In fact, maybe the whole woman.

And black men and woman.

And brown ones’

And those yellows and the reds.

And for Muslims, take their organs now.

As an aside, after reading the Human Tissues Act of 2004 it is clear we already live under some level of presumed consent, with strings attached. Given the current system’s ambiguity over what will happen to your body but without you perhaps realising it, wouldn’t the anti-presumed consent lobby prefer to at least know in black and white what will happen to them after they die rather than the current “maybe/maybe not, you’ll never know” system?

No one is saying “don’t get a donor card, they might make donating opt-out”. They’re saying “even though I do think organ donation is a good thing I don’t want it forced on anyone”. My analogy is far better.

“I’m afraid I can’t ever take someone’s views seriously when they say they’re for a particular idea or action but would be against ways of making it happen more because of principles.”

Really?

I’d like Al Gore to shut up but I don’t want to ban his film because I believe in the principle of free speech. Can you take that view seriously?

“There is both a criminal penalty (I assume) and a massive social sanction to necrophilia.
People frequently refight criminal trials after the person convicted has died in order to establish their innocence.
A will has legal force.
Even under Brown’s proposed reforms we will legally respect explicit opt-outs.”

http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-have-to-believe-that-when-my-eyes-are.html

Bang goes the idea of writing a will then and the thought that the State will, through the civil justice system, make sure that my wishes are honoured.

An interesting view on the situation that I must once again disagree with (surprise, surprise ). The right to a transplant is the right to receive something if it is there. We are not talking here about someone being guaranteed anything but the opportunity if it arises, there is no act here for predetermination for the destination of your insides.

I’d like to finish my contribution here since the dead end is ahead, by grounding this again in reality. A look at the transplant website shows that for each donor two transplants are able to take place, though if you take out living donors even more “use” is taken from a dead persons generosity. This has saved almost 1000 lives yet over 7000 people still wait on the transplant list. Critically, if these 1000 donors represent roughly the 25% of the population on the donor list, then an opt-out system that turned 90% of the population in to donors would provide somewhere in the region of 3500 donors which would compare pretty much to a similar amount of lives saved. This would still only be half of the yearly waiting lists cleared. Anything more complicated than the opt-out system is only going to mean that more people on that waiting list will be let down, and we’re already telling half of them they’ll have to wait over a year as it is, if they survive at all.

I suspect that we will not ever agree, but look at it this way: by-passing any issues of the state, if someone has a right to have an organ transplant then they effectively own a part of some other person’s body.

This is incompatible with libertarian ideals of self-ownership.

But, yes, we are at a point of fundamental disagreement: for you, the end justifies the means. For me, it doesn’t.

DK

You’re putting far too much stock in what these changes will do to doctors. If anything I would argue that it *eases* pressure on doctors to get organs. Right now there is a severe shortage and waiting lists are huge. NOW is the opportune time to act in bad faith and get organs quicker. If there are more organs coming naturally through the system there is a LESSER emphasis on the need to get the organs that could be available now quicker.

Same goes for 47, with proper procedures in place a doctor should never be able to personally profit from a system with no free market in place, nor should the families, the idea of money in return for the death of someone could work in some ways but ultimately offers up too much of a motive to move natural courses along artificially. But all in all the situation is ripe *now* for malpractice, not when there are more organs available.

48. Anecdotal evidence is not indicative of the vast majority of practitioners in this country now is it, or should we be saying Shipman goes to show Doctors are generally schizophrenic mass murderers?

My view first diverges here. Presumed consent doesn’t mean without consent. If people have the ability to withdraw their already presumed consent then it is, in effect, giving consent if you don’t take the action to remedy things in line with your beliefs. This is perhaps why I’m getting so confused, because it’s not like the state is saying we’ll take your kidneys when you’re dead, like it or not, they’re saying we’d like to take your kidney’s when you’re dead and are going to assume that (as polls suggest) you are pro-organ donation and only request you tell us if this is not the case. Perhaps a counter view is that a libertarian who is pro-organ donation should object to the state throwing away their organs without their consent?

“Is it a fundamental right to receive an organ donation? Let us, for a second, dispense with the cute innnocent kiddies and consider, for instance, George Best; he single-handedly ruined his liver through his alcoholism. Does he have a fundamental right to a new organ?”

This depends on the situation really doesn’t it. There has to be a level of assessment on why people are where they are in the queue, it can’t be first come first serve it has to be most needy with best prospects of surviving come first serve. I don’t know in all honesty how the system works intricately but if this isn’t how it is done then that is a separate issue from organ donation. I think everyone has a fundamental right to a chance at continuing life if the resources are there. Would you say that George Best should not have got a new Liver if by doing so no-one else were disadvantaged and there were organs to spare? Hypothetically of course.

“Is the delaying of death a fundamental right? I think that most libertarians would argue that it is not. Is the taking of life against fundamental rights? Yes.”

I think you’re splitting hairs here, and is really just a repackaging of the same disturbing view that you seem to be stating Libertarians have, and that is if they aren’t directly doing the killing they don’t feel remorse for the lives that they could be saving and the lives that could well go on for decades longer with the aid of a new organ.

“Am I explaining myself?”

You are, very well as far as I’m concerned, but I just really don’t buy it as anything more than some weird bastardisation of NIMBYism where you’re happy to do something or be a part of something unless you’re forced to stare it in the face. I’m afraid I can’t ever take someone’s views seriously when they say they’re for a particular idea or action but would be against ways of making it happen more because of principles. Maybe this is where we agree to disagree.

Alas not all doctors behave properly – see Alder Hey.
A perfect example of “good” motives provoking unethical behaviour.
It is a sensible prinicple, especially in respect of anything to do with ceding more power to the state, to avoid the risk of conflicts of interest.

Children are being taken from parents to meet adoption targets.
Why should a little “early harvesting” of organs not end up taking place as well?

The state has already shown itself to be wholly untrustworthy (cf Alder Hey scandal) in this regard.

This idea that you should only donate voluntarily seems bizarre: if it’s a good idea to save someone else’s life at no cost to you (which seems pretty obvious to me) and the most effective way to do that is to make organ donation something you opt out of rather than into (simply because of the numbers), then I think that trumps whether you get a nice warm feeling about having the choice.

Do you think it is because Chinese people are innately less moral and respectful of human rights than other people? Or do you think it is more likely they are normal people put into a certain cultural and institutional framework (and incentives) that encourage normal people to do terrible things? No one would deny that the vast majority of doctors in this country are trustworthy (having said that there are one or two surgeons who refuse to take part even in this country, due to the moral knife edge of removing organs from even an officially dead body that must still have blood pumped around it to keep those organs viable). But why do we trust doctors and state officials so much? Isn’t it because they have worked for so long and continue to work in a legal and cultural framework that gives so much respect to the rights of the individual?

How confident can you be that the trust will remain in the longterm, if the underlying framework is eroded by even subtle changes in the law like this?