Just a brief post registering my disapproval at all the tosh going around about Labour 'nationalising our bodies' on the back of Gordon Brown's presumed consent proposals. Where Bob Piper & Liberal Conspiracy lead, Polly Toynbee follows today - not a wagon trail I'm naturally predisposed to hitch up to but in this instance absolutely spot on.
Once you're dead, you're dead - there is no 'you' anymore to hold any views on any subject or object (or consent for that matter) to anything. The view in some quarters that your will should somehow remain sovereign even after it has ceased to exist simply makes no sense. What remains - all that remains in fact - is a mass of potentially life-saving tissue and organs so the presumption that this can be used is a necessary and practical one. The case for a system that doesn't even allow opt-outs (by individual or relatives) is actually a very strong one although in this instance the balance has probably been struck right. In today's Times Libby Purves objects from this angle:
Once you're dead, you're dead - there is no 'you' anymore to hold any views on any subject or object (or consent for that matter) to anything. The view in some quarters that your will should somehow remain sovereign even after it has ceased to exist simply makes no sense. What remains - all that remains in fact - is a mass of potentially life-saving tissue and organs so the presumption that this can be used is a necessary and practical one. The case for a system that doesn't even allow opt-outs (by individual or relatives) is actually a very strong one although in this instance the balance has probably been struck right. In today's Times Libby Purves objects from this angle:
"...it must be acknowledged and accepted that some of our compatriots have powerfully superstitious beliefs about bodily parts: we are not historically far from the age of relics, and some of the Alder Hey parents held repeated funerals for recovered microscope slides. You may not think that way, I certainly don't; but nobody has the right to gainsay those who do"If there's a human dying somewhere as a consequence of that decision - yes we do.
8 Comments:
ha thats wierd , you Piper and I all did the same subject and had the same conclusion.
I am less triumphlist about it than you because I can sympathise with the concerns but it is a good thing.
You say when you are dead there is no you. I would not defend it on that basis but on the basis that thereis no you reposing in your spleen heart and liver.
I do not agree with your ideas about existence , time , death and by implication the soul.The great majority of this country would agree with me. I take it you are some sort of atheist.Why be concerned then , when a grave is desecrated ?
What harm does it actually do , except to the ignorant and superstitious feelings of those far less clever than your good self ?
I am atheist but this isn't about who's clever and who's not - it's about balance and outcomes. Concern over a desecrated grave is valid because it serves no higher purpose and causes needles harm and distress.
That's different from taking organs which could save lives - that greater good can, in theory, offset any harm and distress to relatives. That the 'great majority' of the country might take a similar view to you is (1) questionable and (2) irrelevant even if true...
As I say , overall I agree with you on this
'Once you're dead. you're dead' - award yourself a PhD in The Bleeding Obvious courtesy of Fawlty Towers University!
There was an eagerly awaited 'you' before you became flesh and dwelt amongst us, there was a 'you' who was loved and cherished in your lifetime and there will forever be a 'you' in the hearts and minds of many long after you have shuffled off this mortal coil. The fact that a couple of these 'yous' were intangible does not detract from their you-ness(?)
Okay, in the latter stage there may be bits and pieces which are salvageable but that doesn't give anyone the right to move in and help themselves without your (previously expressed) consent.
What next - will local authorities provide an extra wheelie bin for the recently deceased, from whence they can be usefully recycled? Or what about people in a persistent vegetative state - there must be a few organs there which are not being used to full capacity and could be redeployed. The terms 'thin edge' and 'wedge' spring to mind.
I do agree with you, though, that it is wrong to harm or distress needles (your comment 15/1)
Once you're dead, you're dead...
Once you're dead, you sleep until the time comes for your record to be examined. Better to be on the right side of the ledger as far as humanly possible.
sadandbored - you always know someone's argument is a thin one when they invoke the 'thin end of the wedge clause'. It's code for 'I don't have any substantive reasons for opposing this so I'll raise the spectre of an entirely different set of circumstances in the future and oppose them'.
Your eloquent evocation of the 'you' that lingers is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. And anyway, I agree nobody has the right to your organs without 'previously expressed consent' - this system doesn't allow that. It's simply assumes the consent then gives you the opportunity to exempt yourself. Cheeky perhaps but I'll tolerate a little cheek on the states part if it saves lives.
James - I forgot your penchant for conspiracy theories. Not surprised you wish to remain whole until that 'Austin Powers' moment many years hence...
Your body does not belong to the state after you die, nothing belongs to the state, it owns only what it takes by coercion.
If I choose to have my body minced and fed to shrimps in Tahiti after my death, I would expect the benefactors of my will to honour that as it was my property to do with what I wanted.
No humans are dying somewhere as a consequence of such a decision- that is a straw man argument. Humans are dying today because we aren't double-tithing our salary to hundreds of charities all desperate for the money but I don't see angry mobs with pitchforks because I ignored the High Street Chuggers.
As it happens, I'm registered on the organ donation scheme in the event of my death but were it to become an opt-out system I would opt out on principle. Otherwise they are welcome to it, it won't be any use to me and probably not much use to anyone else either outside of Medical School.
(If you talk to doctors, they will tell you that few bodies are suitable for harvesting organs unless the donor has been unlucky enough to sustain serious head injuries such as persistent vegetative state).
Thanks Ian and hope you're feeling better.
You seem to be making the same mistake many are about these proposals - every outcome open to you at the moment remains open under these proposals, including becoming sustenance for Tahitian shrimps. All that's changed is the way you effect those outcomes. As yet nobody's offere up a convincing argument for why that subtle change is more important than the lives that will be saved as a consequence.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home