UK: Organs to be taken without consent
Posted on January 13th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, confiscation, death, donation, economics, Gordon Brown, healthcare, politics, property, UK, United KingdomGordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister says that such a facility would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year.
The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.
But patients’ groups said that they were “totally opposed” to Mr Brown’s plan, saying that it would take away patients’ rights over their own bodies.
There are more than 8,000 patients waiting for an organ donation and more than 1,000 a year die without receiving the organ that could save their lives.
The Government will launch an overhaul of the system next week, which will put pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more “potential organ donors” from dying patients. Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they “convert” into donors and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor co-ordinators as patients approach death.
Sounds like something out of a dystopia future novel or at least something close. People fear that relegalizing the ability to sell organs could lead to doctors and families pressuring individuals to do so. It looks to me that the government can fulfill that fear just fine. If we did just let people sell organs than perhaps we can stop this Big Brother socialist system and provide organs for those who desire them. Why shouldn’t a person be entitled to sell a part of their body if they so choose. This is another example of collectivist belief that you don’t own your body… the state does.
12 Responses to “UK: Organs to be taken without consent”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.





January 14th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Dead people are hazardous waste. Like most garbage they usually become the property of the people who own the area where they were dumped. Those owners can do whatever they want with the waste.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Right… and who owns the body in most cases? The family.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Unless they die in a hospital or some other place outside of the home. In that case the owner of the property could either keep the garbage or take the family to court for dumping trash.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Are you claiming that if a person dies in a hospital or some other location they instantly become their property? I somehow doubt that is part of the agreement when that person is placed in the hospitals care. So if I leave my wallet at your house it’s now your property? If you leave your car parked on a government road it’s now can be claimed by someone walking by or in the least owned by the government?
January 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I can see a hospital having a written agreement, but in my home is it simply an implied contract?
January 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Implied contract? No it’s called property rights.
You answered my question with a question. How does my property become your property just because of it’s location? Will you complain if someone drives off with your car if you’ve left it on a government street?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to answer your question with a question so let’s get my answer out of the way now. If someone took my car because it was on a public road I would be angry. If someone took my wallet because I was at their house I would be angry.
Now on to the matter of contract at hand. You have mentioned before that you have to right to defend your property with deadly force. That implies that you could shoot someone for being on your property. As I read it, you think that person has forfeited their right to live simply based on their location. If someone parks their car on your property don’t you have a right to do whatever you want with it? Don’t you have complete control over your property? If not couldn’t people just start building on your property? People forfeit their rights by being on your property, unless you believe there is an implied contract. Do you think there is an implied contract when someone visits your house or parks in the parking lot in front of your business?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Excuse me? Could you please quote me? I don’t recall EVER saying that. I’m pretty sure I pointed to Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty’s Punishment and Proportionality as an example of my beliefs and there is nothing about killing a person for walking on my front yard in that.
There is no implied contract. There is property rights. And if a person does something you don’t want them to be doing on your property you can tell them to leave. You can also put up a list of rules in plain view. I give people permission to be in my store. If they disobey my spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten rules then I can revoke that permission.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
You telling me to leave is a result of my violation of an implied contract. You gave me the right to be on your property contingent upon me following your rules. These rules are rarely stated and hence they are often implied
January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
It’s not an implied contract. It’s explicitly understood property rights. Common law has been used for hundreds of years and the the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" statement comes from that. The rules don’t need to be stated. You act as if time is not a factor. If I invite you into my home at t0 at t1 I can tell you to leave for whatever reason I like and that is not a break of a contract. It’s my enforcement of my property rights.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
And where is my quote?
January 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I’m not going to bother looking since if you say you didn’t say it, you probably didn’t. So, I misquoted you.