Not saying no does NOT mean yes

 

The government have mooted the notion that they are to bring in legislation to allow the removal of organs for transplant purposes from the bodies of people who have not given their permission.  The suggestion is that those who object to this governmental assumption of the ultimate right of disposition of their body may take steps to opt out.

 

The right to ownership of one's own life and body are the only real rights that we all, rich or poor, healthy or sick have.  Others may direct or destroy one's rights over one's body but they can never morally possess them.  Therefore it is ethically untenable for anyone else to make decisions in respect of that right and this holds true no matter whether others might benefit from the theft of that right. 

We are not owned by the state and the state cannot abrogate that right.

 

Opting out is a moral nonsense; by doing so you are accepting that the State does indeed have the right to your physical body and that your physical self is ultimately the de facto property of the State. 

'Presumed consent' in this context is a chimerical deceit. 

We could, and many do,  voluntarily 'opt in' by carrying a donor card - the only ethical assumption can be that those who do not carry a donor card do not wish to opt in.  

Similarly many people voluntarily donate blood - another bodily organ which can save the lives of others; accepting the right of the state to dispose of one's organs is exactly the same as accepting the state's right to take blood from anyone whether they actively volunteer or not.

 

The lie of 'presumed consent' is propagandized to the unthinking by reference to the lives lost through lack of donor organs; it's dressed in the clothing of caring for the sick. 

But of course there are other ways of sourcing donor organs without abrogating the individuals inherent rights to their own body.  More money and time could be spent on persuading people to opt in; on developing the notion of a 'gift community' such as exists in blood donation; of service to others, to the 'greater good'. 

And there is the crucial factor motivating this government proposal - money.  

It is all about saving money on caring for people who are waiting for kidney transplants, waiting for corneas, waiting for grafts.

 

Alternatively, instead of stealing our innate rights over our own physical bodies the state could allow individuals to do what private medicine already does with the donor organs - blood and sperm and ova - which they acquire free of cost from volunteers - they could allow people the right to dispose of their own organs if, and as and when - and if they wish, for the price they see fit.

 

Or they could simply leave people to die in peace and put more money into the NHS to care for the British sick rather than spending it on arms to kill foreigners.