Hands off our bodies, Mr. Brown

Chris

I broadly agree, but out of interest, are you against auto-enrollment in the NPSS?

Nicholas Millman

Whenever anyone in New Labour says "That is why I want to start a debate in this country", whether it be Gordon Brown or Harriet Harmon, you know the policy has already been decided, the legislation drafted and the fait well and truly accomplit. Chilling is exactly the right word. These bullies don't know what debate, democracy or free will is.

maria

Can`t see your problem myself - just opt out. Much easier to do that if you feel strongly about keeping all your bits after death than for the majority who are vaguely in favour but never quite get round to doing something about getting and then carrying a doner card. In fact this was an idea put forward a few years ago by the Conservative MP Nigel Evans. It is a scheme that at least deserves serious consideration and not a wild flailing of arms in panic at the erosion of human rights. This is NOT going to be a Burke & Hare scheme. If it goes ahead - and many many people will benefit the Right Hon N. Evans should at least be credited with thinking of it first.

Euripedes Re Spondes

Matthew, you have correctly assessed the situation, Gordon should keep his hands off our cadavers lest we have to chop his hands off. Maria, its a matter of principle and if you don't look after these then people take take them away. As for Nigel Evans, a good man but he was wrong on this.

Jovan

You're going to be dead before you're affected - so what's the problem? Who cares about appeasing superstitious-religious maniacs? Is this not a case of "philosophical principle" getting in the way of doing real good in the world, i.e. SAVING LIVES?

Iain MacGranthin

This opinion of G.Brown's has less to do with life saving, and more to do with the NHS being a political football, just like it has always been.

Praguetory

I'm with Maria. The situation which exists whereby a majority of people would be willing to donate organs but a tiny minority have those arrangements in place is ridiculous. I am really struggling to understand your objection.

Caroline

Quite right maria and Jovan. The times I've seen desperate people needing transplant and thought that I must 'do something' then forget about it. If it's a question of your principles then opt out.

Wonderkid

What worried me (and a close elder relative) is that this policy could be misused. When will the first murder occur in order to keep someone else alive? When will the law be misused by either the government, crooks or terrorists? And where was the debate? This has suddenly be thrust into the news. Will it become law automatically without me, the voter, being able to stop it?

Fergus Pickering

Jovan, why is SAVING LIVES a real good in the world? You assume it to be so and to be of the utmost importance. But why? What are the lives for? You assume that religious people are maniacs and that your view is the only view. But you've never reallythought about it, have you? In the long run, friend, we are all dead.

dexey

I'm a superstitious religious maniac but i'm broadly in favour of this. It saves the terminally idle from having to make a decision. I do, however, want reassurances that I will be actually dead before they remove anything and not just got a bad cold or an ingrowing toenail. I've not a lot of faith in the English version of the nhs.

anna

Surley when the burden of responsibility shifts to the individual over a matter that intimately concerns them no principle is lost or threatened. A true sign of democracy is that there remains a choice that is respected -which is why the scheme must be well thought out and monitored. Also that it forces the individual to think about the issues at stake must be a good thing.

Verity

Jovan - Ah, I didn't think it would take long for the militant atheists to scamper onto this thread. Next time, just write thusly: Militant Atheist Boilerplate No 6 (or whatever). That will save everyone time,including you. Maria, if you can't see anything wrong with the state presuming ownership of your body, I find that chilling. You write: the majority who are vaguely in favour but never quite get round to doing something about getting and then carrying a doner card. Could you let us know your source, please, as I have never read this. A link would do. Many - I would guess most - people are disturbed by the state's assumption that you belong to it; and most people - again, I assume - find the notion that while they are sitting in the hospital, grieving and steeling themselves to go home and make funeral arrangements, in a room off the next corridor, people are at work butchering their father, mother, sister, brother or - unthinkably, child - in the service of the state. As you may know, although two hours is the outer limit, organs are at their most useful if extracted and implanted immediately after death. The sheer over-mightiness of Gordon Brown and his cohorts in this and much else, is staggering.

Norman Briffa

One of the reasons the oft quoted spanish system works is that they have a comprehensive transplant coordinator system. I know this as I studied the system when I trained as a heart transplant surgeon at Papworth 13 years ago. Brown promised he would increase the numbers of coordinators when he voted against presumed consent fairly recently. The transplant problem has been around for a few tears - why now? Like everything else he does (include breathing) it is for political purposes.

Austin Barry

Brown seems to be following the non-consensual approach of Scottish body-snatchers Burke and Hare. However, to paraphrase Joe Orton, an organ-less approach to Heaven is as likely to succeed as any other.

Selby

Verity, it is not the State as a system that ultimately gains from this scheme (service of the state....)it is individuals who would otherwise die. That is the important thing to remember. If it bothers you OPT OUT......but don`t rubbish something that only benifits the weak and helpless, shame on you. And Normam, of course GB is doing this for political purposes...that`s what he is a politician.

Selby

Verity, it is not the State as a system that ultimately gains from this scheme (service of the state....)it is individuals who would otherwise die. That is the important thing to remember. If it bothers you OPT OUT......but don`t rubbish something that only benifits the weak and helpless, shame on you. And Normam, of course GB is doing this for political purposes...that`s what he is a politician.

Herbert Thornton

I foresee headlines -

"MAN CERTIFIED DEAD REVIVES AFTER SURGEONS REMOVE ONE OF HIS KIDNEYS AND BEGIN TO REMOVE THE OTHER"

and

"HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS PRESSURED SURGEONS TO SPEED UP CABINET MINISTER'S TRANSPLANT"

Wouldn't it be consistent with the way the NHS and the Government are run these days?

naddo

The solution: Drink excessively Eat whatever you want Sleep around a lot Smoke tabs Express non PC views a lot A - You'll have a great time B - They'll never want your parts B - No way

KB

Now I understand what Brown means when he talks about a "personalised" NHS. I hope he gets a chance to participate in the organ donation scheme at the earliest opportunity.

Iain MacGranthin

Don't forget, with the plethora of new laws they have passed, soon we will all be in the naughty book, and they will have records of our DNA. I don't understand those people who refuse to consider that the sum effect of these 'policy musings and actions' on the right of the individual to determine h/er/is own life is destructive. You can't choose the manner of your own death. They will have your parts by the back door if they can. Sooner or later some forward thinking MP or bureaucrat have the bright idea of associating the DNA database with a nation of free body parts. We seem to be truly showing the world that we never really left Feudalism behind.
It doesn't take a consipracy, just a blunderous series of political 'great ideas' not thought through to their worst conclusion. Any half brained analyst will tell you if there is a worst that can happen, you should consider it a probability, especially when the sum of all actions to date shows no caution at all, just political expediency. Ask the nurses and doctors out there who just want to be left to be doctors and nurses. And he just 'embraced' preventative medicine?...
I really believe that just as most of the great discoveries in history have had an element of luck in them, the blunders and tyrannies don't get there altogether by design either. Anyone read 1984 recently? We are in the UK the most surveilled humans on the planet, and it ain't what Warhole meant by '15 minutes of fame'. Smile, you are probably on camera.

If you think of the worst case scenario, you may, with a little luck, avoid it.

steve

I recommend you take a look at the burning our money blog, where Wat points out that the problem is not a shortage of donors, but a chronic inability of the NHS to match donors with recipients, admittedly the market based solution may prove to be a little too strong meat for most people. but his analysis is quite interesting. Personally I initially thought "well why not" but now I find myself pondering on the worst outcomes, a good what if, involves the intersection between presumed consent, and any euthanasia legislation, that may (probably, in my view) surface in a few years time. Surely we wouldn't end up with very vulnerable people being treated merely as organ banks would we? before anyone leaps down my throat saying a but euthanasia would be voluntary, I can all to easily imagine the parameters getting changed as the policy develops.

Douglas

D'accona has not actually explaoned any negative outcomes that could result from such a change in the law, just said that he opposes it on principle. To present a decent argument against it you need to give an outcome of the change ( even something like some some of slippery slope) to better argue against the proposal. just saying that it is on principle doesn't show there to be anything that will actually occur from this change that is negative!! some argument about how it might change our culture or how certain citizens may not want their remainds used but be unaware of the choice and the negatives associated with that ect ect but to just say the word "principle" or that it is "morally repugnant" is a very weak and almost meaningless argument indeed!

pj

The concept of implied consent with opt out is a logical fallacy. As the system stands, when a person dies, medical staff establish or try to obtain consent to organ donation. If implied consent becomes the norm where is the incentive to consult or make enquiries? What happens if the donor's objection to donating only comes to light after the transplant is performed? Is the operation reversed?

Daniel

Douglas, I have no idea why Matt should supply examples of negative outcomes. That does not appear to be the debate. The issue is - do I have a Freehold of my own body, or am I merely occupying on leasehold terms with the state as Freeholder. I agree wholeheartedly with Matt - I am disgusted that Gordon Brown consdiders that he has any presumed right over my internal organs. Although, on a lighter note, good luck to whoever gets my Liver!

C Powell

Matt is quite right: our bodies do not belong to the State and it is for us to decide what to do with them not for us to be forced to opt out from automatic organ donation. And can you imagine how we'll all be made to feel guilty if we opt out and/or described as religious nutters (and I note that's already started). Even worse this creates a conflict of interest between doctors trying to save a life and those doctors/administrators who will want to harvest that person's organs. How can I know that every step has been taken to save my life or that of a relative? How can I trust a doctor when he tells me that there is no hope? How do I know that he does not have an eye on whatever organ-donation target that hospital has? Our lives, our bodies, information about us is ours not the State's and the State needs to back off. Only a Government as illiberal as this one, so contemptuous of our privacy could come up with such a proposal.

Verity

The manipulative and sly nature of this government is apparent in their language. "Harvest" organs. It sounds lovely. Harvest is a very old English word and it means gather what has been intentionally planted and grown in the earth for nourishment. It means gathering the fruition of that planting. It means bringing in the crop. It does not mean plundering human corpses for spare parts. The constant intentional, emotive misuse of language of this government has to be watched constantly, because they are sly.

Faceless Bureaucrat

Douglas (9.15am) - M D'A is on the button here - if you want a debate on this issue, then read some of the other postings (particularly PJ @ 9.22am and C Powel @ 12.23pm) - I thnk perhaps we've just had one...

mark

Some really good posts - and I think that an argument based on principle does NOT need any more concrete examples. But the most powerful argument against (in addition to the principle one) is from C Powell. The conflict of interest for medical staff in the ER room/ICU could be really difficult, to put it mildly. When you put that against a few targets that, if met, generate additional funds - well - let's not go there eh?

RickN

You're dead when rigor mortis sets in, not when electical activity has stopped in your brain. Future advances may be able to reestablish a sembance of personality following lengthy brain death. Enthusiasts are too eager to take parts from badly injured people who can't resist. Learn to grow them instead.

The Laughing Cavalier

Who among us would like to stand between a Nulabour apparatchik and his transplant?

lucy

I have to say I find the attitude of many in this thread strange being a 27 year old organ recipent I fully agree with the opt out system this has nothing to do with Gordon Brown wanting to 'own your parts' and more to do with reducing the number of deaths due to a shortage of organs i was lucky but I know of many people that have not been so fortunate and think how you would feel if it was one of you who needed the organ as has been stated many people do not register due to laziness however if you feel this strongly you have the option to opt out I hope with the attitude some of you display That you never have to deal with the REALITY.