This is an issue that has come up again in the last few days thanks to Gordon Brown’s enlightened comments on the subject. As a result of the news around the issue, the predictable complaints have appeared using such dirty phrases as “set a dangerous precedent” or “the thin end of the wedge”. One writer appearing on the letters page of today’s Metro here in London even goes so far as to say “Presuming Consent is dangerous and not consistent with the values we often talk about in this country.” The only value that modern Britain epitomises and that this concept is inconsistent with as far as I can see is that of selfishness. Surely that’s all that refusing consent for organ donation is? I realise many people feel they have good reasons, but when they are refusing to allow something to happen for other peoples benefit, what other word is appropriate?
The most bizarre argument, however, appears to be that presumed consent is “an infringement of our freedom to practise our faiths”, and similar wording that appears elsewhere. How can that be? It is true that it is an idea that doesn’t follow the way of thinking of every minority, and is not likely to be agreed on by everyone, but it is hardly a policy of enforcement either. When a policy is created that follows the thinking of the majority, benefits a vast number of people, and only requires those who disagree to sign a form to say they opt out, with no stigma whatsoever attached to that, how on earth can the policy be seen to be infringing on anyone’s freedom? This sort of argument surely is religious selfishness gone mad. One’s own freedom to be able to practise one’s religion does not require that no work at all has to go in to that. Would a Muslim try to argue that having to ask for leave to pray during an extended meeting would be unreasonable, rather he should be able to simply walk out of the room?
Of course, it is important that, given an opt out scheme, the individual opting should not be required to specify why he is opting out. At that point it is reasonable to believe that people are being forced to share information that they might wish to keep private.
Maybe the register of opting out should also be an opt out of future donations as well. Just an idea.
In any case, I don’t see how useful this law will be either way. The only people organ donation can be taken from are people who have suffered some head trauma or the like and have been declared clinically brain dead (legally equivalent to dead). Life support can keep the body alive for a very long time after this. I’m sure in the vast majority of cases, by that time, next of kin have been informed. Since they also have veto on donations, the autodonate scheme seems a little pointless. That said, the few cases where they can’t be found would result in a few more people having another lease at life, so I suppose it is worth it.
An opt out of future donations? I don’t understand… surely an organ donation opt out is by definition “future”,given that you can only opt out of it happening at one point in your life?
The auto donate scheme isn’t pointless if a reasonable number of current donations are not happening because the prospective donor hasn’t opted in, and yet the family would not veto. Doctors seem to think that this would increase the rate of donations, and given that it’s a scheme we few down sides, even one or two more lives saved would surely be worthwhile?
Given that, I’m also largely in favour of removing the next of kin veto.