How about Handel's Organ Concerto in G minor on a donated liver?
I'm all for organ donation. It really livens up the church services.
Since 1945 Germany has developed one of the most sophisticated civil and human rights systems in the world and is one of the few nations that is a state party to virtually every human rights treaty. The country's past, which Austria indeed shares, and the present have no bearing on this topic whatever may have happened prior to 1945. Apart from brutal dictatorships and murders of many opponents of their regimes, Spain and Greece are even less applicable since their past does not include what I think you are implying. I wonder why you chose them? There are countries who have a far less clean human rights record, some of them are ones we are supposed to look up to and even hold in awe for their façade of democracy.
It would help Lucy if you didn't make such silly points. It's interesting that Spain and Austria both with large Catholic populations should go for presumed consent. As for my memory of past events and governments the four countries cited have experienced i have a perfectly adequate knowledge.
Actually there are good reasons for opt out and those are often tied to the legal system of one country or another. Thus, in the UK you will find that the legal system of England and Wales will respect either choice whereas the Scots legal system, very different from the rest of the UK, will prefer an opt out because it is a codex that respects 'do not want' rather than 'what is preferred' which is legally easier to challenge.
Personal freedom is the fundamental principle of human rights along with the right to life, with dignity and respect for the person close behind in ranking. There are no human rights beyond life. Nor is freedom further legally possible. To pass on the rights, for instance of choice, to a third or subsequent person. That includes other family members who may wish to overrule the choice of a person who has chosen to donate or not donate after their decease. There is possible space for dispute where no actual consent is given but no opt out is either, thus the discretion of the medical personnel who make the ultimate decision is paramount. However, in that case neither any form of human rights nor certainly life, dignity or respect for the (living) person any longer valid. It is very hard to reconcile legal and philosophical systems based on personal freedom using the USA's constitutional and legal system, which is itself rather flexibly interpreted between individual states anyway, thus to condemn liberté, égalité, fraternité to a Stalinist notion (incidentally, Stalinism reject 'ideals' as a bourgeois 'luxury'). Liberty is a transaction between a state and a person or people, equality simply means what is on the label and excludes differential treatment, especially legally, and brother/sisterhood is the sense of community it engenders. In the case of the latter two where no preference is stated it is beholden on those with the responsibility to decide with the support of the state and legal system to do so. If because the legal structures assume consent is general where neither opt in nor any form of opposition, then an opt out is entirely logical.
Ultimately, it is for individuals to choose during their lives and whilst they are compos mentis rather than under any form of pressure once unable to freely decide. It they choose not to choose then the assumption can only be that they did not want to decide for any number of personal reasons but have no actual objections. The subjectivity of decisions regarding brain death is one that is exceptional to begin with. Considering that healthy organs are the priority, there are relatively few instances in which they become available since only a small percentage of deaths occur within medical facilities or with acceptable distance of them. Even where explicit permission is given, in the case of most people with diseases or conditions that inhibit or entirely rule out the use of their organs they are not used. Thus, the actual numbers ever available to take for donate is probably considerably less than need.
When I was involved in the kidney donation for children charity, we had the distasteful pleasure of reading about how the kidneys from young people often went to older patients rather than young people. That was the power of private, privileged medicine for people whose wish for 'eternal youth and longevity' superseded reality. Age matching is as important as anything else, thus an 80 year old receiving the kidney of a 10 year old (common enough at that time in the USA) was not actually receiving an organ from which they would actually benefit but merely the impression that the 'immature' organ would contribute to prolonged life and youth. That was absolutely immoral and so we campaigned against it. I have no idea whether it has been stopped since it is over 15 years since I was involved but I have doubts.
Naturally belief and culture are taken into account, however the rights of a family to remains is a bigger question. As with a will and testament, if ones wishes are not accepted by a family then they will act to have decisions reversed or changed. In the event of medical intervention time is far more crucial in decisions and action, thus to override the explicit or tacit consent of the deceased individual is to deny them respect, it is a form of profane act. The opt out route is by far the most explicit in many senses and legally hardest to challenge in many legal systems.
Thank you David Gay - let me see and remind me what do Spain, Greece, Germany and Austria have in common in say rather recent history some of us can still remember? This would explain lack of respect for individual freedoms.
Liz Clark - you just expressed an argument for OPT-IN. There is never good argument for requiring opt-out.
Certified by the doc - I have been way to long around death. In some countries the existence of implied consent for donation creates demand for speedy certifications, for shortening of time for efforts to revive, and the medical science and the average medical doctor knows way too little about process of dying. Brain dead - there are well documented of people brain dead for 2 hours and whose hart did not beat for 2 hours who were brought back by relatively simple means- one of them is today a physician and you can ask her how quickly she pronounces somebody dead - there is a book about her too. Than there is whole plethora of cultural (or religious) ramifications. Family has rights to your dead body - and if you wish to take that right away OPT-IN. The state should not take that right from them.
Well, here comes the difference between countries with legal and philosophical system based on personal freedom (i.e. Anglo-American) and the rest. It looks like someone forgot what Liberte means, and corrupted Fraternite and Egalite into stalinistique ideals.
I also dislike being forced to opt-out of something rather than opt-in. I cannot opt-out of things I do not know exist. Examples are many: opt-out of cold phone sales calls, opt-out of advertisement, opt out off deciding what happens to my body parts. Of course the ‘personal freedom’ countries convey those freedoms to surviving family, in the rest of the world it becomes property of the state.
I gladly signed up for allowing my body parts donation but it was my decision to opt-in. No civilized country has a right to opt-in people without their clear consent. The idea to have more body parts available is good - but it must be effectively communicated and people need to be educated about the need and allowed to sign-in by many easy ways not requiring sending a registered return receipt letter with signature confirmed by a notary. Coincidently such stupid ideas always come from the far right or far left and from people who have little regard for personal liberties. Horror idea. I hope French Philosophers spirit will prevail and the idea will dye in the parlament.
There are far to many people dying while waiting for organs and I think this change sensible, you can opt out if you want. I have seen relatives decline consent at the time of brain death only to regret it later. If I am in hospital, certifed brain dead, I would far rather my organs are taken than not because a relative declined. An independant doc, not associated with the case will kbe consulted, France is making a good decision here and many families will benefit
Yes correct, 'consent' = 'agreement', simple concept to grasp and what an intelligent idea.
If you don't like that idea then opt-out, what could be simpler ?
As per much of your comments Mr B.
Big like!
Crosbie - did you not see my comment yesterday re your photo?
Consent is an agreement or permission to do or allow something to happen or be done. In law it is consensus facit legem - consent makes the law (legitimises it). For a living person it is quod meum est sine me auferri non potest - what is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
As a researcher, one of my ethical considerations is whether I have the informed consent of people who become subjects of my research. Informed consent describes the knowing consent of an individual is given without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, duress or any other form of constraint or coercion. Sufficient information must be presented (in understandable language) so that the potential subject can make an informed judgement about their participation in whatever the research or activity they will be involved in is. This information can be in a variety of forms that include oral and written explanations. In the medical world, the WHO has a research policy for which they have informed consent form templates which are in two parts: an information sheet and the actual consent certificate. The medical practise environment is encouraged to use a similar procedure and there are volumes of medical papers and books on the topic.
The use of proxy and post-mortal permissions, for instance by next of kin, is not discouraged if no specific instructions are left. However, the world is pretty well divided on whether consent should only be affirmative, that is to say written and recorded with at least one signature, or assumptive where no consent exists. Exemption is the other option, as France has chosen. Both ultimately come to the same thing.
Since most of my work is definitionally within the human rights domain, I can assure you Crosbie that there is no such thing as a consensual crime against humanity. Logan's Run is science fantasy and no more than that since it bears no relation whatsoever to real life. That we hear of body parts being used for transplants, exhibits and even food is pure aberration.
William Burke and William Hare sold the corpses of 16 victims to Dr Robert Knox as dissection material for his popular anatomy lectures. Burke was hanged and his skeleton is now displayed in the Anatomy Museum of the Edinburgh Medical School, his death mask and a book said to be made from his tanned skin can be seen at Surgeons' Hall Museum. There is also a document said to have been written with his blood. Dr Knox, although complicit, walked free. In modern terms those are all inhumane acts, the dissection and use of Burke as grisly as the murders and purpose of the cadavers. However, the world has changed.
The ethics are now much discussed, tested, retested and tried ad infinitum. The conclusions are that the death of one person is not the end of the usefulness of that individual and that for purposes including research for the advancement of medicine and the preservation of the lives of others are acceptable when consent is given either by actual consent, no reservations or not consenting by withholding that permission. In other words, it is wrong what has happened until this point in time when non-consenting use of human remains has occurred. However to point the finger at China who have been caught and have reacted positively, but nonetheless sensationalised, by media in a country that has no better a track record although better covered up, then ethics extend beyond the personal to the public in which media are misrepresenting an issue of great significance because of the harm it can do when abused, which it has been very often. That harm is psychological because it is predictive of what may happen non-consensually and disrespectfully after a person's decease which may also impinge on their beliefs and practices within their faith or simply personal preferences.
However, none of it compares with fiction in which all is possible and no actual harm done to persons living or dead. To compare real life and fiction is simply disingenuous.
Oh dear here we go. The Island, Galadriel, the Ring.Why don't we throw in a bit of Ishiguro and "Never let me Go". Dystopias are interesting but not to be relied upon. It seems you are confusing the forced harvesting of organs which may or may not take place with the recovery of viable organs from victims of accident and brain death. How many times have we sat and heard the vicar describe the remains of the dead as being now an old overcoat of which the living person has no future need. If anyone were able to use the odd button of my overcoat then when I'm dead they're welcome to it.
'consent'?
This is not a magic word that trumps all else.
"I consent to my body being offered in sacrifice to the gods" does not sanctify the murder it would be.
'Consent' is another word for 'agree', and it is valid only in those situations that do not violate an individual's inalienable/innate/natural rights. For example, "I agree to exchange my basket for your vase" or "I agree that you may enter my house", but not "I agree to exchange my first born for your daughter's hand in marriage" or "I agree to forfeit a pound of my flesh should I fail to repay you the money you lend me".
Nor is 'consent' a word that obtains supernatural power beyond the grave, e.g. "I consent to my corpse being used as animal feed". After one has died, there is no consent to be given. Once the individual can make no further use of it, their corpse belongs to the earth from which it came - no-one else; neither inheritors, nor state, nor even the needy.
A society can also not justify crimes against humanity through 'consent'. The society in Logan's Run for example may argue that their system of 'termination at 30' eliminates the burden of the aged and infirm upon the young, and thus is 'better for the greater good', however, it remains unethical - even if most of its citizens would vote their 'consent' to keep things the way they were.
Whether 'consent' is occurring is beside the point. The point is whether it is ethical for a society to harvest organs from its citizens.
Beware of organisations campaigning against 'forced harvesting' (harvesting without consent), they're simply acting to establish the legitimacy of harvesting with consent. And as Sheila quotes, if "any deceased adult will be considered to have given their approval for organs to be used", it is not the adult's 'consent' you should be worried about, but how they came to be 'deceased' (and one day they will dispense even with that 'deceased' qualifier).
Who are you going to complain to when your organs have been harvested contrary to your opt out registration?
Of course, Europe is a priori ethical in all things, and like Galadriel, its politicians would never use the ring's power for ill - to harvest organs from those who'd hoped to remain unharvested, like those in China...
Presumed consent is already the law in Spain and In Austria; France is far from pioneering this route in Europe. In Greece and Germany an opt out policy for presumed consent is the rule. The two last have much poorer rates of transplantation and in the UK and France you may well benefit from a Spanish kidney because of their legislation.
I've been carrying around an 'opt in' donor codicil since I was a student. And I believe this 'opt out' system is long overdue.
Sure, it's been happening since before even Burke & Hare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_snatching
The ancient Egyptians probably did it too.
All we need to know is that it is now being legalised and institutionalised - and that there's nothing we can do about it.
We can of course debate it and angst over it, but I suspect 'head in sand' is probably the best thing we can do to minimise stress to our organs, so they remain in optimum condition for later harvesting.
There are exceptions and it may be that like blood donation we may not be 'required'. It remains to be seen. As far as I am concerned if anybody wants any of my 'bits' come the time, some of them are pretty well worn out, other are OK but my brain would not be advisable unless the recipient is prepared for permanently being in some kind of trouble or other.
Crosbie. Yes, it all happened BUT unfortunately journalism inflated it out of all proportion, only part reported what was happening and point at China. In fact, go to any school of forensic science, pathology, particular bits of the medical world, etc, etc and you will find the remains of people hung hundreds of years ago, pickled brains in jars, aborted foetuses, you name it and it is probably there somewhere. The fact of the matter is that harvesting of human parts has gone on for centuries. Now that we have transplanting as a fairly normal part of the medical environment it is becoming difficult to keep up with donors. They are often too few, their organs are no longer available or usable, they have moved and are no longer available and sometimes dead and buried or cremated. I was at one time involved in a kidney transplant for children and youth charity and the facts put before us were sometimes terrible. Thus picking up the Chinese story, which of course would be picked up by media with an almost diametrically opposite political position in a country where organs are also taken without consent, is simply a distraction. The Daily Caller and Fox News make no bones (excuse the pun) about their political position and their position on any thing or nation that they consider to be commie.
Fox News probably carries the story too.
One can Google it: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=china+organ+harvesting+prisoners&oq=china+organ+harvesting+prisoners
But, thankfully, the BBC reports that it's stopped now, so we don't have to worry ourselves any more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30324440
This means that sites such as 'Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting' http://www.dafoh.org can end their campaigns.
We can thus look forward to a future in which organs are only harvested from consenting* individuals - or those from whom consent has been inferred.
Anyway, I don't know about you, but I've won a lottery ticket to The Island, and I'm really looking forward to spending the rest of my life there. :-)
* You do know that 'consent' does not trump 'inalienable' don't you?