Thursday 26 November 2009

Hands Off My Organ(s)

One of the miracles of modern medicine is the ability of skilled surgeons to replace non-functioning human organs with donated human organs.

This is a wonderful thing; the tragic loss of one person saves the life of another, or in many cases, the lives of more than one person. Those condemned to long term disability, those who are blind, those suffering from terminal illness, etc., can be saved and go on to live fulfilled lives.

The current mode of participation is that a healthy person makes a decision to become an organ donor, so that in the event of their death, others, strangers most likely, will benefit. It is possibly the most personal act of charity one can make. And this is the crux of the matter; that it is indeed a personal decision, that one makes a positive choice at some point in their life to become an organ donor.

However, there is now a shortage of voluntary donated organs, and this has led to a radical proposal; that it should no longer be left to the individual to decide whether to donate their organs, but it shall be asummed that everyone's organs will be available for harvesting unless a person 'opts out'. This sounds very logical, very humanitarian. It would solve, overnight, the shortage of organs. Many more lives would be saved. How can this possibly be a bad thing?

Let me name the ways!

It makes the assumption that a person's body parts are not, in fact, their property, but the property of the state/NHS/medical establishment (i.e. nominated organisation) to do with as they will. That the nominated organisation owns the rights to those organs unless the person whose organs they are specifically states that they do not want their organs harvested after death.

It is worth asking whether the harvesting of human organs, without consent, has happened already in the UK. The appalling answer is, yes it has.

In 1998, the news broke that organs and tissue, from babies who had died in two British hospitals, had been harvested without the permission of the parents, sold to pharmaceutical companies for monetary gain, or used for research within the hospitals. The two hospitals involved were Birmingham's Diana Princess of Wales Children's Hospital and the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool. Indeed, the practise was so established as to have been going on for decades.

Lets pause for a moment to contemplate this: That the medical establishment we trusted to look after us and our children in times of illness were routinely cannibalising dead humans for, in some instances, monetary gain.

You can read the full story here.

The proposal by various branches of the medical establishment, that organ donation should be an 'opt out' scheme, has been around for a number of years, and in 2009 the debate became more official when the NHS Blood and Transplant put on their website, that The British Medical Association (BMA), many transplant surgeons, and some patients' groups and politicians are keen to see Britain adopt a system of "presumed consent", where it is assumed that an individual wishes to be a donor unless he or she has 'opted out' by registering their objection to donation after their death. Full article here

Thus does the NHS make the presumption that a designated organisation should have rights over your bodily organs by default, unless you say no, i.e. unless you 'opt out'.

If anything is a breach of human rights, it is this. Once it is presumed that the state has a right over your bodily parts, how soon before it becomes law that the state owns the rights to your bodily parts, and organ cannibalisation becomes legal?

For those who say that this is not an important issue, that once you are dead it really doesn't matter what happens to your body (and putting aside the centuries of traditional respect for the dead) imagine this scenario. You are lying in hospital, near to death, but not dead yet, and along the corridor in a private room is a millionaire/member of the government/important individual also near to death and requiring an organ donation. By happy chance, you are a perfect match, and for a large donation to the hospital, the hospital administration are sad to announce your death, but that happily the aforementioned individual was able to live thanks to the 'opt out' scheme.

The harvesting of human organs for monetary gain in a hospital? Outrageous and could never happen? Sadly, of course, it already has.

Saturday 14 November 2009

Over 50 Is Not Over The Hill!

Do you fancy some extreme knitting, or a leisurely cruise without any loud music, or fancy being patronised by Valerie Singleton teaching you how to use a computer by speaking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you'll u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d.

No? Well then, why is it that so many organisations, both commercial and non-commercial, treat over 50s as though they are not fit for the 21st century, and need to be patronised by those who are severely misinformed about their target demographic.

So let's put the story straight. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin?

Over 50s do not suddenly turn into BOFs (Boring Old Farts) when they blow out the candles on their 50th cake. If it appears that way, there's every chance that they were BOFs when they blew out 30 candles.

Over 50s enjoy rock music, making it and listening to it and going to concerts.

Over 50s are tuned in to modern technology; they have mobile phones, use SatNav, can text, own computers, can google, can surf the web, own MP3 players, know YouTube isn't toothpaste, socialise on FaceBook and MySpace, use digital cameras.

Over 50s do not want to ramble gentle along leafy lanes hoping for a warm sandwich and weak cup of tea at some point, but own motorbikes and know how to ride them.

Over 50s don't look forward to a fortnight at sea on a floating hotel, where the most exciting prospect is dropping your Bingo card, but like to go surfing instead.

Have you got the message?

So stop thinking of over 50s as some semi-decrepit, near senile, cranky, rusty and crusty group who enjoy being patronised by idiots. Stop doing that and you may start getting their attention.

Thursday 5 November 2009

Freedom of Speech R.I.P.?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Not a quote, as many believe, from Voltaire, but by Beatrice Hall, in her 1907 book, Friends of Voltaire, writing under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. Of course, it matters little who actually said it because those eighteen words, in a very real sense, form the founding principle of freedom of speech as we, in Britain, have understood it. However, over the last few years, the right to express opinion, no matter how controversial, has been severely eroded against a backdrop of intolerance and hate crime and anti-terrorist legislation.

But let's back-track for a moment. Our perception of our freedom of speech derives very much from our 'Britishness', our sense of fair play, our tradition of debate in the hallowed halls of our higher citadels of learning. It is a tradition which goes back many, many years; that we all had the right to express an opinion, but to also allow someone with a contrary opinion to disagree with us. Indeed, our very form of democratic government is based upon this very tradition within the 'Mother of Parliaments' at Westminster, where the democratic machinery demands that our Members of Parliament represent the views of the electorate in, often, heated debate, until a consensus is reached. This tradition has protected us from totalitarianistic government, or outright dictatorship, for centuries.

However, that very British tradition is being seriously undermined by other incoming cultures. It seems that one of the worst things you can do now is to express an opinion which someone else finds offensive. To offend someone who may have a differing opinion to yourself, by voicing that opinion in public, is now virtually forbidden. In particular, voicing something against a perceived ethnic minority, or minority religion, is now likely to result in possible prosecution. So the question is; Where did our freedom of speech go? The answer actually may surprise you. It has not gone anywhere because we never had that right; at least not in any legally accepted form because The United Kingdom, unlike, for instance, the USA, has no written constitution. Nowhere in law is our right to freedom of speech upheld. That is until the EU came along with the much despised and maligned Human Rights Act (HRA).

Ironically, it wasn't until the HRA came along that there was a legal definition of freedom of speech, termed in the HRA as 'Freedom of Expression'.

Human Rights Act: Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

That sounds quite good doesn't it. By there is, of course, a caveat:

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

At the very time when it looks as though, at last, our British tradition of Freedom of Speech had been enshrined in written law, it was actually undermined in that same law which made it subject to a raft of other legislation and interpretation.

For further reading, take a look at Philip Johnston's, whatever happened to free speech?

So we find our much cherish tradition of freedom of speech is not so free after all.