In response to Eric Barron: One step nearer to the state owning your body,
Busy Mum wrote:
It’s noticeable how the fans of compulsory organ donation are so vocal about wanting to save lives, anybody would think life was sacred . . . yet they are the very same people who prefer Big Government to God, espouse evolution, adore abortion, carp at creation, criticise capital punishment, do drugs . . . in short, live life as though it was anything but sacred.
Retired Paul wrote:
I can see a very disturbing conflict of interest here.
There is a person in urgent need of an organ transplant. There is another person who is seriously ill and who would be a match and so potential donor for that organ.
Which patient is going to get the best treatment? Will the hospital ensure that the ‘potential donor’ is treated with a view to returning to everyday life? Will the hospital decide that person is ‘near to death’, so only needing palliative care? Or will they decide that that person is so close to death that it would be a mercy to bring their life to an end as painlessly and as quickly as possible? Then, of course, the organ would be immediately available for the person wanting it.