On Jan 13, 1:45 am, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:

We can't opt out of the organ debate
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 13/01/2008http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SS34HWILMZPN...

Transplant surgery is a medical wonder, and one that has saved
thousands of lives. But as the technology has improved and its use has
become more widespread, so the gap between the number of people whose
lives could be saved by an organ transplant and the number who are
lucky enough to benefit from one has widened. That gap has now become
a chasm: every day, three people die while on the waiting list for
transplant surgery.

The explanation is the lack of organs for transplant. There are more
than 8,000 people in the UK waiting for transplant surgery, but the
meagre supply of organs suitable for transplant means that only 3,000
transplants are performed each year. Gordon Brown is surely right to
want to try to increase that supply. But achieving that aspiration is
a lot more difficult than merely expressing it. No sane person
believes that the state has the right to tamper with an individual's
body without their consent. As Mr Brown correctly says, we need to
ensure that more people consent to the use of their organs for
transplant surgery after they are dead. The difficulty is finding a
way of achieving that result that is not coercive, intrusive, or
otherwise objectionable.

Mr Brown wants a debate on whether the law should be changed so that
doctors could assume that, for example, someone who died in an
accident that left his or her organs intact had consented for those
organs to be used in surgery. At the moment, the law requires that
each individual explicitly state that they consent to such a move: you
have to carry an organ donor card in order for doctors to use your
organs once you are dead; failing that, your relatives have to state
that you would have consented. The Prime Minister proposes that
everyone should be presumed to consent to their organs being used for
transplant after their death, unless they explicitly state otherwise,
perhaps by putting their names on a register, or carrying a card
stating "I do not wish my organs to be used for transplants".

The preusmption of consent is an idea worth considering in order to
increase the number of organs available for donation. In the absence
of an explicit refusal to allow the removal of organs, presuming
consent after death would not be an illegitimate infringement of a
person's fundamental right to control what happens to their own body.
After all, medical and legal authorities are entitled, without
explicit consent, to perform intrusive autopsies on all corpses. If
that is permitted, it is not obvious why the removal of organs from
the dead, in order to give life to people who would die without them,
should always be prohibited.

Furthermore, nearly three quarters of the British public say they
would be willing to donate their organs for transplant after they die
- but only a quarter are on the register giving their explicit
consent. Probably the most common explanation for that failure to
register is that most simply never get round to it. Since that inertia
costs many of those on the transplant waiting lists their lives, it is
easy to understand why their advocates do not think it important for
the law to respect it.

Concerns begin to mount, however, when the practicalities of the
change to "presumed consent" are considered. Procedures are needed to
ensure that the wishes of those who do object to the use of their
organs are respected. The nature of those procedures is presumably to
be settled by "consultation", but there should be no change in the law
unless it is clear that appropriate safeguards are in place.

The Government is also soon to start rating hospitals for the number
of dead patients they "convert" into donors, and there will be league
tables that measure hospitals' achievements on that measure. This will
need very careful handling: doctors involved in intensive care warn
that families would be in doubt whether every effort was really being
made to save their relatives' lives if they felt that carers were also
eyeing the body with a view to "harvesting" the organs. Furthermore,
all kinds of subtle, and not-so-subtle, forms of coercion could start
to operate in that situation. It will be crucial, if an "opt out"
system is to be acceptable, to find a way to avoid them.

We welcome the Prime Minister's decision to initiate a debate on all
of those difficult questions. But we hope that the policy that emerges
at the end of it will respect an individual's right to say "No".

--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net

This raises a very interesting question that will then spawn a new
question: Who owns your body?

The obvious answer is that the individual or heirs own the body. Now,
once you agree that a person or heir owns the body, why not ask the
next question, Why can't a person sell his organs upon his death?

On the surface, this sounds like it lacks compassion. After all, the
presumption is that poor people will never be able to afford organs.
I contend that it allowing a person to sell his organs is far more
compassionate than preventing the sale.

Upon his death, a wealthy man can provide for his children's wellbeing
by being able to pass down his wealth. A poor man's children will
remain poor. HOWEVER, a poor man does posses one thing of great
monetary value, his body and organs. By allowing that man to sell his
organs, he is now able to financially subsidize his heirs.

Allowing a person to sell his organs is the compassionate thing to do.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:45:03 -0800, Captain Compassion

<dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

We can't opt out of the organ debate <snip>

I agree! I much prefer theater organs, such as Wurlitzers, to
screechy neo-Baroque catastrophes in favor by stuffy academics since
the krauts started the "orgelbewegung" movement in the '50s. However,
for classical, I prefer a large Aeolian-Skinner.

Organ debate now closed.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:45:03 -0800, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

We can't opt out of the organ debate <snip>

I agree! I much prefer theater organs, such as Wurlitzers, to
screechy neo-Baroque catastrophes in favor by stuffy academics since
the krauts started the "orgelbewegung" movement in the '50s. However,
for classical, I prefer a large Aeolian-Skinner.

Organ debate now closed.