• Presumed Consent

    Last night the Welsh Assembly agreed a new policy of presumed consent with regard to organ donation. Now, instead of opting to become an organ donor, in Wales it will be presumed that a person is willing to donate their organs after death, unless they have opted out.

    I find this one an incredibly tough call, but I think that the Welsh Assembly is wrong. I’m opposed to presumed consent. I think it is wrong.

    And yet I’m in favour of organ donation. I am on the register of organ donors. I recently had to renew my driving license and happily ticked the box indicating that I would be happy to consent to my organs being used to give life to someone else after I die.

    My problem with presumed consent is that I have a problem with presumed anything. The dominant discourse in medical ethics hitherto has been around the the notion of informed consent. Presumed consent undermines this significantly. It also changes the relationship between the state and the individual in a way that makes me feel very uncomfortable.

    It seems to me that the gift of organs after one has died is one of the greatest gifts that can be made. This legislation takes away from that sense of giftedness.

    I’m opposed on pastoral grounds too. For many relatives the idea that they can consent to the donation of healthy organs from someone who is at the point of death is a wonderful and powerful thing. If the decision is no longer theirs then something has gone which has mattered to many.

    If I needed an organ donation then I’ve no doubt I would long for anything that made more organs available. However, if I ask myself whether I would want to receive an organ from someone without knowing whether or not they wanted that procedure to happen I find myself having to think long and hard. Would I want an organ from someone who’s relatives were opposed to the organ removal? Organ donation can currently help people’s grieving processes. It now has the potential to complicate grief immesurably for some.

    People often don’t know what it will feel like when someone dies. The ability to make decisions at that time is crucial. Removing the possibility of decision making concerns me greatly. Some urgently want whatever good that can come from a death to come to pass. However others don’t want a body to be touched more th an is necessary either. I’ve no doubt that some will see this as a violation and the way that they will cope with the death in those circumstances is entirely unknown to us but cannot be easy.

    We are not simply flesh that the state owns and from which it can harvest. Somehow I can’t get away from the idea that we are more than that and that our laws should recognise that.

    I’m not really aware of how the debate about this has gone in Wales. I’ve been paying attention to other moral discussions here recently. These are just my initial instictive reactions to news reports today.

    As I said at the outset, I don’t find that a comfortable position to come to or to articulate. However, uncomfortable decisions are precisely what life makes us make.

    What do you think?

4 responses to “Equal Marriage – Prop 8 Ruling in California”

  1. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    “Thy Lord hath not forsaken thee, neither hath he been displeased.
    And surely the Future shall be better for thee than the Past,
    And in the end shall thy Lord be bounteous to thee and thou be satisfied.”

    Little by little.

  2. Amelia Hagen Avatar

    Yes, little by little. Taking the long view is frustrating, but in the end that is the view that God must surely take.

  3. […] Holdsworth has a good response for an Anglican revisionist this side of the Pond which gets down to the core of the argument. […]

  4. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    May we join the celebration?

    Mexico court upholds gay marriage law
    Thu, Aug 5 2010
    MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico’s supreme court on Thursday upheld a landmark law that allows gay marriage in the capital city, bucking a challenge raised by the conservative government of President Felipe Calderon.
    This year, Mexico City became the first capital in mainly Catholic Latin America to pass a law allowing gay couples the same marriage and adoption rights as heterosexuals.
    But Calderon’s government and his right-wing National Action Party, or PAN, argued the law was unconstitutional on grounds it would be destructive to families. The powerful Catholic hierarchy in Mexico calls gay marriage immoral.
    While the supreme court decided gay marriage was constitutional, it will review the adoption clause on Monday.
    “Those of us who are in favor of this (law) are in favor of diversity and tolerance,” Supreme Court Justice Arturo Zaldivar said during the court’s deliberations.
    “Our constitution does not establish a concept of marriage,” he said.
    Since the law was passed, more than 300 same-sex couples have tied the knot, the majority of them men.
    Activists see the law as part of a sea change in attitudes on homosexuality in much of traditionally macho Latin America.
    With some 20 million residents, the Mexico City metropolitan area is one of the world’s largest cities.
    (Reporting by Miguel Angel Guitierrez; writing by Mica Rosenberg; editing by Missy Ryan and Jerry Norton)

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Throwing a good party

    One of the things that Bishop David quoted in the sermon he preached at my Installation just over a month ago was members of St Saviour’s who had said that "no-one throws a party like Kelvin".I’m interested in how literally this has been taken. For, I’ve no doubt that the B of A folk were…

  • New piscy blogger sighted

    Reports are coming in of a new Scottish Episcopal [clergy] blogger.All the way from rural Perthshire, welcome to the blogfest, Tim Bennison. 

  • Cats and Cucumbers (unrelated)

    There was a cat at the Daily Office this morning. I’m not sure how to record this in the service book. It was black and white, and for a moment, I thought that perhaps Miss Matilda had followed me down Great Western Road. Cats are religious, but not generally Christian, in my view. Unlike dogs.Meanwhile,…

  • Credo

    Gadgetvicar has an interesting post today in which he discusses the difference between what he calls "two different faiths."I’ve tried to post a comment to his post as I’m interested in what he is saying, but his blog must have a heresy filter set or something at the moment. I received the message: "Comments are…