Gordon Brown does something right!
The UK is desperately short of organs. At present, there are some 8000 patients on the organ transport waiting list - and more every year. These people will die without an organ transplant.
Introducing an opt-out system of donation, where it’s assumed you consent to organ donation after death unless you say otherwise when alive, could save many thousands of lives. I suspect that, in our current system of opting-in, many potentially useful organs are wasted. Some people don’t care about organ donation either way, and so don’t register for donor cards. Some people might consider donating, but don’t know how. Some people simply don’t think about organ donation, but might do it if they did. So we lose organs, and live with them.
This could save many lives. Of course, there are some, utterly puzzling, groups who feel that this is an infringement of patients’ rights. How? There’s an opt-out clause. People don’t have to give their organs if they don’t want to. Sure, there’s an onus on the state to now inform people that the system has changed and they need to opt out if they don’t want recycling. But it’s not as if the state is out there, digging up corpses and stealing their insides.
There is still a choice.
More than that though, how exactly does one infringe the rights of a corpse? This I am curious about. A conscious individual has rights and liberties. That is, to my mind, unquestionable.
But, is a corpse a conscious individual? I think not. Viewed in completely unsentimental terms, it’s a slab of meat. Nothing more, nothing less - even in legal terms. Why shouldn’t that slab of meat be put to some use? There’s no reason not to. And, if you can stop someone else from becoming an unconscious slab of meat by using part of that slab of meat, every reason to do so.
So, bravo, for once.
The only argument in counter to your suggestion is that the corpse remains the property of the person who inhabited it, so just as their living body possesses sovereignty so does their deceased one.
The response to this is simple enough: since the state is permitted to take a portion of their property via taxation this is simply another example.
The carcass is another asset, the state may take part of it in order to ensure that the citizens in greater need of the resources do not die as a result of lacking them. This may upset the relatives, which is a pity but not nearly as much of a shame as other families forced into grieving while perfectly useful parts biodegrade in a container that has no longer any use for them.
Given that, as far as I’m concerned, the person ceases to be except in memory after death, I find the concept of them possessing property after death tenuous.
If you accept the validity of property rights then there is little cause for this to cease after the person has met their demise. This is why there are provisions for wills and so on: the person effectively retains control over their property, despite no longer being in existence.
I suppose that the word “Possesses” may be redundant, yes, as we have no evidence that they are still present anywhere at all and as such can not legislate as if they were. But wishes in life for their belongings should certainly be considered.
I disagree. I would strongly urge anyone and everyone to donate their organs, and the objections are stupid ones. But the objections exist, and should be respected.
And opt-out implies that the state has decided that moral objections to organ donation are unfounded. I would rather we had an opt-in system, where those who wish to donate can, and those who do not are free from inferece of state coercion.
This is a simple matter of active and passive action - anyone who doesn’t care what happens to their organs is currently holding people back. I think a free society should encourage them to make a decision, and opt in if that is their wish. Sure, it’s stupid and selfish not to, but the decision should be a positive one.
“And opt-out implies that the state has decided that moral objections to organ donation are unfounded.”
They may have a foundation. But should the government pay more attention to this than the people dying for want of organs then it has its priorities wrong.
Property rights < Right to live