Gordon Brown announces a change to opting out of organ donation, a brave and decent decision, I congratulate him on it.
We will no doubt hear a cacophony of complaint from a vociferous crowd who will be opposed on various grounds, the religious flat earthers will lead as usual but this will go through because it's the right thing to do, anyone who has lost a friend or relative for want of a transplant will tell you that.
This will save lives and I reckon if God had not wanted lives to be saved he would have given us a clue by now. Take Jesus for instance, I reckon that based on what I was taught and the impression that that teaching made on me Jesus would have been first in the queue saying "take my kidney, my lung, my blood etc. to save that poor child's life".
After all we are taught that he gave his own life to save others so he would surely have given blood or an organ.
People who are waiting right now for a vital transplant for themselves or for a loved one will be saying, 'thank God or our lucky stars for Gordon Brown and everyone else who supports him on this.
I have no idea how long it might take to action this, the quicker the better but lots of people have a glimmer of hope, I say let's do it, right now !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Councillor,
You're mad!!
This lot can't be trusted with cash so why in the name of the wee man would you want to trust them with your body?
To even things up, as there is a slight chance that I might get your brain, I'm opting out of receiving as well as donating.
I don't know that religion is neccessarily a factor in this.
In any case, you are indeed right about Jesus. But switching to opt-in smacks of authoritarianism - the grounds of objection are personal freedom grounds.
As an organ donor I find this change in policy disgusting. It amounts to little more than body snatching. The state has no right to my body and there should never be an assumption towards it.
However when your entire political ideology is shaped around the idea that the State is all powerful and that the people exist only to serve it it is a short hop to admitting that even your very being is the property of the Government.
I admit that the decision is made with the best of intentions but coercing people and preying on the grieving is the lowest of the low and you should be standing up for the people in this matter - not welcoming this. After all, if the people wanted to donate their organs they would fill out a form like I have. But then again that is charity and we know what you feel about charity verses the state redistributing.
I am sure you will also want to congratulate the SNP, who agreed to support a policy of presumed consent in October at their party conference.
Good news all round.
I expected nothing less from the bloated buffoon...how can you espouse freedom from oppression and slavery to the state at the same time?
Not to worry, TK your organs wouldn't be worth a damn except for the scientific study to see how you have lived so long woth only a half a brain.
(Rabbie) 15/01/08 - Jokes don’t work when you have to labour as hard as that.
They can have anything they like of mine but I fully intend to leave nothing usable.
(Anonymous) 15/01/08 _
Religion becomes a factor when people for religious reasons (no matter how genuine) stand in the way of research and progress. This they have done in the past and they will again.
There are lots of laws and rules which people don’t like but I personally believe this is a good move, people will be allowed to opt out.
(Anonymous) 13:10 Over the past couple of years as a blogger this is probably the most awful, twisted thing I’ve read. I think you will find that it gets support from every side and apart from people like you who are prepared to stoop low enough to try to make political capital out of it, it will be popular.
You are some piece of work, I feel the need to go and wash.
(Hacksaw Jim Duggan) 13:23 -
So what’s their angle then ?
Yes of course I’m happy to note the support of everyone no matter what party.
Well done the SN, the SN, the SN argh I can't say it.
(Serpico) 14:19
You are a difficult person to like but I will keep printing you, people deserve to see that people like you exist and are not made up by me.
I was making the capital? You were the one saying that anyone who gets a new kidney should thank Gordon brown. Sounds like political capital.
So I take it you approve of the state having first say over your organs? Surly if that's the case the state then has the right to look after their property and legislate to prevent you abusing those organs?
"They can have anything they like of mine but I fully intend to leave nothing usable."
Oh I don't know, your brain will be perfectly usuable. You certainly haven't gotten any use out of it at all.
Even though I do not need a transplant & I do not know of anyone who has ever had one so I am still to be convinced that this is the correct way to square this circle.
I can foresee vulnerable people being taken advantage so that unscrupulous doctors can steal body parts.
I can also see the day when doctors will want to keep people on life support machines unnecessarily so that they can farm out organs adding to the distress of loved ones.
Presumably you are also in favour of compulsory blood donation?
And if not, why not?
(Anonymous) 16/01/08 -
“I was making the capital? You were the one saying that anyone who gets a new kidney should thank Gordon brown. Sounds like political capital“.
This is a lie and shows the weakness of your position, what I said was “everyone should thank Gordon Brown, AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO SUPPORTS HIM ON THIS”
“So I take it you approve of the state having first say over your organs“?
Doesn’t bother me, dead is dead, why not do some good after you go, it’s the doing good part which stumps you isn’t it.
Not really, if you look at my original post you will see that I first qualify my response by stating that I am a registered organ donor. It is not the "doing good part" it is the "all powerful state" part. Indeed you may say "first they came for the organ donors but i was not one so I did not speak up..."
The other part was not a lie. You said that people should thank Gordon Brown and all those who support him on this. Even a primary child can tell you that this sentence clearly shows that you think Gordon Brown deserves to be the figurehead for this and that everyone else is following him. Hence you expect a political profit from this move. Hence you are looking to score political points. Very simple.
(Serpico) 17/01/08 - What can I say ? You’re just too sharp for me, wait until you go to secondary school wow !
(oakwood) 17/01/08 - “I can foresee vulnerable people being taken advantage so that unscrupulous doctors can steal body parts“.
I don’t foresee this. ‘Doctors stealing body parts’ the caring profession eh ?
“I can also see the day when doctors will want to keep people on life support machines unnecessarily so that they can farm out organs adding to the distress of loved ones“
It might be the case that a clinically dead person could be kept alive to facilitate a transplant, that wouldn’t bother me at all.
Maybe these evil doctors could collect lots of parts and create a monster, hold on that's been done hasn't it or was it a story.
Were you bitten by a doctor as a child ?
(Anonymous) 17/01/08 - That’s a tricky one but, do blood donors not need to be alive ?
Or do you mean draining all their blood when they die ? If that was possible why not ? We give blood and organs already don’t we.
(Anonymous) 16:18 -
You are repeating yourself, there is nothing new here.
Was it Gordon Brown who suggested it or did he just announce it ? Who cares it’s a good thing.
"Cllr Terry Kelly said...
(Anonymous) 17/01/08 - That’s a tricky one but, do blood donors not need to be alive ?
Or do you mean draining all their blood when they die ? If that was possible why not ? We give blood and organs already don’t we."
No, I meant making it compulsory for people to give blood regularly, regardless of their wishes.
Your utilitarian argument in favour of compulsory organ donation applies equally here.
Terry,
There are unscrupulous doctors and nurses Harold Shipman & Beverly Allit to name two.
Secondly it may not bother you for a doctor to maintain life for the sole reason to harvest organs but for the grieving family it would be very distressing. If someone is dead let them die.
(Anonymous) 18/01/08 -
You seem to be losing heavily here.
There is no plan to make organ donation compulsory that is why people can carry a card saying don’t use my organs.
I would however make eye, ear and nostril donation compulsory, that seems quite humanitarian as we already have two each of these and we could get by on one, what do you think ?
(Oakwood) 08:36 - I can’t let you away with this tosh whether you are sincere or not.
What qualifies you to say what grieving families would do ?
If I were part of a grieving family in these circumstances, I would not be distressed at organs being used I would be proud.
Terry:
For many people, this has nothing to do with religion. I carry a donor card, and am planning to donate my body to medical research. However, that is my choice. You say that this policy will save lives, which is true, but does that justify this incredible extension of state power?
Consider this scenario- you are told that you have to exercise two hours a day and become an optimum weight (not you personally, just a general policy). This is made compulsory by the state. Is it good for you? Yes. Will it save lives? Yes. Would you or I support it? No.
What is the difference between the first and second policy?
(Rumbold) 09:27 - “For many people, this has nothing to do with religion”
Simply not true it has everything to do with religion for many people.
I’m not being trivial here but, in the first scenario you’re dead and in the second you’re alive.
The state has many powers, some we agree with and some we don’t, I agree 100 % with this one, we are talking about saving lives using people who are dead, what is the problem with that ?
"The state has many powers, some we agree with and some we don’t, I agree 100 % with this one, we are talking about saving lives using people who are dead, what is the problem with that ?"
Therefore, Councillor, do you support the use of aborted foetuses for stem cell research?
Terry:
Why should possession of your body revert to the state when you die? What gives them the right? Why shouldn't they be able to take a kidney out of you when you are still alive?
(Dr Foster, Gloucester) 09:19
“Therefore, Councillor, do you support the use of aborted foetuses for stem cell research“ ?
Yes.
(Rumbold) 10:39 -
The state already has claims on you when you die, there are rules about burial, post mortems etc. the salient point is surely that when you are alive your organs matter to you, when you are dead they are not much use are they ?
The state has the right to do what it likes, I’m sure you know that, wishing or even demanding that it does something differently is simply that, wishing.
If you don't care who announced it then why attempt to tack Brown's name onto it? If only to attempt to claim political points for this move.
I agree with you about not caring about my body after I die. I will be finished with it and personally if good things can be done with the parts then good on them. But to change to an opt-out system suits you because at the moment opt-in is charity and you have made it very clear that you despise charitable giving.
It is somewhat strange that while the Government tries to avoid nationalising the near dead Northern Rock they seem quite happy to suggest nationalising the actual dead.
"“Therefore, Councillor, do you support the use of aborted foetuses for stem cell research“ ?
Yes."
So are you in favour of abortion?
"The state has the right to do what it likes, I’m sure you know that, wishing or even demanding that it does something differently is simply that, wishing."
The state has NO rights. This comment summarises the socialist mindset in all its evil. Every socialist state delivers nothing but misery and suffering to its people.
And I see that Chavez is about to demonstrate that once more - seizing farms, imposing price controls, forced lending at negative interest rates. Chavez is doing his best to cripple Venezuela in the same fashion that Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe and that every other socialist has done to their country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7199543.stm
How many more times must it be shown that socialism is a disaster everywhere?
(Anonymous) 21/01/08
“The state has NO rights”
You can change the state by changing the Govt. or advocate as you seem to be doing, anarchy.
Chavez - is a breath of fresh air, as are the other left leaning South American Govt’s who are now standing up to the American bully.
(Anonymous) 21/01/08 -
Gordon Brown just happens to be the Prime Minister who gets to introduce this, therefore he will be associated with it, and rightly be praised for doing it, as will anyone else who supports him.
“nationalising the actual dead” what a statement your prejudice is showing here.
"Chavez - is a breath of fresh air, as are the other left leaning South American Govt’s who are now standing up to the American bully."
Just as Robert Mugabe stands up to the British and European bully.
I find it interesting that the socialist paradise includes allowing your own people to starve to death.
(Anonymous) 19:15 -
The winds of change are blowing in South America just as old Harold said they were in SA -
Justice and peace will eventually win and America and the rest of the rapacious capitalist bullies will have to learn to accept it.
"Gordon Brown just happens to be the Prime Minister who gets to introduce this, therefore he will be associated with it, and rightly be praised for doing it,"
So he will get political points from this which means that you must now need to go wash after reading his statements about it. Or is it only when someone disagrees with you that they are that low?
I fail to understand what prejudice I am showing about my comment on nationalising the dead. Are you saying I am bigoted against dead people? I am pretty sure they are - in your words, beyond caring.
(Anonymous) 15:17 -
I offered praise for those who brought the policy forward for Brown for embracing it and for everyone who supports it, did I miss someone ?
It’s you who has the problem with it because of your bias, yes that is a rather lowly position to adopt.
But surely you are giving Brown political credit for the announcement? If so then you are trying to score political points for your boss. Your attack on me is simple double standards and makes you a hypocrite.
And as I said before I am a registered organ donor - I don't have a problem giving organs after I am gone but I do have a problem with the State deciding that it can just take what it wants.
This policy was announced because the organ donor register does almost nothing to persuade people to donate and their numbers are poor because of it. Rather than spend the money to advertise and convince people of the benefit to their fellow man the Government will simply force people to opt out knowing most will not bother out of laziness. Seems like bully-boy tactics to me.
You have still not explained in what way I am prejudice though.
Post a Comment