good grace. They – and I – should not be forced to register a decision via the machinery of the state.
One of the commenters over on the CiF discussion explained why he objected on the basis of his Christian beliefs. Predictably he was ridiculed (not by everyone interestingly). Another echoed much as I am saying here – the “why” is irrelevant, that someone chooses not to give and prefers not to be constantly hassled is enough of an answer. One should be able to say “no” plainly without offering any explanation and have that response accepted without further ado or question.
The facility is there, the technology is there. This is, for those who stand to benefit, good. That people are prepared to donate is also good. The demands being made by government, its agencies and parts of the general population that we all owe a civic duty is not. There is no such civic duty. Ask nicely and you may receive, for which, be thankful. If you do not receive, respect that person’s wishes and leave it. They have no obligation to give.
It disappoints me that such basic ethics need to be pointed out.
its the possibility that the harvesters are on a performance related bonus that worries me
Of course, ther is an obvious way out of this one.
Just let the muslims know that their organs will be donated to jews and this will either lead to the whole thing being dropped like a hot spud, or special opt outs for minorities with (hopefully) enough wiggle room to make the system unworkable.
Well I think if you are prepared to take a donated organ then it is pretty selfish and hypocritical not to want to donate. But I am sure you are right that failure to register as a donor is more to do with inertia than opposition to being a donor. In which case, there should little objection to prompting people to donate or having an opt out system, so that someone must make a conscious decision not to be a donor. Another approach, which might appeal more to a libertarian, would be to make receipt of a donor organ dependent on already being a registered donor. But that would strike me as being spiteful, punishing someone for an act that may not have been deliberate. I think many would find it distasteful not treating someone for an arbitrary, not medically related reason.
Question: if doc is faced sick/injured person one who could possibly be treated and revived with a lot of work, and also a sick/injured person two who could really really use the bits out of the person one, and especially if person two belongs to an approved minority (coloured, muslim, asylum-seeker, famous lefty politician, rock/film star, bbc presenter, etc) whereas person one does not, what choice is going to be made? How hard will they try?
I don’t want to be person one, which is why I don’t carry a donor card, and will opt out if that becomes necessary.