When I saw this article about Spanish organ donation I thought that it was a bit odd, coming out of the blue. What event brought that into focus? What’s the news value?
Well, now I think I know. Gordon Brown wants to add organ snatching to his list of accomplishments.
I should say I am not against organ donation, but the State’s active involvement is what makes me queasy, and I am uncomfortable with the Burke and Harean possibilities it conjures.
That’s by the by. What’s wrong is the BBC’s publication of an article, which, en passant, might influence public opinion in favour of Government policy. Don’t tell me they are unaware of the Government’s moves as they portray how “The Spanish organ donor system is a remarkable story of human generosity in the face of grief.”
Not that the Spanish system is an example of what Brown is trying to do here- not so simple. Merely that they have (clearly) a proactive policy and this may be seen as emblematic of what the Govt here would like to do.
Another thing which makes me uncomfortable is that the BBC is clearly carrying water here for Euroland Lisbon agenda types who insist we must all learn best practise social and economic welfare from our Euro neighbours. It is one more example of integrationist journalism.
Update: 15.00 GMT. The Beeb really want this reform badly. See here and here among others. This is quite clearly a coordinated assault on public opinion, which stems from No. 10’s initiative. As Bodo puts it in the comments:
“The Govt and the Beeb have obviously been cooperating for a few days [at least] on what would be in today’s news.”
Managing the news, of course. No room for mention of the Alder Hey scandal, either.
Extra: as Pounce points out in the comments, our children are not to be excused the BBC/Government information drive. Never too young to follow Govt policy y’know.
Your organs are ours: the BBC and the nationalisation of the body
The BBC has been an enthusiastic and regular advocate of state ownership of my internal organs for years. The Toady programme had to suspend its peoples law exercise a couple of years ago when the people failed to select ‘the ‘mandatory donation’ of organs and voted instead for the right to defend themselves in their own home. Much rending of clothes and wailing amongst the BBC, and the entire exercise was scrapped. This was one of the most blatant examples of how the BBC treats opinions that fall outside its orthodoxy
The model Spanish process gets an airing and serious examination on Radio 4 very regularly – always with the conclusion that there should be a national database where you have to ‘opt out’. I would love the BBC to produce a contentious documentary that examines the economics and health outcomes of the organ donation industry. A huge and hugely expensive infrastructure of hospitals, medical staff etc are necessary for organ transplantation. The benefits of this are excellent for a few individuals but negligible for the population at large. Transplantation provides a very low gain in QALY (quality adjusted life years) in the majority of cases.
I’d say it is entirely consistent with govt policy
After all they seem to believe that our personal data should be shared with all and sundry without our permission – this is an entirely logical extension
Branwen Jeffreys didn’t write that article in 5 minutes. The quotes used indicate that she spent some time preparing it. Clearly NuLab tipped her off some time ago and al-Beeb had a nice little article up its sleeve ready for the bogey eater’s announcement.
its nice spin from Al Beeb in an attempt to distract us from tango man’s forgetfulness
at least they havnt used global warming or maybe theyve got that in reserve
It all fits nicely with NuLab ‘Politics of Envy’ – we may think that our land/money/bodies are ours, but as far as Brown is concerned, what’s ours is theirs.
anon 1.08pm
Good point. The Govt and the Beeb have obviously been cooperating for a few days [at least] on what would be in today’s news.
So now the Scumervent owns our bodies does it? Well no buggers getting mine without permission, I’d rather die first, er hang on … 🙂
How long before they believe they can take them before one is dead?
And the BBC launches a brainwashing offensive on our children in which to allow Brown to tax the human body.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7180000/newsid_7185900/7185950.stm
Two things struck me from Gord’s “nationalisation of corpses initiative”.
Some senior medic advocating the scheme said we’d need a large increase in intensive care beds to keep people alive until their bits could be harvested.
Hang on – aren’t we seriously short of IC beds ‘cos we’ve spent all the money on NHS salaries. If there was any possibility of squeezing out a few more, perhaps sick people with a chance of survival should have priority.
The other thing I noticed was a throwaway remark that “…of course religious and cultural sensitivities would be taken into account”.
According to the Sunday Times, currently aound 40% of white indigenous relatives refuse to consider donation – compared with 75% of black & asian relatives.
Guess who’s going to be getting a disproportionate share of your confiscated bit and pieces.
Fat Contractor,
Er,the bad news,they don’t want your body dead,they want your brain dead.A live body is required to keep the organs fresh.
Secondly,they take the lot,any bit that is useful gets recycled.
The opt out will be worthless,the card with “No fucking chance” will not be found,or if it is it will be too late.
It is easy to connect Brown’s physical MOT for all with the,NHS data base,which will no doubt be connected to the ID data base.
Just mix in China harvesting organs,those nice doctors Shipman and Mengele with a huge state health system and your bits will be walking around in someone else faster than you can say “Do Not Resuscitate”.
“Dr Bruce Taylor, of the Intensive Care Society warned that early indicators of death were not reliable. “The only way to be sure is to do all the tests which show brain stem death; anything in advance of that is only a prediction.”
But Chris Rudge, of UK Transplant, the authority in charge of organ donation and transplant, insisted patients would not be considered as donors at any point where survival was possible.”
This is the nub of the whole issue.At the moment death is defined by what can be repaired now,as medicine has advanced the frontiers have been pushed back.
There will be an unseemly push to legally define death for the purpose of transplants.This will be constantly challenged by medical discoveries.
Thus we will have two side,both working for state medicine making legal and political decisions concerning our lives and deaths.
Sorry,this is the NHS,bollocks.
Since the state now employs around 40% of the workforce – perhaps they should suggest an organ donor card as a condition of employment.
A sort of “quid pro quo” to society in return for their early retirement options and inflation proofed pensions.
After they’ve negotiated that with UNISON and the other public service unions – the rest of us might then consider joining in.
I wonder whether our glorious leaders might set the ball rolling by way of example with voluntary donor cards for all MP’s & ministers.
Doze off on the motorway and you might end up with a bit of Peter Hain or Harriet Harman one day.
“Doze off on the motorway and you might end up with a bit of Peter Hain or Harriet Harman one day.”
With my luck I’d get the bit that talks.
I suppose its too much to expect one of the underworked BBC hacks to do a bit of research. They might then be asking the govt why they are reannouncing stuff we had only a few months ago!
20th Sept 2007
Health Secretary Alan Johnson has asked advisers to look at whether everyone in England should be put on the organ donor register unless they opt out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7003208.stm
Now that the Governement has given the go ahead for the harvesting of organs. Here is a little something which the BBC isn’t saying;
Assalamu-alaikum. I was watching a BBC programme that highlighted the lack of black and asian people that carry donor cards. A representative from the NHS commented that many asian and black people do not offer to donate their organs after death as it is against their religion. The person insisted that as far as the NHS were aware there are no religions which stop a believer from donating organs or body parts to save another human life. I have always thought that donating your body parts after death is haram but I have seen no evidence of it. Can you please clarify whether or not Muslims are allowed to do this?
Wa Alaikum Salam,
The principle rule in Islam is that it is not permissible.
However, in extreme circumstances where the life of a person depends on it, the ‘Ulamaa differ. Currently there is no unanimous decision amongst the scholars.
Therefore, while there is doubt, in this situation, it is best to take the safer opinion which is that it is not permissible.
http://www.muftisays.com/qa.php?highlight=%20haram&question=11&viewpage=viewQA
With this viewpoint amonsgt Muslims that they cannot donate (HAve a look round the next time you give blood) Will muslims be given a cop-out. Or will the BBC start an offensive against Muslims as well?
Peter:
“Doze off on the motorway and you might end up with a bit of Peter Hain or Harriet Harman one day.”
With my luck I’d get the bit that talks.
The arse-hole, you mean?
I’m all in favour of it, most of the posters here are in need of an emergency brain transplant.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4049&edition=1&ttl=20080113184522&#paginator
Look, the moderators at NuLabour’s mouthpiece have somehow missed all these comments again!
Dear Pounce,
So the Muslims cannot GIVE organs or blood BUT can they recieve organs and blood?
In other words they can benefit from our bodyparts but they dont give them themselves?
Is that fair?
So in effect they are using us infidels without cost to themselves?
Will the BBC point this out to all the donors out there?
You can imagine the Mullahs saying ” come to the UK where the infidels give us their bodyparts and blood for free”!
I always enjoy the ‘falling into line with the rest of Europe’ justification. The thing is, it really means ‘falling into line with those aspects of Europe which are statist’ You’ll never hear the BBC asking if we should have less restrictive gun laws, lower fuel, alcohol and tobacco taxes or motorways with no speed limits.
“I always enjoy the ‘falling into line with the rest of Europe'”
There was an exception WWII.Still,better late than never.
Greencoat
“The arse-hole, you mean?”
.. or their mouths, they are interchangeable.
pounce | 13.01.08 – 6:20 pm |
With this viewpoint amongst Muslims that they cannot donate (Have a look round the next time you give blood) Will muslims be given a cop-out. Or will the BBC start an offensive against Muslims as well?
Come to think of it, there is a similar prohibition in Jewish law. I wonder which religious group’s needs will get more consideration?
Either way, since it’s down to government policy, once the plan is in place, behold: your future.
Dave wrote;
“Come to think of it, there is a similar prohibition in Jewish law. I wonder which religious group’s needs will get more consideration?”
In the west Midlands of England less than 2% of Muslims give blood. The fact that the area is one of the most concentration areas for the faith makes that figure one for concern.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=514081
While many Muslim Orgs publicise that giving blood does not contradict the Koran. The fact remains many Mullahs in the UK do promote the line to their flock that giving blood or indeed donating organs is against the tenets of Islam.
Even the BBCs favourite Muslim Orq is somewhat negative towards promoting giving blood;
Survey: Attitude to Blood Donation amongst the Muslim Community
Wed 15 Jun 2005
Blood donation amongst ethnic minority groups is currently very poor. Muslim Voice UK is carrying out a survey to find out what Muslims think about blood donation. If you can spare a few minutes, please take part in the survey by logging on to:www.mvuk.co.uk.
Also if you or a member of your family has had any bad experiences when trying to donate blood, or would like to make any other comment with regards to this issue then e-mail us on contact@mvuk.co.uk
All findings will be forwarded to the National Blood Service so that a more targeted campaign can be launched in future to encourage more Muslims to donate blood.
http://www.mcb.org.uk/features/features.php?ann_id=981
I have B+ Blood (8% of the British pop) and have no problem giving blood (Knowing that my blood is more likely to go towards Muslims) and the truth be told if I end up as brown bread then cut away. The question I have to act is the government going to allow Muslims as a whole to opt-out from this donor scheme of theirs. If so what does that say for racial harmony and how this Government of multiculturalism will simply polarise the populace even more. . Maybe the BBC could issue a few public notices in which it informs the faithful that giving blood is Ok. I wonder if Orla Guerin would do the voice over “They came in their thousands” Nah her Muslim husband would just give her a good kicking and a nose bleed. The Jews may have a similar law in their holy book. But if they stuck to it like the Muslim community in Britain. Israel would have gone down the pan in 1947. Something Abu Bowen would love to have seen.
Joel:
“I’m all in favour of it, most of the posters here are in need of an emergency brain transplant.”
So what are you doing here then? Just a bunch of misguided individuals with a blog?
Brain stem “dead” isn’t dead
You can imagine the Mullahs saying ” come to the UK where the infidels give us their bodyparts and blood for free”!
Cassandra | 13.01.08 – 7:03 pm
I dunno about that. If infidels are not allowed to set foot in the holy city of Mecca, would Muslims be happy walking around with infidel bits and pieces inside them?
A religious guy in Israel told me it’s preferable as far as possible to be buried whole but if you can save a life, organ donation is permissible as long as it’s done in accordance with proper rabbinical authority.
The Labour government is starting to remind me of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World where there is no sex without contraception and peope are produced from the embryonic stage on conveyor belts in factories, being fed the required nutrition through tubes along the way.
This brilliant new proposal will create factories at the other end of life.
I sent this to the HYS:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=4049&edition=2&ttl=20080114080027&#paginator
This is like aggressive salespeople insisting that it’s a great idea for you to give them your credit card details and subscribe to a service you don’t want but which they are offering free for one month. After that you automatically start to pay unless you tell them you don’t want to carry on using the service. No doubt they catch unwary people this way.
It’s close to how mafia loan sharks operate. If I were living in the UK I would do everything I could to fight this near-criminal proposal.
I meant to add that in Israel you have to give your consent to organ donation. Ain’t no such thing as what Brown and the BBC and co. are trying to introduce.
I’m uncomfortable with the unstinting praise of a Government policy in the article, but family will have the last word (to the extent that the deceased haven’t previously expressed a preference) so bonkers religiousity apart can’t really see any arguments at all why this isn’t a good move.
When somebody runs an exclusive interview in which a dead bloke says that it’s an absolute disgrace I’ll change my mind.
The opt-out scheme might be a success. If it is we could try it with the BBC now that the digital platform opens up so many opportunities for subscription TV. Those who don’t want it could opt out of paying for it. If we are to be allowed to opt out of giving someone an organ that might save their life surely we can be allowed to opt out of paying towards someone elses’s enjoyment of Eastenders or Flog It.
Cockney | 14.01.08 – 9:14 am,
Dunno. Many of the dead will be the mentally ill, criminals and those who are just unaware, for whatever reason, of the obligation to opt out. I don’t think these people should go under the knife.
Cockney | 14.01.08 – 9:14 am |
The problem is one of principle. Who owns your body you or the state?
I have no problems with organ donation but that’s my choice not the state’s. If I were a person who did not want this then why should they be forced to opt out?
And that’s before you get to the problems involved with the administration of the scheme, the expected failures and the pressure placed on doctors to harvest before the person is actually dead. BTW by ‘dead’ I mean brain dead not spalttered across the highway dead.
Hmmm, it is a tricky one. For very good reasons once you’ve kicked the bucket you don’t own anything and you’re not personally going to care about anything, so unless your family object or you’ve objected in your lifetime I can’t see the philosophical argument against particularly in the context of potentially saving some kids life. Having hospital league tables though is pretty ridiculous and could create pressure.
I’m not aware of any studies which show that implants of crims body parts impact on the behaviour of the recipient?? Personally I’d rather have Ian Huntly’s liver than be a corpse??
“When somebody runs an exclusive interview in which a dead bloke says that it’s an absolute disgrace I’ll change my mind.
Cockney | 14.01.08 – 9:14 am | # ”
You are no use dead Cockney,they want a functioning body to keep the organs alive.You will be kept on a life support to keep the body alive.Ideally you need to be in a state that can be declared “brain Stem dead”,note the actual brain is not tested for signs of life.
Interestingly the blood pressure rises in the body of the dead person,an indication that there is life.”Donors” are given anaesthetic in some cases before the removal of organs,why?
The NHS is a vast government bureaucracy,run by the same government which lost 25 million bits of confidential data.Your opt out will probably be in Iowa.
Now imagine,you are whacked over the head,your wallet stolen and all forms of ID,you end up in a busy A&E department,which,because of lack of funds,cannot save you from “brain stem death”.Your tissue type is a perfect match for someone needing a transplant,time is of the essence.Do you fancy your chances?
“Personally I’d rather have Ian Huntly’s liver than be a corpse??”
It could be the other way around,your liver could end up in David Cameron.
haha! getting my liver would be the medical equivalent of buying a DVD player in a pub in South London.
I am all in favour of the new principle but only if it is extended.
If we could have it where we do not pay the BBC poor tax / poll tax aka the licence fee unless we actively request to pay it and subscribe to BBC services then it is a good principle, or at the very least a start.
This is like when the BBC published that survey saying we’re all addicted to junk food right before Gordon Brown was considering restricting NHS access for overweight people.
Very fishy.
If Muslims do not donate then it is only fair to agree to give my organs should I die to non-Muslims only.
Obviously the Labour part is taking advice from a spammer!!!!
Have to laugh at the comments on the CBBC link that pounce posted. Looks like this is doomed to the bin for at least another 50 years.
Perhaps only willing organ donors should be eligible to receive organ transplants – it would solve supply and demand at the same time.
Surely that is the fairest possible arrangement?
“Perhaps only willing organ donors should be eligible to receive organ transplants – it would solve supply and demand at the same time.”
Well of course that is the idea of the state monopoly.
When you look at large number of MRSA and C-Diff deaths it makes you wonder why the government of Gordon Brown has highlighted this rather esoteric sector of health care.It isn’t as if the government isn’t willing to deny life saving drugs on the grounds of costs is It?
That Branwen Jeffreys is brilliant at putting a story out fast
At just 3 minutes past midnight she publishes the story about organs – this on the same day that the PM puts out the story:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14250.asp
3 minutes! Wow Branwen, fast work!
Could there possibly be collusion here? I mean Bronwen works for the BBC therefore she’s not a Tory or UKIP. Since she (commendably) opposed the NUJ boycott against Israel…
http://stopnujboycott.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
…(unlike Orla Goering or Abu Bowen) she is probably on the saner part of the left-of-centre political spectrum. So, collusion looks the only possible explanation for this. NuLab barked and the BBC cosily did its bidding.
I’m not aware of any studies which show that implants of crims body parts impact on the behaviour of the recipient?? Personally I’d rather have Ian Huntly’s liver than be a corpse??
Cockney | 14.01.08 – 12:09 pm
Yes, I think it’s unlikely that you’ll feel the urge to piss on someone’s garden fence on a busy street in broad daylight just because you received the kidney of a deceased vandal. I was just making the point that this legislation will rope in a large number of people who may very well object to be sliced up and dished out after death, but will not have the awareness or ability to queue up to opt out beforehand. And what about someone who gets run over by a bus on his way to opt out?
To me that makes the proposed legislation pretty damn insidious.
However, when medical science progresses to the stage where brain transplants become normal procedure, they should be mandatory for the entire BBC staff and for politicians who dream this sort of stuff up.
The interesting part will come when some illegal immigrant is eviscerated and their extended family take the NHS to the European Court because their human rights have been infringed.
Even more interesting if they demand a whole body for burial according to their religious belief and the parts are already walking about elsewhere.
Typical Nu Labour idea without though.Probably a piece of spin to make Gordon Brown look human.
Kind of the BBC to help out.Oh yes, and to bugger up Spain as a retirement destination
“Typical Nu Labour idea without though.Probably a piece of spin to make Gordon Brown look human.”
Oh come on, it would take more than spin to do that.
Rob,
NuLabor lost the art to spin successfully when they lost Alastair Campbell.Before that they could have bitten the heads off kittens and it would have disappeared down the memory hole.Now they are still as stupidly incompetent and it shows.
Even spin doctors need the right material to work with,Blair could sell old bangers with conviction,Brown however seems to have something missing.Only a very odd person could present the nationalisation of death as a vote winner,”New bodies for old”.
As Polly Toynbee puts it:
“How many is 1,000 lives a year? Imagine if the government promised there would be no murders next year (755), plus no pedal cycle deaths (146); or no pedestrian deaths (675); or no motorbike deaths (599); or no deaths from falling down stairs (1,000). Imagine if the NHS could promise no deaths from cervical cancer (1,061) or from bone cancer (1,007). In that context, a government saving 1,000 lives a year with a stroke of a pen is an easy win. Then add in the 10,000 other very sick or blind people who will be helped. It is deeply shocking that hundreds of thousands of lives have been blighted or lost over the past decades for no better reason than a few vociferous people’s misguided and primitive instincts about the sanctity and integrity of corpses.”
I wonder why the BBC hasn’t examined the radical policy “U” turn of Nulab
Government rules out presumed consent (Jan 14 2004)
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Pressreleases/DH_4070193
(quote from above )
Rosie Winterton said:
“There is no evidence that a policy of presumed consent increases the number of organs for transplantation”
Has this changed? Were the socialists right or wrong or lying in 2004? I wonder what has prompted this policy change and why are the BBC applauding and campaigning for this policy, rather than unleashing the attack dogs on the hopeless confusion that is our administration. I believe that the “Tories” would have been hung drawn quartered by the BBC and then sent off to be anatomised by power crazed medical professionals…..
Presumably state ownership of the body expands the remit of government beyond the grave and is therefore another “correct” issue and beyond critical analysis. Body snatching has long been a key element of the BBC vision for what is left of the Britain
Well Headless,apart from Toynbee being a middle class opinionated idiot,isn’t it odd she doesn’t mention deaths from MRSA,C-diff and medical negligence being “In that context, a government saving 1,000 lives a year with a stroke of a pen ”
“vociferous people’s misguided and primitive instincts about the sanctity and integrity of corpses.”
Thus speaks the voice of the rabid statist.What deters people is the incompetence and corruption of state institutions.