Enjoyed dinner with Kidney Wales Foundation in Cardiff last night. Lots of talk about the introduction of the principle of 'opting out' from organ donation, rather than 'opting in'. Felt as though I was the only one in the room who disagreed until Assembly Member, Jonathan Morgan, who had been making a few ripples of his own yesterday, told me that he'd chaired the Assembly Committee which had considered this issue in depth, and had taken the same view as me. Anyway, my opinion is of little consequence because the Assembly Health Minister, Edwina Hart backs the change to 'opting out'. Edwina has many strong points, but listening is not one of them.
Coincidentally, there was a relevant and provocative piece in yesterday's Telegraph (on page 22 - after all the stuff about floating duck palaces and MP's 'opting out' of facing the voters at the next election). How's this for a question? Should transplants be given to people who are so unhappy with life that they wish to commit suicide? Yes is the easy answer,while there are plenty of livers, kidneys etc. available for donation to satisfy demand. But there's not. At present many people, desperate to live and with much to live for, die waiting for a replacement organ to become available. These are people who would be forever grateful for an organ which has been given to someone who doesn't want to live anyway! This debate usually centres around whether organs are given to people who need one only because they have so abused their bodies - and may well continue with the same lifestyle.
I cannot answer this question - largely because its impossible to know where to draw lines, and make the choices. But the fact that I am asking myself the question tells me that there is a case for saying No, even if it impossible to compile a set of guidelines to make it possible. And I thought the question of whether 'opting out' was difficult!
3 comments:
How about AMs opting in to rebuilding the Welsh economy?
How about Welsh Assembly Ministers listening to 'new' ideas to do just zat.
Howez zat Rhodri Morgan is still in pow-wer. Whatz wrong with de people that they don't seem to kare watz happening.
Weed the people of Walz, stand up your rites.
Take on de flakes of Sacramento/Cardiff - grab back zee power, build your economy for weed the people.
Be that shining light on the hill.
noticed that 'our Glyn' is firming up, 'peaking', getting battle-ready?
Tone is certainly more serious, more depth to Glyn's comments.
Glyn is demonstrating, even if subliminally, that he haz de experience dah Montgomeryshire prowoadd.
Good for Glyn - 'We'd say'
WE don't like da Glyn, now sir, weed da people love 'im.
(Line mutated from a 10cc song sang in 'Arnold Schwarzenegger' tone); so sorry, he was on Leno the udder nite. "Weed the people of California".)
that the Speaker and Gordon Brown wanted clear and literally transparent lines drawn around MPs expenses (prior to the publication of expense articles in the Telegraph)... lines in invisable ink are transparent.
The best way of getting clear literally transparent lines is with invisible ink - that way MPs could claim (along with their other pathetic excuses that there were within the rules (that they essentially controlled) ... could further claim that the lines were not merely blurred, but impossible to see.
In fact the next set of expense rules should be written in code with a 256 bit encryption key, lost, recovered, fed through a shredder, stamped on, covered in chocolate and fed to school kids, collected and only published after years of review, and then only after all the actors are dead and Parliament wound up.
"Officer, I did park on double-yellow lines but because they are only double-yellow if viewed using an infra-red camera programed to display invisible lines, then yes, you can give me a ticket, but it should be written in invisible ink so that I can mark the ticket up in visible ink and claim whatever I want from the Parliamentary fees office."
Post a Comment