Just to be contrary

Like an awful lot of people, I’ve ticked the various boxes and filled in the various forms that say that, after I’m dead, various bits of me can be used a) to directly save someone’s life through a transplant; b) to indirectly save lives by being donated to training or experimentation; or c) to be cut up in new and interesting ways for purposes of juvenile humour.

Now, in a perfect world, you’d be able to specify, for example, that only A was acceptable, and not B or C, but I couldn’t find that box on the form…

But some lovely medical folk thing that’s not enough; instead everyone should be on the list, unless they jump through hoops to ensure they’re not on it.

Guess what. I’ll be one of those jumping through the hoops. Because I have no problem with charity (which is what donating is), while I have much problem with theft (which is what is being talked about; the taking without consent and with an intent to permanently deprive). So while I would be quite happy to give body parts, I’d be less impressed if they were taken.

The entire thing behind ‘presumed consent’, in all its legalistic forms, annoys me. For a start, it’s illegal in private business and the Real World, but it’s the glue that keeps so much of the public sector going. Which would be ground enough to dislike it, but to bring theft into it as well, that’s just nasty.

5 thoughts on “Just to be contrary

  1. What, you don’t believe in the Redistribution of Health? Surely for the good of the nation you should be forced to be taxed on your liver, and if it works, give it to some Poor Unfortunate(tm).

  2. No. You can take our lives, but you’ll ne’er take our livers.

    Anyway, anyone who was to take my liver would end up in a very bad state indeed.

  3. You know what I say.

    When I am dead the state can do whatever the fuck they want with me, but only if they leave me alone when I am alive. Sounds fair..

  4. Stumbling and Mumbling made a good point about this, in that, how can you have property rights after you’re dead?

    That said, it’s still ‘effing rude, unBritish, bloody cheeky and morally wrong.

  5. SWM, I’d consider that. But I can’t see it being a widespread option. More’s the pity.

    Chez: by that token, wills would be null and void. Which would clearly be a very bad thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>