What is in Kelvin's Head?

Presumed Consent

03/07/2013

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?

Consent, organ donation, presumend consent, Wales

27 responses to “A Response to the Prime Minister”

Patsy

20/12/2011

Dear Kelv

You make some interesting points. But do you have to be so rude? All the “Dave” stuff is a bit juvenile. If you want to have a serious debate surely you can show a bit of respect? Also maybe a little charity – was it really necessary to be quite so snide (I almost said “nasty”) about the PM’s rather hesitant comments on his own faith?

Reply
1. william
  
  21/12/2011
  
  Well said and well put – Patsy.
  Sadly ‘revisionists’ don’t seem to recognise ‘rudeness’, lack of ‘charity’, ‘unattractiveness’ in what they say and do within the church, although they believe they recognise them and see them in others.
  It could be that blindness to all of this is because of the paucity of grace in their mindset; Pelagians don’t feel the need for grace or atonement as much as the rest of us.
  They seem to assume God is always smiling on them, and is always pleased with the worship they present to Him, whatever its content or assumptions. Even in whatever behaviour they engage in, even boast of.
  In Jeremiah’s day, in contrast, the religious were warned frequently with words like: peace, peace – when there was no peace. But most did not have ears to hear such warnings.
  Maybe your wisdom will strike a chord of caution.
  
  Reply
  1. kelvin
    
    21/12/2011
    
    >They seem to assume God is always smiling on them
    
    Oh yes! Oh yes!
    
    Reply
  2. Ryan
    
    21/12/2011
    
    William, you and Pasty know (or should) that ‘Dave’ is a popular phrase quite widely used to refer to Cameron’s ‘couch sofa’ style Blairist governing style and his attempts to *present himself* as a man of the people rather than a privleged OE. Dare one say that calling a David ‘Dave’ is , in terms of rudeness, not exactly up there with demonising gay people, nor implying that someone who disagrees with an opinion *on* a theological matter is somehow ignorant *of* theology?
    
    Can you cite a ‘non’ revisionist expression of church that offers worship that would please the God of Jeremiah, William? Personally I think the sort of glorious Eucharists that St.Mary’s feature hit closer to the mark than either (say) Shine Jesus Shine style worship songs or the glum langours of (e.g.) ‘biblical’ presbyterianism, but YMMV….
    
    Also, given that this is the same David Cameron who appeared in gay mag Attitude suggesting that the C of E could take lead from the now (relatively) gay-friendly tory party and giving it the sackcloth-and-ashes in regard to Section 28, I do have to laugh at self-styled fundamentalists accusing beastly Kelvin of being so mean about Cameron’s in-no-way-largely-for-political-gain theological musings.
    
    Reply
william

21/12/2011

Ryan – have a happy christmas – William!

Reply
1. Ryan
  
  21/12/2011
  
  Ah, robust and scrupulous engagement with comments as always William! 😉
  
  And also, as they say, to you.
  
  Reply
Rosemary Hannah

22/12/2011

“It could be that blindness to all of this is because of the paucity of grace in their mindset; Pelagians donâ€™t feel the need for grace or atonement as much as the rest of us.
They seem to assume God is always smiling on them, and is always pleased with the worship they present to Him, whatever its content or assumptions. ”

This is not merely inaccurate but terrible theology.
1-Nobody is more scrupulous about worship than Kelvin. The content of Episcopal worship is (unlike that of denominations less heavily influenced by the Catholic tradition) carefully prescribed.
2 – Grace, in the Reformed sense is, in fact, a frequent theme of his sermons.
3 – The real trouble with Pelagians is that they assume they have to EARN the favour of God – and that he is not very likely to be induced to smile on them. It is Athanasians who believe that God comes to them, and despite their inability to get things right, smiles on them. You have reversed the two. Allow me to suggest that Kelvin’s theology, which as one who has listened to him and read him, I think I understand, is such that he knows he is beloved by God even if he sometimes gets things wrong. Whereas you write as though you think you have to get your theology and other assorted beliefs right to be loved by God. But it is not so. Even people who make the most astonishing mistakes God are still his children, loved and carried in his heart.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  22/12/2011
  
  Right on all counts, Rosemary. There is nothing I can do to make God love me more. I’m already utterly loved. Morality, ethics, grace and love are all predicated on that love being entirely unwavering. There is nothing that I can do (even less believe) that would make God love me more.
  
  I would add that I have been to a place which claims to be the tomb of Athanasius.
  
  (It was a little smelly).
  
  Reply
  1. william
    
    22/12/2011
    
    How profound, and yet how gloriously true – “There is nothing I can do to make God love me more.”
    Thatâ€™s the whole biblical meta narrative – God does everything, even recreates us in the image of His Son by His Spirit – as Paul said, we are ‘new creation’.
    And our heavenly Father has done all this for us that He might have children bearing the family likeness – not that our obedience will make Him love us more.
    But disobedience to what He has spoken will surely lead to fatherly chastisement.
    So in that regard there is always more we can do, as opposed to “There is nothing that I can do”. Good fathers do not smile on their children’s disobedience, even though they do not love them less.
    Sadly Pelagius pursued and taught the route of meritorious good works to please the Father [and the heresy is still vigorously alive today] – he was blind enough to think he might even be able to do this.
    Augustinians pursue grace â€“ but increasingly their lives are being conformed to the likeness of Christ as Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them.
    Righteousness by faith is not a legal fiction!
    
    Reply
Rosemary Hannah

22/12/2011

There appears no way of liking Kelvin’s comment ‘oh yes,oh yes,’ but consider it very heavily liked.

Somebody tell william that getting me going on Jeremiah might not be wise. Oh, I know, tell him to read http://lovebloomsbright.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/with-justice-and-with-righteousness/

Reply
1. william
  
  22/12/2011
  
  Rosemary – I did read it and found it intensely moving.
  Probing the intensity of the Father’s yearnings over His ancient people is only matched [fulfilled is maybe a better word]by His Son’s brokenness for us at Gethsemane and beyond.
  Yet that’s the way – the only way – for us ever to have His smile upon us.
  Have you done a reading on Isaiah 5?
  
  Reply
  1. Rosemary Hannah
    
    22/12/2011
    
    That is very sweet of you william- and actually Is 5 is an excellent suggestion for one of my pieces.
    I would say that, essentially, the yearning of the father and the brokenness of the son are contiguous aspects of one phenomena.
    
    Reply
David Baker

29/12/2011

So we have a Prime Minister defending the Bible, and an Episcopalian provost attacking it?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  29/12/2011
  
  No, David Baker.
  
  I love the Bible and delight in it.
  
  Reply