In the unlikely event that anyone wants my organs, it should be up to me
Rod Liddle says that the notion of ‘compulsory donations’ is oxymoronic and the pinnacle of the medical profession’s zeal to get its hands on our corpses
Nor, I suppose, would they want my lungs, the interior of which, through a copious and ever improving intake of cigarettes, now resemble the contents of a Tate & Lyle tin of black molasses; there’s about two square inches left right at the top, for oxygen. My kidneys, I think, are OK — it’s literally weeks since I passed any blood. My heart, meanwhile, is sitting there, doing its stuff, biding its time for a while. It will attack when my back is turned, when I least expect it. The medical vultures are also after corneas, I understand; but again, mine will be of little use. I view the world through windows encrusted with grime, both literally and metaphorically. These days when I watch football on TV I have to guess where the ball is, unless I sit with my nose touching the screen. The guessing is quite good fun, actually, especially when England are playing. But I don’t suppose they’d want my corneas either.
This has been, in many ways, a bad government. But it has never been worse than when its own controlling, authoritarian impulses are buttressed by the views of our fundamentalist medical clergy. It was not enough, for example, to enact legislation which ensured that people who did not wish to eat and drink near smokers could do so; they had to follow the sort of Hizb ut-Tahrir line from the BMA et al., and ban smoking absolutely everywhere — so that an awful lot of people don’t go to pubs and restaurants any more and the pleasure of enjoying a quiet drink or meal with friends has been lost, presumably forever. (Take a look at the pubs these days and then tell me, when a government report suggests there has been no decline in trade, that you are not being fed a large vat of downright lies.) Scarcely a day passes without some puffed-up, hectoring medical oaf insisting that we have to behave as the current medical fashion insists we must behave, or they won’t bother treating us; increasingly, the government goes along with such deranged, apocalyptic rubbish. New Labour never needed much of an excuse to involve itself in our private daily lives and it is thus a great friend of the medical establishment, evidenced by those new GP contracts the government has signed up to, which absolve doctors from treating any illness which occurs once Trisha or Richard & Judy has finished on TV.
Not so long ago, Labour was against the notion that the corpses of British people should be plundered for the valuable organs they contain; last time it came before parliament the then health secretary John Reid railed against such a liberty, such an infraction of the rights of the individual. Now, though, it seems to have changed its mind and henceforth people will have to make it clear, before they die, that they do not wish to be relieved of their organs once they’ve been killed through medical incompetence or malfeasance. (Remember: 30,000 British people every year are killed through medical mistakes, making doctors rather more dangerous to your health than, say, smoking. Or walking in front of a lorry.)
More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
After Jade’s cancer, what next? ‘I’m a tumour, get me out of here’?
Rod LiddleRod Liddle says that the stunningly tasteless announcement of Jade Goody’s cervical cancer on Indian Big Brother marks a new low. But that won’t stop TV bosses saying it is a public service
Economic recovery plan? Forget it, Gordon
Martin Vander WeyerThe Prime Minister’s survival is pinned on a September ‘relaunch’ to ease the voters’ economic woes. But, says Martin Vander Weyer, each door through which Brown tries to escape his predicament slams in his face. His room for manoeuvre is negligible
Georgia sheds light on the mind of Cameron
James ForsythJames Forsyth says that the Tory leader is more immersed in foreign policy than first seemed probable. Unlike Brown, he has ambitions as an international leader
Behind closed doors with the maestro
Clemency Burton-HillAs a Proms presenter, Clemency Burton-Hill had unique access to Daniel Barenboim last week: she reports on his private remarks about music and his rage for excellence
Poles are the fall guys of the immigration debate
Dennis SewellThe taboo on discussing migration has only been partly lifted, says Dennis Sewell. We pretend that all migrants are the same, whereas the statistics reveal some uncomfortable truths
Give us back our Big Idea, Mr Cameron
Liam ByrneLiam Byrne — tipped for Cabinet promotion in the reshuffle — says that when Cameroons advocate ‘fraternity’ they are repackaging the Conservative case for the shrinking of the state
‘I’m not an ambassador for New Labour, I’m an MP’
Martin RowsonIn the latest of his occasional series, Martin Rowson talks to Bob Marshall-Andrews, serial Labour rebel who had the entertaining cheek to accuse Miliband of disloyalty
‘There is nothing saying Labour will ever win power again’
Fraser NelsonThe choice facing the governing party is between defeat and annihilation, says Fraser Nelson. For now, Labour is mired in ‘division without decision’ as Jack Straw, David Miliband and others wait to see who — if anyone — will wield the knife against Gordon Brown
Very discreetly, Cameron is writing his first Queen’s Speech
Fraser NelsonIn spite of their commanding poll lead, the Tories are terrified of seeming complacent. But, as Fraser Nelson discloses, work is well advanced on a first-term plan for government in which education reform and a welfare revolution will be the centrepieces
An innocent at Home
James ForsythDominic Grieve, the new shadow home secretary, tells James Forsyth that he won’t ‘resort to soundbites’. But is this a sensible approach for a modern-day politician?
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
Sky - Official Site
Build your own Sky package online. Sky TV, Broadband & Talk only £16.
Sky TV, Broadband & Talk from £16 a Month
Sky TV & free broadband packages available from £16 a month. Choose from a standard free sky box, sky plus or sky hd.
Sky - Official Site
Build your own Sky package online. Sky TV, Broadband & Talk only £16.
Sky TV, Broadband & Talk from £16 a Month
Sky TV & free broadband packages available from £16 a month. Choose from a standard free sky box, sky plus...
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
City Breaks. ROME and PARIS
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Peter Monro
January 17th, 2008 10:40amwhere is the rest of the article ?
Peter Monro
January 17th, 2008 10:40amwhere is the rest of the article ?
Dan Boston
January 17th, 2008 12:43pmAgree with the points Mr Liddle makes but I have one small correction to make. Organs are taken from your body when you are ALIVE. The organs rapidly deteriorate when you are dead and so (as is the case with condemned Chinese prisoners, who are operated on before they are shot) they have to whip the organs out whilst you still have some life in you. You are of course deaded after this procedure. Are you going to trust a junior doctor, as an agent of government policy, to decide when it’s you time to go?
Dwight Vandryver
January 17th, 2008 11:33pmThere are three points to make (at least). Firstly, a survey should be conducted of the medical profession to see what proportion would refuse to donate their organs. Secondly, what guarantee would there be that the Hypocratic Oath would be maintained to the moment of natural death before the organ pillage began. Thirdly, transplantable organs have a considerable market value; therefore, if a person's organs were removed for transplantation, the NHS should automatically pay all funeral costs of the deceased. Personally, I would opt out of the proposed scheme, but they can have my willie for free (a nasty piece of work).
Laura Fox
January 18th, 2008 5:30pmDear Rod, If at death, one leaves a expressed wish, it will be followed: either in favour of donating his/hers organs to a fellow human, or of donating his/her organs to the soil's bacteria. (The option of “keeping” the organs does not really exist.) The question is what to do when the dead one’s wishes are unknown. The doctors will have to guess – either way. Currently the law says that they must presume that the dead person was in favour of donating his organs to the soil's bacteria. The new proposal is to presume that he/she would prefer to donate them to a fellow human being. In other words: the current law presumes that the dead are all selfish bastards. And the new proposal that the dead are reasonably decent, compassionate people.
Greg Ferry
January 18th, 2008 8:52pmAs a nurse - I just don't trust doctors as a species - sure they just want to make a bucket load of money out of yer bits. I have been present when the bits are harvested - not a very elegant time. I wont be donating mine.
Euripides RE Sponds
January 18th, 2008 9:39pmCompulsory organ donation in Brown's new stalinist Jerusalem? #over my dead body!
Shaun Hexter
January 19th, 2008 1:25pmThanks, Rod, for standing up for us. One little argument to add to these: it is far better to take the organs before the body is actually dead - hence the changes in the definition of death (brain stems and all that). I, for one, am not open to persuasion. My body is not for pilfering.
Hassan
January 21st, 2008 3:54pmOnce Mr. Liddle has finished scaremongering readers with images of heartless (forgive the pun) authoritarian doctors intent on stealing our organs from our cold dead corpses, and conflating his anger at New Labour and anti-smoking laws with proposed 'compulsory organ donations', we can look at this debate objectively. Under the proposed laws people still have the ability to 'opt-out' meaning it is not 'compulsory' for them to donate their organs. If a widespread public education campaign is undertaken to make sure everyone is aware that in Britain, your acceptance to donate organs is assumed unless you say you do not want to, just as people need to know that as citizens they can vote or they have a right to a lawyer to defend them in court, then what is the problem? This is a suitable solution to the current problem of public apathy. Most people would be willing to donate their organs upon death to save somebody else's life, but being human we either don't bother, or we delay registering as a donor, thinking "well I wont be dying any time soon", when of course anyone can die at any time in their lives. The result is many willing organ donors dying, and patients needing organ transplants waiting longer, with a greater risk of death.
Peter Gompertz
January 22nd, 2008 2:08amRe Hassans' comment about public apathy, what this Stalinist proposal will do is depend on the intertia ( aka public apathy ) of those who do not wish to contribute to such a 'brave new world'. I will be opting out as the government has had far more than its' fair share of me already; and the thought of my organs keeping some poxy Labour voter alive would be enough to have me spinning in my compost heap.
Catriona.
January 23rd, 2008 4:26amI DO love "The Spectator" because it publishes articles like this! Donations can't be compulsory.I don't want to be killed off for my parts which,on the whole, are probably pretty 'iffy'.... Can you trust someone to say they've done all they can if they're desperately short of say,a brain for a BBc announcer?
Freddy
February 1st, 2008 8:29amHow do you opt out ? Does it have to be registered in your National ID Database records ? Rod, I love the figure of 30,000 deaths from medical incompetence. Can you cite a credible source ?
rod liddle
March 10th, 2008 11:01amHere you are Freddy - sorry it's late. Figures are from the BMJ itself - here reported by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/682000.stm