organ donation mandatory
Ethics & Morality

Mandatory organ donation for Christians: a presumed opt-out for Muslims?

While the media obsess about the P45 prankster, the set falling to pieces or the plague of frogs in Theresa May’s throat, you could be forgiven for missing that the Conservatives slipped in the most un-conservative nationalisation since the invention of the state appropriation of private property.

They intend to legislate for organ donation to be based on the principle of presumed consent: that is, unless you carry a donor opt-out card, your eyes, lungs, hearts, liver, pancreas, kidneys, (face? penis?) – any body part deemed useful by the medical profession – can, on death, be appropriated by state organ bandits and harvested for the common good.

Presently, of course, organ donation is voluntary: it is a gift (hence ‘donation’). You either opt-in by joining the donor register, or the family of the deceased consents to the donation. Your body is yours while you live, and your family’s when you die, unless you have determined (within certain limits) what should happen to it on expiration. This longstanding contract represents a careful balance between the power of the state and the rights of the (dead) citizen: the state only intervenes in exceptional circumstances (eg public health risk or the need for a coroner’s investigation). Theresa May intends to turn this principle on its head: the default position shall henceforth be that the deceased was in favour of organ donation and, as a matter of law, his or her consent for harvesting is presumed. Organs are no longer to be freely donated but automatically appropriated by state mandate.

This is organ taxation.

Or cadaver conscription.

The new law will apply to everyone over the age of 18, with likely exemptions for non-UK university students and individuals lacking the mental capacity to make a decision on the matter.

Not that anybody will actually need to have made a decision on the matter: the state will do that for you. Only if you’re carrying your opt-out card at the point of being run over by a bus can you be sure that your family won’t see your face walking down the road again next week.

Or are faces to be exempt?

What about penises?

And what about religious minorities?

There is no dogmatic reason why Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs should not donate their organs. There is, in fact, no dogmatic reason why Muslims may not do so, and some of them doubtless choose to carry donor cards. But very many Muslims believe that the body must be buried whole. What then happens if the dead Muslim has not opted out of mandatory organ donation, but the family insist that s/he must be buried whole?

There is no uniformity of belief in Islam on organ donation. The general rule that ‘necessities permit the prohibited’ (al-darurat tubih al-mahzurat) is adduced by some to support the practice: organ donation can save or enhance the life of another, and so the benefits outweigh the personal cost. And the Qur’an says: ‘Whosoever saves the life of one person it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind’ (5:32).

But an alternative view advanced by some Islamic scholars is that organ donation is absolutely prohibited. “They consider that organ donation compromises the special honour accorded to man and this cannot be allowed whatever the cost. Scholars, such as the Islamic Fiqh Academy of India, allow live donations only” (Mufti Mohammed Zubair Butt, Muslim Council of Britain).

Islamic beliefs vary according to cultural origin: Indo/Pak Muslims generally oppose organ donation; Arab Muslims generally view it favourably. According to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari: “A very famous Hadith prevents the usage of human parts. Sayyida Asma bint Abi Bakr (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: Allah’s curse is on a woman who wears false hair (of humans) or arranges it for others’ (Sahih Muslim, no. 2122).”

The theo-cultural issues are complex. Ultimately, it comes down to subjective judgments of relative benefit and harm. But in that individual judgment is personal freedom, or a corporate family expression of informed consent. Why, at the moment of profound grief, should a family have to contend with the state over who owns the body of their loved one? What happens if they do not agree? What happens if the family has religious objections, but the deceased expressed none? Why should a family be torn asunder over who gets grandpa’s eyes?

The objections of Christian families will doubtless be ignored. But all it will take is for one justifiably aggrieved Muslim family to have their traumatic story emblazoned across the tabloids for the issues of religious liberty to be revisited (or, on this matter, visited for the first time). How long will it take for another group to be granted a blanket exemption from the Conservatives’ collectivist cadaver conscription?

  • Do you trust doctors to do everything they can to save you when they could harvest your organs?

    • john in cheshire

      Quite so. And what’s next, euthanasia?
      I will never vote for any candidate or party that advocates compulsory organ taking, or presumed consent by the owner of said organs.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Interesting that the ugly pollies support “presumed consent”; how are they doing on “presumed innocence”?

    • bluedog

      Indeed. The poor and young will be killed to save the old and rich.

    • Len

      No.

  • Sarky

    If the body is just a vessel, does it really matter what happens to it after death??
    If your death gives life to others, isn’t that a good thing??
    Ive been a registered organ donor for nearly 30 years.

    • Not the issue, Sarky. You made a positive decision to donate your organs. In future, unless you opt-out, the State will make it for you.

      • john in cheshire

        And it presupposes that the medical profession will always act in your best interests and not, for example, the urgency of someone else needing an organ transplant. Someone the medics think is more deserving of life than are you. I don’t trust the state to make life and death decisions on my behalf and I shall opt out and I shall try to ensure that all my family do so too.

        • IanCad

          That said, I would opt in, given free choice.

          • In for a penny, in for a pound.

          • Norman Yardy

            Shylock said ‘I will have my pound of flesh’.

          • Not off this man he wont.

      • Sarky

        Considering the amount of people dying on waiting lists, i think its a good thing.

        • Jack’s not disputing that point, even though he has voiced some reservations about it.

  • Dreadnaught

    The simple solution would be to turn the issue around and say if you are ever in need of a life saving a replacement body-part it would all be depending on whether you have previously registered as a donor. That’s not discriminatory, just fair.

  • Don’t opt out of the scheme. Rather, opt out of the notion that the scheme is in some way legitimate. It is not. Mere law cannot own (whole) persons, be they alive or dead, because persons are that kind of thing which cannot be owned. Therefore, law cannot own any part or parts of a person.

  • I’d be interested in how many Muslims received organ donations last year and whether they came from fellow Muslims, but I suspect such information will be well hidden
    Although I suspect my body parts are too worn-out for transplants, it would also be interesting to know if I could leave any parts for use only in Christians who have been Confirmed.
    I suspect that I’d be told that this would be a non-Christian conditions!

  • IanCad

    Does this somehow legitimize the harvesting of organs from aborted babies???

    • … or miscarriages. If the State owns one body and a woman dies in pregnancy, it would seem to follow unless one explicitly opts out.

  • To opt in or opt out; that is the question:

    One issue that troubles Jack is: for what purpose certain bodily organs might be used. If it’s the preservation of life, facilitating the five senses, or restoring a person’s body following an accident that disfigures someone, no issue.

    But …. what if there are queues of women intent on becoming “men” desiring possession and future use of Jack’s penis before rigor mortis sets in? Or men becoming “women” who desire his wife’s vagina and womb? Would failing to opt out be cooperating with manifest evil by tacitly making available such organs to be used unconditionally, thus promoting the abuse of God’s created order and encouraging the mutilation of those suffering a mental disorder? There’s the rub – or not..

    One cannot set conditions on the offer of a free gift and it’s doubtful the State would respect Jack’s “transphobic” objections to him or his wife’s bodily parts being used to cooperate in the “transgender” delusion. As Jack ponders this question and reflects on the matter in hand, he concludes that opting out is really the only answer. As someone once said: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

    • Norman Yardy

      Your organ might be more useful if rigor mortis has set in!

      • Said Mrs P to the long suffering Bishop.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Didn’t someone say the same thing on this blog a few days ago about the Playboy boss Hugh Hefner?

      • dannybhoy

        Yes, pack it in an empty Swan Vestas box filled with dry ice…

    • Pubcrawler

      Older readers might recall the film ‘Percy’

      http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0067568/

  • SonoView

    I used to be a strong advocate of organ donation, but then I had a change of heart, (pause while I cough and clear my throat).

    Like so many ideas of this Government it seems so decent and kind, until you get down to the details. Like the introduction of SSM and proposed self identification of gender, but with no discussion or even thought into the huge social, moral and ethical ramifications.

    Sorry, voice is going………

    • IanCad

      Both you and Jack raise issues I had not, hitherto, thought of. Don’t mind a heart, kidney, liver going to anyone, but I would be mighty displeased if what is left of my sorry pecker and its support staff were to be used to satisfy the transient whims of some mentally deranged snowflake..

      • dannybhoy

        Why’s your pecker sorry?
        As we gentlemen age, said appendage tends to shrink, so I doubt there’ll be much demand for them..

        • You speak for yourself.

        • IanCad

          Is it not more a question of blood flow, and therefore is the vitality of the pecker not dependent on the vigour of the heart?

    • John

      My dad has suggested that I register for a donor card. He’s a man after my own heart. *Cough, cough.*

  • The Islamic law book Reliance of the Traveller contains ‘Ibn Hajar Haytami’s List of Enormities’, which is introduced as follows:

    ‘w52.1 Ibn Hajar’s purpose is to warn readers against any act that an Islamic scholar has classified as an enormity. Because of the wider scope of the work, he does not confine himself, as does Imam Dhahabi, to sins agreed upon by scholars as being enormities, but also records those which are differed about, mentioning them by way of furnishing a fuller definition of godfearingness (taqwa).’

    Enormity 119 is ‘Breaking the bones of the dead (or autopsies).’

    That would seem to rule out organ donation. The book gives no indication whether the enormity is agreed upon or differed about but I imagine believers would choose to abide by the ruling.

  • Mrs S wilson

    Organ donation as it presently is, is fine, as it is the gift of the donor. The State taking charge of a body is totally different and is encroaching on the rights of the person who has died and his/her family. It is another step towards totalitarianism, and will lead to abuses such as rogue medical staff deciding when patients may be suitable candidates for organ harvesting and hastening their death without the family being informed. The slippery slope always works like this.

    • Busy Mum

      I think ‘hastening their death’ already happens. I have heard of two recent deaths (close family and friends) where the relatives present are convinced that ‘this injection to just ease the pain a bit’ is what actually finished them. My husband was present at the second of these and he noted that the nurse had checked her watch and told him that she was due to finish her shift in an hour. The syringe was produced shortly afterwards. My sister-in-law died (conveniently?) in time for the nurse to go home at the end of her shift.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Oh yes. I noticed this years ago, when both my aunts died: one from injection, the other because treatment was withheld. In the latter case, the (euro-alien) doctor advised me of the decision and the date they’d chosen.

      • That was coincidence, not the nurse “finishing off” your sister in law to go home. It is true that opiate analgesics hasten death, to say they don’t would be outright lie. But we are talking possibly taking a day or two off what could be up to seven days.

        There is no telling when a person is going to die when they are for palliative care.

        • Busy Mum

          But my eldest son says that care staff do not tell the relatives that an injection will mean the patient will never speak again. So they don’t lie outright, but they don’t tell the truth either.

          • CliveM

            When my mother in law was dying, the whole family were informed of this, giving everyone a final opportunity to say their goodbyes.

          • Busy Mum

            Maybe there is a postcode lottery when it comes to life and death decisions…..

          • CliveM

            I suspect very often with pain relief, there aren’t options.

          • Busy Mum

            And for people who have spent their lives making ‘informed choices’, that must be pretty tough.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Families are asked to choose whether they want the life support removed or not. I know recently of a case where a son gave consent for it to be removed from his mother. When he arrived home he got a call from the hospital saying that his mother had woken up….they ended up sending her back to the nursing home where she lived for almost another year I wonder if she heard the conversation at her bedside. These conversations do happen in the presence of the patient…I would hate to be in that position where I was asked to give permission to remove life support

          • CliveM

            There have been reports of people waking up from unconsciousness and being able to remember conversations. Sometimes falling out badly because of them.

            When a relative of mine was dying the Doctor came and offered her the possibility of some treatment which might, if she was fortunate give her a couple more years. No guarantees and it would be unpleasant. She asked me to decide. I wish she hadn’t and to this day I don’t know if my advice was right, but she took it.

            These tend to be difficult times and it is easy to underplay how difficult they could be.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Oh….you cannot really know if it was right. People I suppose have different thresholds of tolerating pain.I cannot say even if I had to make that decison for myself what I would do…let alone for another.But I am sure you made the decision with the very best intention…

          • To say “they will never speak again” is not true either. I have looked after plenty of patients who are able to speak when receiving pain relief at end of life. Some don’t speak (my Nan communicated very little), some can.

            Everyone dies differently and we would be fools to think we can control it. It is not like it is shown on TV.

          • Busy Mum

            Penultimate sentence – agree; but that is what society is trying to do. Final sentence – I don’t have a TV!

          • Lucky you! Although it was not aimed at you specifically.

          • Busy Mum

            No, I realise that, no offence taken 🙂 I think you have a point though in that many people assume that TV reflects real life and make their judgments accordingly.

  • Len

    Not satisfied with crippling us with taxes the government want to steal our organs when we are dead or possibly eyeing us up like vultures when we hover between life and death?
    How many private hospitals will be queuing up for NHS body parts?

  • Royinsouthwest

    Your Grace has overlooked the fact that the proposed law change will bring England into line with Wales where the law on organ donation is already one of presumed consent.

    • David

      That was unsurprising in Socialist Wales but for England this could provoke a legal backlash.

  • Len

    Because …couff ,couff ,not spelled rite.

    • betteroffoutofit

      I’m intrigued by the letters that (?accidentally) fell off the board. Especially love that the “f” fell “off.” Apart from the silent heckler in the first row, was someone else telling the hag something?

      As for the call to improve security regarding such responses to a speaker . . . just another step in eliminating freedom of speech?

      Boy – are this traitor’s true colours ever shining through.

  • David

    When individuals in full health and mentally alert decide to donate a kidney say to a relative or close friend that is a noble act. Furthermore the principle that one volunteers for ones healthy body parts to be used to make someone else well is also a good thing. But near compulsion is morally wrong. Moreover recently medicine has changed from being about making people well to satisfying other strange obsessions.
    So I shall carry an opt out card.
    This is because I don’t like the idea that no limits are placed upon how the state uses my bodily parts, and I don’t trust the state.
    In particular I was influenced by the thoughts of Happy Jack below who pointed out that our sexual bits could be misused to fulfil some fantasy about changing their sex – which is at the deepest level of the chromosomes impossible – and this appalls me.
    The state is already far, far too big and this is the next step too try to turn us into its property. I don’t like this at all.
    Moreover this illiberal, bossy move shows that T. May doesn’t have a conservative bone in her body. She is a statist and more of a socialist than a conservative. Her do goodery is deeply dictatorial and debases us as human beings. We must be unique as a country to have both a socialist opposition and, despite the intentions of those who voted for her party’s MPs, a socialist government as well !
    Things are not going well at government level are they ?
    As a Christian with a deep respect for human life and who believes we should accept the way in which God formed us in the womb, I feel ever further distanced from the way the country I love is governed.

    • Len

      I wonder where one gets an opt out card , and how hard would any medical team search for it on a likely candidate?.

      • David

        I’d keep in my small wallet along with the debit cards and membership of various organisations cards. My wallet is always with me. If they didn’t even check a man’s wallet or a woman’s handbag then that equals a level of almost criminal incompetence. One has to retain a sliver of faith in medical professionals I think, otherwise where are we going ?

        • Norman Yardy

          I have little faith in the medical world because they cover up their mistakes. Unlike the aero industry, they report everything, hence we have a safe aero industry and a failing medical world. See ‘Looking out side of the box’ Mathew Saied.

        • Demon Teddy Bear

          Only a fool has much trust in the medical profession. They bury their mistakes. What precisely is their punishment for getting it wrong, in this case? A faux-apology?

      • bluedog

        Len, this could be your chance to become like Sarky and indulge in a little inking. A strategically placed ‘Gerroff’ should do the trick.

    • dannybhoy

      (But I don’t believe we are formed in the womb as God intended).

  • Len

    The state is becoming more and more intrusive in the lives of individuals.We are leaving the EU presumably to get a bit more freedom and control over discussions the individual can make.
    Back off nanny State we don’t need you taking control over our bodies.

  • A Berean

    This is just one more step towards state ownership of everything, even one’s body and/or parts. For you to keep or retain anything you have you must obtain permission and provide the proper documentation that the state has agreed-awfully nice of them to do so-to let you keep what was rightfully yours in the first place. As for this “presumed consent” nonsense, it’s nothing more than a political device to expropriate what wasn’t theirs at all but they would like you to think is.

  • Norman Yardy

    A tricky subject this. As it has been said, this could lead to euthanasia by the back door. Will compulsory blood donor be next? Like pressing men for the Navy, Watch out for the taverns where the pressing takes place!

    • dannybhoy

      It’ll be a bit like syphoning fuel out of someone else’s tank..

  • Question: If a person – Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever – refuses on principle to donate their organs, as Jack will, do they then forfeit the opportunity to receive a donation if the need ever arises.

    • Sarky

      No. That would go against the Hippocratic oath.

      • CliveM

        It may not be the medical professions decision. If passed by parliament it wouldn’t impact on any oath.

        Btw do abortion doctors make this same oath?

        I think we know both the answer and the oaths worth.

      • Busy Mum

        I heard recently (can’t remember where I heard or read it) that the oath is obsolete nowadays.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      It’s a nice jeer, which we will doubtless hear very frequently from the Frankenstein types. But it is also a diversion away from “is this right, regardless of whose interests it serves, and will it be abused?”

    • Royinsouthwest

      A good question. A lot of commentators on this topic seem to have forgotten the principle “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

      • dannybhoy

        I don’t want anybody else’s ‘leftovers’. The whole idea repels me.

        • Royinsouthwest

          The idea seems much less repulsive to people on kidney dialysis. I wonder why that is?

          • dannybhoy

            Oh I accept that is the case. I am merely expressing my own squeamishness. I would like a new pair of lungs, but preferably my own -a miracle of course would be needed.
            But as I have now attained my threescore years and ten +1, and the entering into eternal life draws ever nearer, I pray for as little pain and distress as possible.

          • Royinsouthwest

            I am only slightly younger than you but I also hope that all my own organs will continue to function reasonably well right up until when it is time for me to meet my Maker.

          • dannybhoy

            Well if you say your prayers regularly, keep out of trouble and eat your cornflakes every morning, they probably will…

          • Busy Mum

            I think kidneys are a different kettle of fish altogether; somebody can donate a kidney and stay alive with the remaining one. Therefore, not only is the idea understandably welcome to those in need of a kidney, it is also far less repulsive to everybody else, potential donors or not, than the donation of other organs which inevitably have involved a death.

          • Maalaistollo

            Q: Who wants to live to 100?

            A: Someone who is 99.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Me too. I can’t see the point of prolonging this Earthly Hell by any means.

          • dannybhoy

            I am sorry if you really feel that way about your life; or are you exaggerating?
            I know some people live in very difficult circumstances with awful health or economic issues.
            I have to say that I am very grateful for all the Lord has given my wife and I.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Thank you for the kind response, dannyboy; and I’m glad that you and your wife are blest.

            I’m not really exaggerating, however, and I’m definitely not the first to consider this world to be close to Hell, if not a part of it. I think the concept inheres in our placement in Dantean, and other medieval works; and I know it’s in Chaucer’s “House of Fame.”

            As to my personal situation — well, I try to follow the example of those who, like you, are grateful for their blessings. You remind me that I’m rather naughty to think my excellent health anything but a gift!!!

            May He bless you further . . .

          • dannybhoy

            Goodness, I hope it didn’t come across as smug!
            It can sometimes be hard to find something that expresses your attitude to life as a Christian. I’m not much of a one for theology or the minutiae of doctrines, I like to keep it simple and practical.
            This chorus pretty much sums it up..

            “All my life, through the good and bad of life,
            Whether I should gain or lose,
            Still I choose to live my life, every moment all for Thee,
            Walking oh so close to Thee
            While I’m learning everyday, come what may to trust in Thee.
            Take away the doubt that hides thy perfect will
            Give me faith instead and with thy Spirit fill,
            Then all my days be the guardian of my ways
            And I’ll know the glory of all thy love through all my days.”

          • betteroffoutofit

            No, no — I didn’t think you were smug at all.
            And your hymn/prayer is so nice; thank you!

          • dannybhoy

            Thank you for sharing something of yourself.

    • magnolia

      These organs will shortly enough be printed anyway. The push is therefore bogus and unnecessary. The question is why then are they enacting it..? .Is it to loosen our awareness of our own ownership of our bodies and DNA? If you do not own even those you own nothing and are totally disempowered, and even more so should you be taxed for the carbon that is necessary for your existence- almost as remunerative for the greedy drinkers of salt water money as taxing the air you breathe….or are they just plain ignorant and desperate to impress the voters with a [vacuous and immoral] seeming niceness?

  • Just so you all know – you are not dead when you donate organs (aside from corneas) – you have to be alive on life support but deemed unrecoverable. You cannot harvest organs from a dead body.

    You can see how euthanasia will be sneaked in through the back door – in the form of saving someone elses life. Ask any organ donation nurse and they will tell you that families find it easier to let go of a loved one on life support when they are told that their relative will help others.

    • dannybhoy

      Soylent Green is lurking in the shadows..

      • Not subtle enough. It has to be done with a smiley emotionalism foreseen by Huxley.

      • Dreadnaught

        Is that Hughie’s evil twin?

        • dannybhoy

          Whoooo -oo!
          Ain’t we sharp this evening!
          Someone’s been eating his weetabix…

          • Dreadnaught

            Chortle..

        • Pubcrawler

          Hughie’s the good twin?!

          • Dreadnaught

            Nah, both evil I reckons.

          • dannybhoy

            And I mean that most sincerely folks..

    • IanCad

      I had no idea! Time for a re-think.

  • CliveM

    Imagining for a moment the combination of this proposal and any future ‘right to die’ legislation.

    How much longer would it then be before legislation covering, say those in a vegetative state, would be passed making these people bodies to be farmed.

    By a coincidence I see Kazuo Ishiguro has won a Noble Prize, ‘Never Let Me Go’ anyone?

    • betteroffoutofit

      This fascinates me – Ishiguro’s counted as a “British” author. Does that make me Japanese, then? Well, anyway . . . I guess globalising all the body parts will be one more nail in the coffin of national identity . . .

      • If you grew up in Japan yes. Kazuo Ishiguro grew up and was schooled in British since he was five.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Is that perhaps a little simplistic? And how can one be “schooled in ‘British’ ” (and adjective)?
          Wiki provides some clues that Ishiguro himself sees the world moving away from national identities. They quote his saying: “People are not two-thirds one thing and the remainder something else. Temperament, personality, or outlook don’t divide quite like that. The bits don’t separate clearly. You end up a funny homogeneous mixture. This is something that will become more common in the latter part of the century—people with mixed cultural backgrounds, and mixed racial backgrounds. That’s the way the world is going[http://bombmagazine.org/article/1269/; para 7].

          He has also said: “I’ve always said throughout my career that although I’ve grown up in this country and I’m educated in this country, that a large part of my way of looking at the world, my artistic approach, is Japanese, because I was brought up by Japanese parents, speaking in Japanese” and “I have always looked at the world through my parents’ eyes,” [https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1CA15R-OCATP; para 15].

          So I don’t think they’d ever make me Japanese, either. Even if they rebuilt me with a Japanese bit or two, I have British/Germanic DNA, both physical and cultural.

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    It’s a pity that we don’t live in a country where the people decide such things. Does anybody suppose that a majority exists for this evil?

    • Busy Mum

      It may do among the younger generation.

  • Was the misspelling of “because” also included in the original Conservative press release?

    • Busy Mum

      Also, there should be a comma after ‘So’, shouldn’t there?

      • Let’s not lose our heads.

        • Busy Mum

          I have no intention of doing so.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Well one can’t expect a vicar’s daughter and her fake conservative comrades to care about conserving standards in English, can one? Cranny noted the “plague of frogs in her throat” – I’d suggest that’s also a manifestation of Franco-German Plague that besets us via the euSSR (including the aliens it’s forcing on us, and our language) …

  • An older man just had a penis transplant and was getting instructions from his doctor. He was placed on a strict diet, denied tobacco and alcohol, and advised to get at least eight hours sleep a night.

    “What about my sex life?” asked the man “Will it be all right for me to have intercourse?”

    “Only with your wife,” said the doctor. “We don’t want you to get too excited.”
    ________

  • carl jacobs

    In the original understanding of organ donation, the donor is the benefactor of the recipient. In this new understand, the donor is made into the servant of the recipient. It represents a significant shift in perspective from one of charity to one of obligation. This is what gets under the skin. A man at the last is reduced to nothing more than a collection of spare parts – perhaps as on display in a thrift store.

    But it makes sense in an increasingly materialist world that views man as nothing more than a collection of body parts. If one possesses nothing more than this life, then one sees a spare set of parts as a means to delay the inevitable. Each man progressively objectifies the next in his quest for one more day of comfortable autonomous living.

    It’s the immanent focus of modern life that drives this. There is no understanding of “Though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh will I see God.” So they clutch at what they can grasp no matter how quickly it will slip through the fingers.

    • dannybhoy

      Well put Carl. You’ve said what I was going to say, but for some reason this donated hand of mine keeps wanting to play the piano..

      • Could be worse …. a lot worse.
        Anyone remember “The Hand”?

        • carl jacobs

          From “Dark Shadows”?

          • Isn’t that about a vampire?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes. It is only the most coolest soap opera ever! There was a character named Quentin iirc who had the hand of a murderer transplanted onto his arm. Had this weird ring and a mind of its own. Turned out not to be a good decision.

          • On Netflx?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes. Last I looked.

        • dannybhoy

          Certainlydo-oooooooo -ooops!
          (*%$@!! followed by scuffling noises as the music from “The Hills are alive!” plays ominously in the background)
          For Goodness sake, Hand,,
          Get a grip!

      • Pubcrawler

        I hope you haven’t got Gary Gilmore’s Eyes

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gilmore%27s_Eyes

        • dannybhoy


          Great song (smirk)
          Dunno about the eyes, the lead singer (an adolescent Tony Blair?) looks like he inherited Liberace’s hair…

          • Pubcrawler

            ‘singer’…

      • Anton

        It could be worse.

    • “In this new understand(ing), the donor is made into the servant of the recipient. It represents a significant shift in perspective from one of charity to one of obligation.”

      Just add compulsion and you have the essence of socialism.

      • carl jacobs

        A-hem!

        [Taps foot in an irritated fashion]

        … “gets under the skin”…

        A little levity to lighten a dark subject? Comedic genius is lost on you people!

        • Hmm … well this “comedic genus” is certainly lost somewhere.
          It’s all in the de-liver-ey – the timing and the pauses, Carl.

        • Don’t get cut up about it, Carl.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Who was it who said “let the dead bury the dead?”

  • Royinsouthwest

    Organ transplants tend to work better the closer the genetic match between the donor and recipient. Not being a doctor I am not sure how important genetic compatibility is when both are completely unrelated to each other. However, if it is important even for completely unrelated individuals then the chances of successful transplants for Muslims could be affected. Someone of Pakistani descent would presumably be a closer match to another person of Pakistani descent that would a European donor.

    • It wont be too long before there’s a compulsory national data base storing all our DNA information and the condition of our organs – to ensure greater efficiency and forward planning.

      • Sarky

        There already is a dna database.

        • dannybhoy

          Have you applied Sarks?

      • Anton

        Using that database one could invent a game, Fantasy Transplants.

  • So as to restore the balance between male and female and thus avoid the accusation Jack is sexist:

    A woman gives birth to a baby and afterward the doctor comes into the room and says, “I have something to tell you about your child …”

    The woman slowly sits up with a worried look on her face and says, “What’s wrong with it?”

    The doctor says, “There’s nothing really wrong with it, it’s just a little different! It’s a hermaphrodite.”

    The woman looks confused. “A hermaphrodite, what’s that?”

    The doctor replies, “It has both features of a male and a female.”

    The woman looks relieved. “What? You mean it has a penis and a brain?”

    • Sarky

      It was my dad who persuaded me to be an organ donor.
      He’s a man after my own heart.

  • Murti Bing

    “the Qur’an says: ‘Whosoever saves the life of one person it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind’ (5:32).”

    It may say it, but the line starts thus: “We ordained for the Children of Israel that… &c.’

    Hence, the injunction is not to the moslems, but the jews.

    A side issue, maybe, but worth noting nonetheless.

  • Manfarang

    Talk about making a pig’s ear.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40886600

    • Nah … this topic is too interesting.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Isn’t that a form of discrimination against Muslims, and Jews too?

    • David

      My Danish friend has a heart valve from an English pig !
      Extraordinary as Denmark if the land of pig farms but I don’t think they have the science facilities we have.

  • Mike Stallard

    I would like, as a conservative, to see a vast reduction in the bureaucracy, a vast reduction of taxes, a vast simplification of the tax system, more police on the streets, more defence forces and a sensible withdrawal from the Eu probably including a spell in EFTA/EEA to avoid the coming chaos.
    And what do I get? Bloody Ed Miliband!
    I mean, honestly!

  • C A Dark

    I am somewhat heartened to find comments that understand the anger over this organ donation business. Forced compulsory donations are not donations; they are theft and that is what many people, including myself, object to. I shall be opting out. The reason it has come to this is because all those people who have shouted the loudest about organ donations are often the very ones who have failed to put themselves on the register. Presumably this will now lead to a glut of organs and the surplus will be sold off for profit. Or, as a friend of mine suggested, May wants the extra meat to cope with all the injuries that will occur when we go into a civil war.
    As for myself, if I was ever found to be needing a transplant, I would refuse. If the good Lord has decided that my life is coming to an end, then so be it. I’ve had a good run.

    • Royinsouthwest

      I don’t suppose you woul refuse a blood transfusion. Admittedly that is quite a different matter because it would just be a matter o (a short period of) time before your body had made enough new blood to replace the donated blood.

      Would you refuse a kidney from a close relative? That is also a different matter since the doner would manage with one. However their is a continuum with blood on one end and organs from the season the other end.

  • Jonathan

    Well if this policy is spread through the globe it will at least ensure no further cadaver synods! The successor of Pope Formosus could rest easy.

  • Green walls

    Well fine don’t donate your organs but don’t expect to receive any!

    • carl jacobs

      If you look at my Driver’s License, you will see that it says “DONOR Y”. With emphasis on the word “Donor” as opposed to “Inventory of Available Spare Parts”. These “Opt Out” schemes increase participation by trusting to inertia and ignorance. People acquiesce by default without realizing they have done so. It’s easy to do if you can assume consent. It also places a degree of social pressure on people in that they have to publicly decline. The whole exercise is highly manipulative.

      Given the preeminence that autonomy occupies in Western culture these days, it is curious that autonomy should be stripped away in this matter. But then you think “No, there are people grasping at a new lease on life.” It’s the recipient’s autonomy that’s being defended. Who is the donor compared to the recipient? A presumed right to a replacement organ has been established from whoever might be available to provide it. All one needs is a body.

      “I’m not dead yet. I’m feeling better. I think I’ll go for a walk …”

      • At Egg Donor America, we are dedicated to fulfilling dreams around the world by bringing together prospective parents and egg donors …. Egg Donor America maintains a diverse database of egg donor profiles for both domestic and international clients.

        From helping individuals become donors to assisting parents with life-altering decisions, our staff of caring, experienced professionals will carefully guide you through every step of the process.

        We look forward to helping you fulfil your dreams!

        Egg donation is an incredible way to take part in the miracle of life while being compensated for your time and effort.

        How corrupt is this? Why not privatise organ donation? The demand’s certainly there and suitable incentives will ensure a supply.

    • Royinsouthwest

      In fairness to the Inspector he did imply that he was perfectly willing for his family to decide to donate some of his organs.

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector will leave it to his family to decide what to do with his by then worn out remains, with one proviso. His lower bowel is not, under any circumstances, to be considered for transplant. Oh, the indignity of that, the risk of it being abused by the new owner being too great!! An ignominious end for a beloved end that became a friend…

    The idea that the state owns your all but lifeless body is grotesque. And Mrs May is a ghastly creature for allowing this to go forward as Conservative government policy. What is it about female prime ministers?

    By the way, a fellow is reminded of that science fiction story (possibly one of Ray Bradbury’s) where the super rich and mega powerful have been cloned to provide spare body parts for the original in a not too far off America. The clones live together, are treated well, but are confined in covert maximum security, their very existence top secret as human cloning has been made illegal. Just to complicate matters, some of the clients have more than one clone. They are summonsed to be harvested as required…

    • You may want to consider adding another organ, Inspector.

      • Inspector General

        Coming_soon.The_Inspector’s_new_(diversity_friendly)_book…

        “The_Joy_Of_Bowel”

        It_will_be_in_coffee_table_style

        • Inspector, please receive this “filial correction” in the sprit in which it is given:

          Please remove that post forthwith and focus on higher things … NOW. It’s unedifying and offends the senses.

          • dannybhoy

            He’s plumbing the depths I fear.

        • Anton

          I think you may be sailing close to your second public warning from His Grace.

      • carl jacobs

        Would you look at what you have done? Look at that post the Inspector just made. People have to look at that. We could have all just let it lie fallow. But no. You had to poke the ant hill with a stick. Now what are you going to do to clean up this mess?

        • Inspector General

          “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new bowel age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted sex”.

          • Where’s Linus when one needs him requires his presence?

          • carl jacobs

            No one requires the Linus Inquisition.

        • Always best to bring such disturbances into the light, Carl. This obsession needs addressing.

          • carl jacobs

            Couldn’t you do this therapy in a PM chat somewhere? It gets tiresome. He’s responsible for 85% of Cranmer’s Law.

          • Attention does appear to feed the beast and release the …. But private therapy? The risks would be too great.

          • Inspector General

            Actually,_it’s_Cranmers_second_law.We_can_call_it_the_one_pertaining_to
            _motion…

          • Sit on your stool, Inspector. Let’s have a chat.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Thanks for citing this, IG; I count Ray Bradbury up there with the best of those who’ve tried to warn us . . .

      • Inspector General

        Indeed,dear_lady.The_fellow_had_an_astonishing_insight_to_where_we_are_headed…

    • dannybhoy

      Hm, sounds like that Sam Rockwell film ‘Moon’.

    • not a machine

      I find the inspectors concerns over the future use of a part of his body in a way that seems to taunt most catholic derived thinking , a very amusing contemplation , the recipient being unable to not thank modern medicine enough ,than to be able to replace the worn out organ he/she was having so many problems with prior to replacement, or that if it were known it were the inspectors , that it may attract a premium price in any auction …..

    • Don’t know about Ray Bradbury, but it reminds me of the film ‘The Island’ and Kazuo Ishiguro’s book ‘Never Let Me Go’. Interestingly both sources indicate that in order for this to happen it would have to be hidden out of sight from a public that is happy for this to happen.

  • IanCad

    Well, to get things going a bit more – this conversation seems limited to the re-homing of organs. With the astonishing progress in the medical field, is it not likely that, not just hearts and lungs and kidneys will be up for auction, but other parts as well? Legs and arms, hands, ears and eyes, well shaped noses; faces!!?? All of us guys with well-turned calves, sound shoulders and long arms may need to appoint guardians if we ever have the misfortune of having to go under the knife.

  • Chefofsinners

    I know a child who was six weeks from death when he received an organ transplant. Now he is healthy, happy and has a full life ahead of him. His life has also brought great comfort to the parents of the child who died.

    So, “fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

    • Indeed, an excellent reason to donate one’s organs as a free act of charity- just like blood. It (used to be) called the “gift relationship”. Now its becoming a transaction of the State.

    • Sarky

      My father in law had a kidney transplant. Because of that he got to see his children married and the resulting grandchildren.
      Thats why ill never be convinced this is a bad idea.

      • Darter Noster

        As Sir Humphrey famously said, “It isn’t a bad idea; it’s a very good idea. It just mustn’t happen.”

        What’s at stake here is the right to control our own bodies. However good a use the state might have for my organs, they are MY organs, not the state’s, and whether or not I give them away is my decision and mine alone.

        • Chefofsinners

          Fine. Carry an opt-out card, or tell your family how you feel. Under an opt-out system you still have control.

          • carl jacobs

            Under an opt-out system you still have control.

            Unless you don’t know or just never get around to doing it or put it off because you think you might suffer social disapproval. The State shouldn’t presume consent just to get an outcome it desires.

          • Chefofsinners

            If you don’t know or never get around to it, or you care more about social disapproval, then you don’t care very much.
            You are making arguments on behalf of others who don’t care. What are your personal objections?

          • carl jacobs

            That it is a manipulative duplicitous way for the Gov’t to assert ownership over its citizens. Who are you to demand that a man be declared dead based on the authority of presumed consent just so that his organs may be harvested?

          • Chefofsinners

            Eh? Things may be different where you come from, but in the UK people are only declared dead when they are dead. Donation consent doesn’t come into it.

          • carl jacobs

            If you can’t harvest body parts from a corpse, then we are in a gray area here, aren’t we. Sort of a “mostly dead” situation. Dead enough to remove organs but not so dead that postmortem biological processes take over.

          • Chefofsinners

            No. Organs are only harvested when death is inevitable. Life support would be turned off sooner if organs were not to be harvested.

          • carl jacobs

            “Death is inevitable” would tend to indicate that it is yet a future event. And then we can start mucking around with the definition of “death” you see. And what exactly is the time span associated with “inevitable”? Supply and Demand are wonderful things. Very effective at meeting needs.

          • Chefofsinners

            This is an entirely different argument, about the morality of organ donation itself, not about consent.

          • carl jacobs

            No, it is an argument for why consent should be informed and not presumed.

          • Chefofsinners

            How?

          • carl jacobs

            Because then the donor can choose to accept the risk instead of having it imposed upon him by default.

          • Chefofsinners

            What risk? The risk of his life support machine being kept on longer?

          • carl jacobs

            The risks involved with that moral argument about organ donation the you previously mentioned.

          • Chefofsinners

            Which are?

          • carl jacobs

            Being denied treatment that could save you because someone decides you are more valuable for your body parts.

          • Simon Platt

            Do explain how arguments about consent for organ donation are “completely different” to arguments about the morality of organ donation.

          • bluedog

            So you can’t imagine a Harold Shipman of the organ trade?

          • Chefofsinners

            There is no organ trade in the UK.

          • bluedog

            Are you sure?

          • Chefofsinners

            I’m sure Anton would object to it being regulated.

          • Simon Platt

            Quite so. And, if you object, you have to go on a Government register. It’s an appalling idea. All men of good will and good sense should oppose it vigorously.

        • Maureen O’Brien

          When you are dead, you have no rights – you literally become property. In most cases, the state does have the right to control property rights.

          • carl jacobs

            Of course, you aren’t dead when you are harvested. Minor detail, I know.

      • Chefofsinners

        There’s nothing in Christian theology against organ donation. Whether it’s an opt-in or opt-out depends, for me, on how many people would agree in principle to donate their organs but haven’t bothered to get a card. Moves to the opt-in system are being made because it seems that many people fall into this category. I’d support it.

        • Except ….. It fundamentally corrupts the act of self giving and is a further example of nationalised “charity”. If you can’t persuade people to think of others and have a sense of solidarity with them, then use inertia to secure the end you desire. The National Lottery uses bribery; this thoughtlessness. It also continues the redefinition of the relationship between the State and the individual.

          • Maureen O’Brien

            That is a really stupid argument. Through taxes we contribute vast sums for sustenance of the poor – including medical care. Are you seriously condemning this as well?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, I do believe that Maureen O’Brien just categorized organ donation as a form of taxation. Which is consistent if crass. So perhaps it should be called “organ taxation” instead. Man, I would hate to fill out that tax form.

          • Now you’re thinking more imaginatively.

          • Most certainly ….

          • Brian

            Agreed. It also illegitimately puts the individual on notice with the assumption that you have consented to something unless you have expressly not done so. This is an example of governmental over-reach. It would never fly in America.

          • Agreed. Freely, with full knowledge and understanding, as the basis of any agreement, is a principle that should be defended.

          • Chefofsinners

            It is just another example of society’s interests being put ahead of those of the individual, because a moral judgment is made that the loss of individual liberty is outweighed by the medical gains. Happens all the time. Get over it.

          • Now you want to make it a moral judgement?

          • Chefofsinners

            Nothing to do with me. It is a moral judgment. Life or liberty?

          • Navarth

            Yes, Soylent Green is justified in society’s best interests.

          • Chefofsinners

            Pish. It fundamentally corrupts nothing. Sit back and watch children die then, you heartless old

          • Jack’s more than happy to promote voluntary acts of generosity and self giving. Catholic’s call this “acts of corporal mercy” which are good for the soul and express love of God and others. .

          • Chefofsinners

            And more than happy to object to a system which would save the lives of many children.

          • Ends do not justify means – one unintended consequence of this “solution” s to apathy continue the march towards state totalitarianism.

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes, ends do often justify means. Any decision is a balance between costs and benefits.

          • It’s a prudential judgement here. Do you not see the cost?

          • Chefofsinners

            I do. It is you who seems blind to the cost. Some ethereal notion of totalitarianism, which evaporates if anyone cares enough to opt out, versus the lives of children. This is not a religious principle, just a matter of political perception.

          • Jack’s concerns are not imaginary. Look at China’s birth control policy. He just doesn’t believe in the tacit or implicit removal of individual responsibility when it comes to organ “donation”. If it’s that important, invest in changing hearts and minds.

          • Chefofsinners

            This really has nothing to do with China’s birth control policy.

          • Same mind-set.

          • Chefofsinners

            Not really. One is concerned with preventing births, while the other is concerned with preventing deaths.

          • Both take the initiative away from positive actions of individuals and place it on the State.

          • Chefofsinners

            One for a very good reason, one for a bad reason. Costs and benefits. The ends justify the means.

          • Emotionalism is not a justification – and that’s what you’re using. Educate children in caring for others rather than other issues of “diversity” and “equality”. Get it on soap operas. Run adverts.

          • Chefofsinners

            You say I’m emotional, I say you’re heartless. Let each be convinced in his own mind.

          • Well, that’ll be at least one organ that cannot be conscripted by bureaucrats to satisfy State production targets.

          • Chefofsinners

            Your heart?

          • carl jacobs

            Why are we on the same side in this discussion? It’s disturbing. I’m almost always Chef’s ally. I must be wrong somehow.

          • Yes, that’s a couple of times in the past few days. Perhaps you’re evolving.

          • Chefofsinners

            He’s bored of being right. It almost gets to me sometimes.

          • carl jacobs

            Or perhaps … perhaps you are starting to think like an American. Hrmmm. I’ll have to watch you for telltale signs.

            Tell me. Have started noticing a tendency to just say what you think without resorting to indirection?

          • No.

          • carl jacobs

            No

            Aha! I knew it! A direct answer.This is fascinating.

          • There’s an easy answer, Carl. Once you strip out the emotionalism and moral blackmail, it’s a straight forward issue with obvious answers. No nuances necessary. No wonder you can follow Jack’s line of reasoning. More complex topics and you can’t keep up.

          • Anton

            This 3-way subdiscussion between Chef, Jack and you is predicated on a State healthcare system in which the taxes of some pay for the healthcare of others, and it cannot be predicted who will need it and who will not. If we each paid our own way, the discussion would be very different. Should a family pay for one of its members on a life support machine with no discernible brain function to remain on that machine until it has sold its house and every possession it owns? To what extent is the State a very large extended family? Chef seems to see this issue most clearly but I am really only seeking to make explicit some assumptions underlying your exchange.

          • Anton

            What you say makes the best sense to me, but please see my comment to Carl a little below.

  • Darter Noster

    When I shuffle off this mortal coil, I have made it clear that anyone who needs it is welcome to any bit of me that my 20+ year relationship with booze, baccy, and fried food has left useable.

    However, other people who have done the same have had their wishes overturned by their relatives post-mortem. If relatives have that power now, I suspect they’ll be able to overrule presumed consent too.

    That said, whilst every fibre of my being wants to increase organ donation, this is something that must be done as an act of free will. Government must realise that organ donation and organ harvesting are two different things. They have no right to assume my consent.

    • dannybhoy

      But you could opt out.
      Not that it will make any difference…

  • Chefofsinners

    Let’s face it, contributors to this blog would be hard pushed to find one organ worth donating between the lot of us.

    • carl jacobs

      That’s true. For example, grapefruit don’t even have organs.

      Which, come to think of it, might explain some of Jack’s posts.

      • dannybhoy

        Sounds like sour grapes to me.
        Juicy Jack will have some sharp retort to make..

      • Possibly not …. but Jack has a mind, a heart and a soul – two more agents than a certain American with Scandinavian roots who frequents this site.

        • carl jacobs

          Only one of those is an organ.

          • Which is why Jack didn’t use that term.

          • carl jacobs

            OK. I wondered if you might have needed some assistance with the concept. We Americans stand ready to help improve the general knowledge of the British public.

          • Hmm …Yes, American knowledge is general – generally useless.

          • Chefofsinners

            Next time I want a better understanding of stupidity, I’ll be sure to get in touch.

          • Ooooo …. touchy, touchy.

    • Ray Sunshine

      I have a pair of intraocular lenses, I think the term is, manufactured in Austin, Texas. They were inserted when I had cataract surgery a few years ago and, as far as I can tell, they’re still in perfect working condition and presumably fully recyclable. But as for the organs I was born with …

    • Whilst not an organ, there’s an American on here with a mouth that could be used as a substitute for the Channel Tunnel should the need ever arise. One also has it on reliable authority that clear instructions have been left to batter his tongue to death and incinerate it on his passing.

      • Merchantman

        Will you donate you selection of Bitter Herbs?

    • Anton

      The church organ?

      • Chefofsinners

        The band, preferably.

        • Anton

          The gastric band?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Naughty boy

      • carl jacobs

        Tell me that wasn’t a crude vulgar joke on Chef’s part.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          I don’t think so, I thought it naughty because he was hinting we were all so old and decrepit that nobody would want our bits.

          • Will you be bequeathing your hobnobs on your demise, Mrs P.?

          • Chefofsinners

            Apparently someone wants your bits, Mrs Proudie.

          • Jack was referring to her secret recipe, Chef.

          • Chefofsinners

            One doubts very much that consent will be forthcoming.

          • not a machine

            mmm tv prog in there somewhere “whats your bits worth” hard up semi retired strip off and get mri scanned with a valuation expert looking at the image , and you agree to take your self to auction displayed on rotating table dressed in a surgical gown ,in a bidding room , with post bid chat after , should get 4mn daytime viewers with no moral attachments every weekday , be real competition for Jeremy Kyle 🙂

          • Linus

            Hinting?

            Let him hint. I’ll say it openly. You’re a bunch of old crocks with bits falling off you that are rotten before they even hit the ground. Not much use for transplant surgery, but if you ever need to go shark fishing…

            My cardiologist recently told me that my circulatory system is in such good nick, I’d be the perfect organ donor if it weren’t for the unfortunate habit my family’s arteries have of bursting suddenly and without warning. So I’m off the Maybot’s hit list, which is an encouraging thought as I have to make a trip to Britain soon.

          • Len

            Must you?.

          • dannybhoy

            Ha!
            And still he stays…
            And not only is he doing stirling work in warning ‘others’ who may accidentally stray here to ‘Bigotsville’; he actually engages with the enemy! He pretends to believe that we’re all horrible people who hate him, but he can’t help himself. Like a moth to a lighted candle …
            Let’s keep praying for Linus.

          • CliveM

            I have heard on numerous occasions it said by atheists that they wouldn’t want to go to heaven as hell is where all the interesting people will end up.

            Clearly they haven’t heard of Linus.

          • Len

            ‘Let’s keep praying for Linus.’
            Yes, but what for?.

          • dannybhoy

            That he might come to know the Lord, just as we became aware of His grace and salvation. How the Lord will do that we don’t know, but our prayers will help.

          • Chefofsinners

            I will be extra careful not to do or say anything that might raise your blood pressure.

            On the subject of organ donation, have you considered giving your heart to the Lord lately?

          • Linus

            I don’t throw my heart at phantoms and mirages. And in any case, my heart is spoken for. It belongs to a real man with a pulse and personality. Not to a thinly drawn character on a page who acts as a mirror in which people can gaze in wonder at their own reflections.

          • Chefofsinners

            Humans are blessed with the capacity to love more than one person simultaneously. My love for you, for example.
            Go on Linus, be a Christian. You know it makes sense.

          • Linus

            You be as polyamorous as you like. I’m a one man man.

            In any case, this love for me of which you speak is purely imaginary. The only love you really feel is love for yourself. When you talk of your love for Sky Pixie, what you’re really describing is the emotion you feel when you look in a mirror.

            Insofar as I resemble you – which isn’t very far – you can probably experience a weak spasm of appreciation for me. We’ve never met and never will (and there’s something to thank your imaginary Sky Pixie for), but if we did and you saw that I had two legs and two arms and a head and two eyes and a nose and mouth, you would probably claim to love me, but only because I would remind you (no matter how vaguely) of you. So you wouldn’t be loving me. You’d be loving your own image reflected in me. Just as you love it reflected in Sky Pixie – even more so because it’s so tarted up and perfected. Sky Pixie is you writ large. You with superpowers. A child’s self-deified vision of itself.

            Your problem is (and will always be) that this perfect image exists nowhere outside of your imagination. You can show it to no-one because it doesn’t exist in any form that can be shown. You can draw or carve a simulacrum of it. Pixtian art abounds in such monstrosities and they run the gamut of self-aggrandizing imaginings, from peaches-and-cream shepherds to sweaty, stringy messiahs hanging off a cross. But they remain images, and making an image of something imaginary does not make it real. All it does is give others an insight into the extravagance of the imaginer’s imagination. And an idea of the depth of his own worship of himself.

            Your behaviour on this blog proves that you love only yourself and that your protestations of love for others are merely part of your claim to be divine. There’s no room in your heart for anything but self-worship. Others are only of value to you only as potential devotees.

          • Chefofsinners

            There. That feels better, doesn’t it? Let it out and let it go. Then let God in.

          • Linus

            There is no Sky Pixie to let in anywhere. He’s a figment of your imagination. If I’m wrong, show him to me. Where is he, this Sky Pixie of yours?

            You see him every time you look in a mirror. But that’s just an error of recognition on your part. You think you’re divine, but what you really are is a heap of finite flesh just like everyone else. Only rather more full of crap than most…

    • RobinHMasters

      My liver is my life insurance policy.

      No hospital would ever declare me dead prematurely in order to profit from a liver such as mine.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Apparently my kidneys are both working extremely well. 🙁

    • Dodgy Geezer

      Let us hope that contributors here have a far better functioning brain than the general population…

  • Ian G

    You are not your own. You are bought with a price. Apparently, the Tory Party have paid it. Theresa May must needs be worried. It seems that they really are going to crucify her.

  • not a machine

    Cadaver conscription it seems to me … one can only imagine the calculations and side calculations ,unfortunately in some other countries organ donation whether you know about it or not is big business 5k for a tissue match kidney ,and money then drives the surgery which in turn looks in old cupboard for a source ,one care full owner ,no habitual drug use , can all be adjusted .Quite if there could be grade a ,b or c is an interesting thought , celebrity bits ? .No doubt the lighter coffins or less time in the crem will be in there as well .I just think there must be more policy creatives than government ministers in the political structure these days sighs !. what if no one can find your opt out card and the time for not using your organs runs out … and well best decision an all that lets ave em …oh dear also looks like you will be on a database just in case …
    Been to see new Blade Runner film , and if your a fan of the first one this one is so much more (although I might want to see pre clip on you tube beforehand ) Its a Ridley Scott production and thank goodness it is ,but the direction, acting and imagery (it is dark and violent) are just superb , lots of thoughts and considerations of what a future could be when cloning is mastered and yet those Christian theological thoughts are in there also ,but you will be taken to the very blurred edges of your reason and thinking , but wonderfully done ,if you can save your pennies for imax 3d .The imagery is just breath taking and perhaps where AI could go , wonderful and extraordinary ,bearing in mind I have been thinking about Prometheus and Alien covenant for some time and the touches in those stories let alone Michael Fassbenders David 7 and Walter 8 subtleties (again separate vids on you tube) , but this one you don’t immediately realise how interesting the Wallace character is , again very well acted .

  • The state can have you bumped off for your body parts for younger patients with a need once you’re of a certain age that they deem fit. You reach 70, go in for a routine procedure and complications arise, suddenly you’re gone and you’re organs have been reincarnated in another body half way around the world who has paid a large sum of money for them.

    • Sarky

      I don’t think a young person would want organs from a 70yr old would they???
      A tad paranoid me thinks.

      • Just sayin. If the organs are healthy. Bit worried are you?

        • Linus

          Few 70 year olds have healthy organs. You see there’s this thing called the aging process that degrades them over time.

          As the omnipotent and eternally young perfect being however, you of course will know nothing about this. Clearly every transplant surgeon on the planet is drooling to get their hands on your perfect collection of organ meat. You’d better watch out. While you’re distracted meting out terrible punishments to those who offend you, they may be creeping up behind you with a carving knife…

          Something tells me they’ll recoil from the scene of decay that confronts them with considerable urgency. Don’t worry, your organs are safe. They’re as useless as the rest of you, so they’ll rot in your coffin along with everything else that once was Marie1797.

          • Royinsouthwest

            If a 70 year old accident victim would have had another 25 years of reasonably healthy life – admittedly that would make him one of a small minority but it would still be quite possible – then his organs could easily have another 5 years of pretty efficient functioning which would give doctors time to find a better long term donor.

          • Linus

            Why put someone through the trauma of transplant surgery only to make them go through it again 5 years later? Much more efficient to use healthy young organs in the first place.

            If she’s anywhere near the average age on this blog, which given her antediluvian attitudes seems more than likely, no-one’s stalking Marie1797 for her organs. A chef de cuisine worth his salt doesn’t shop for ingredients in the bargain basement section of the supermarket. If you have to scrape the blow flies off it, it’s past its sell-by date.

          • Royinsouthwest

            It depends on the urgency of the operation and the compatibility of available organs.

          • Exactly. If it was that or nothing and you only had a week to live, the healthy heart of a 70 year old would be most welcome.

          • Anton

            Happens to us all. Good job she’ll be raised to eternal life.

          • Linus

            Eternal burning in the Pixcinerator for all her unrepented sins and for pretending to love the Sky Pixie when she’s really enamoured of no-one but herself hardly sounds like an enviable fate to me. And it’s either that or oblivion.

      • Len

        I got an old piano they can have?

      • Dominic Stockford

        Why would they wait until you are 70? They will before long be taking them forcibly from those they regard as unworthy – down-and-outs, homeless, inefficient economic units, etc. – and then giving them to those who regard themselves as the ‘great and the good’, more deserving, and more economically valuable to society.

  • Chefofsinners

    The wr tin is on the w ll for Th resa May.

    • CliveM

      One can hope.

    • Dreadnaught

      kin el

      • Chefofsinners

        Kind elves are lovely.

    • Royinsouthwest

      You don’t need to be Daniel to understand it but there are still probably quite a few Conservative MPs who don’t yet.

  • Chefofsinners

    Anyone who cares what happens to their body after death has missed the point of the New Testament.

    • Cressida de Nova

      Terribly terribly brutal comment.

      • Chefofsinners

        Or even the Old Testament.
        “Though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job 19:26

        • Cressida de Nova

          Ever seen a dead person just discarded in the gutter because they don’t count for anything to anyone ? Maybe you should expand your horizons…rather than quoting scripture… actually see God through some real life experience.

          • Chefofsinners

            Maybe you should read some scripture.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Maybe you should follow what you read…or maybe the gongs and clanging cymbals aren’t in your version.

      • Anton

        But rather gentle compared to some of the personal comments you have aimed at some protestants here.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Now if I were to be petty as you are known to be I would demand that you produce evidence with an entire list of my personal comments aimed at protestants accompanied by two translations of the above in ancient Hebrew and Greek.
          Snowflakery does not become you petal !

          • Anton

            O, I can take it. It’s consistency from you that I’d like to see.

        • Cressida de Nova

          If you think my comparitively benign comments about Protestants are equivalent to brutal sacrilegious comments by your religious confrere on disrespecting a corpse and also wishing premature death on a seriously ill person, then not only are you not a Christian but it is quite possible that you are mentally fractured as well.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Agreed, but see my comment (3) above.

    • Which isn’t the issue!
      Would it be wrong to oppose leaving a corpse to be devoured by hyenas?

      • Chefofsinners

        In order that it might be devoured by worms?
        Soon to be joined by the bodies of the children who could have been saved through organ transplants?
        It’s not a difficult choice.

        • A descent Christian funeral and burial is something Jack hopes for – no matter if all his bits and pieces are present and accounted for.

          Respect for the dead is Christian.

          CCC 2299:
          The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace. They will be helped by the prayer of their relatives, who must see to it that the sick receive at the proper time the sacraments that prepare them to meet the living God.

          CCC 2300:
          The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honours the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.

          CCC 2301:
          Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious. The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.

          • Chefofsinners

            “A decent Christian funeral and burial is something Jack hopes for”
            This can be arranged. Let us proceed without delay.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Another brutal comment….I think you know Jack is seriously ill.

  • C A Dark
  • Len

    Although there has been a certain amount of levity about this subject ,the matter of organ transplants is a deadly serious one. IF a person is regarded as merely a bunch of cells and the State has total control over ones life then why not go ahead with mandatory organ donation?.
    But life is surely about choices and a certain amount of free will?.
    The State is intervening into all corners of our life, even to the point of telling us we can do and what we can say.
    Many people fought in some terrible wars with huge loss of life to preserve human dignity and freedom.Lets not let this freedom be whittled away until there is nothing left.

  • Dominic Stockford

    There is a further step down which this decision will take us. and i am surprised if no-one has raised it here below. Maybe you have.

    That next, and most appalling step, which will be taken, is to compulsorily harvest organs for the ‘great and the good’ from those regarded as ‘unfortunate’ or ‘unworthy’, before that individual has died.

    • Maalaistollo

      This step has already been taken. Look up ‘organ harvesting in Kosovo.’ Guess who were the ‘great and the good’ and who the ‘unworthy.’

      • Dominic Stockford

        Thank you. I had not seen this. It proves my point, and demonstrates why we should take this plan seriously – opposing it with all our might.

    • Simon Platt

      See also this compendium from Life Site: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-inconvenient-truth-about-organ-donations

      I’ve also seen an article there about an American fellow who was sent to prison for defending his comatose son (now recovered) from organ harvesters. The father blockaded himself in his son’s hospital room with a gun, and saved his son’s life from the murderers in white coats.

      I’ll be first in the queue to opt out of this illiberal, unconservative, and generally wicked scheme, See you there.

      • Dominic Stockford

        I am hoping that Christian Concern will lead a charge against this. I will certainly be there.

  • Terry Mushroom

    My elderly widower neighbour tells me her GP’s surgery rang to ask her to put Do Not Resusicate on her medical notes.

    Is anyone aware of this apparently happening?

    • Dominic Stockford

      It is ow commonly asked of in-patients, and from your comment it seems surgeries are simply following their lead. When I was on the Severe Stroke Ward last year (not a stroke in my case though) all but 2 of the seven of us had DNR on their notes. It was a choice of the individual however.

      Inefficient economic units need to be lessened in number so that the efficient economic units can continue to serve the State – and from this article we now know that both main parties hold this.

      • Terry Mushroom

        I understand this discussion in a Severe Stroke Ward. But it’s deeply chilling that surgeries cold call elderly patients. Your description of “inefficient economic units” sounds horribly true.

        I have always believed it my duty to vote. I’ve often held my nose and cast for the least worst. I wonder now whether I should destroy my ballot paper saying “None of the Above”.

  • Dominic Stockford

    What do you need? I am sure I can get one from M&S, 20% discount too….

  • dannybhoy

    Am I the only one who noticed the spelling mistake on the poster, or am I the only one who hasn’t read all the comments?

    • Dominic Stockford

      There’s a question. I think we should have a referendum on it.

      • dannybhoy

        How are you old son? You’re not as vociferous as you once were. All is well with you I trust?

        • Dominic Stockford

          Very well thank you. Astonishingly busy with building refurbishments, charities to run that are very active, 500th Anniversary celebrations to plan, and just the normal everyday stuff as well… Not much on really!

          • dannybhoy

            :0)

    • It’s the latter, Danny.

    • Linus

      Well done! Go from sub-sub-optimal (functional illiteracy) to sub-optimal (pre-school) level and a gold star for you!

      See, Pixtians can be trained after all!

  • grandpa1940

    So, when the dark-gowned bloke comes a-calling, scythe at the ready; he’ll have to wait his turn, because the Organ Vultures, their scalpels freshly sharpened and sterilised; will be hovering at the bedside of the unfortunate victim of a crash, or a long-term illness patient deemed fatal, or any other deadly combination; just so they can get first dibs at Harvest time.
    I can just imagine all the transplant teams getting gowned-up, ready to ‘save’ lives, and ‘make a difference’ to hundreds of patient patients, all because Corbyn and May have decided that a Donation is simply not enough. I am surprised at Theresa May, after all, she used to be a Tory: but Corbyn? The whole idea that the State owns your body, despite the wishes of the Family, is right up that Red Communist bastard’s backside.
    Many have noted that transplant organ science has revolutionised health medicine, and I have no problem with the idea; if you want your organs sliced out before you are properly deemed dead; be my guest: but kindly leave me out. I have witnessed the slavering clowns pushing their f***king clipboards forwards, to get clearance before the ‘Harvest’ begins, and it wasn’t a very edifying sight. Just imagine the grins on the ‘Harvest’ teams when they no longer have to beg, and pressure, and morally blackmail the grieving relatives before the legal bloodletting begins!
    When there is no firm negative answer to even a driving licence renewal point, where you can only answer either ‘yes’ or ‘not at the moment’; that is the point where the State can issue the ultimatum from on high; he did not refuse an organ donation, therefore we shall push past, and get the sterilised containers ready, because we are going to reduce the queue; we are going to take your relative’s organs, and there is F**k-All you can do about it!
    As I also commented previously:-

    To donate is good, if you are so inclined; anything else is theft!

  • ukfred

    And some people wondered why Theresa the Appeaser did not have some sort of “Set the people free!” theme to her manifesto. With ideas like this, she is clearly on the side of the state and not on the side of the people. What an appalling record for a successor to Margaret Thatcher.