I RESPECT Robert Aitken's altruism in donating his body post mortem to Glasgow University (Letters, October 2) while wondering why he is not donating parts thereof instead for transplant, which he recommends so enthusiastically to us.
I think him misguided, however, in his apparent wish to see us all compulsorily subject to organ harvest post mortem unless, contrary to present requirement, we "opt out" of that procedure.
While such a proposal is understandably made with the best of intentions, it is based upon a misguided belief that society at large is bound by some moral, spiritual or religious obligation to prolong life by whatever means, including by what, in other instances, would be deemed downright theft. No such obligation exists. Without prior expressed or rightly assumed consent, organ donation by the individual becomes organ confiscation by the state.
In his work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill puts the matter of bodily proprietorship clearly: "Over himself [the individual], over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." According to this liberal view, an individual's body post mortem forms part of his residual estate. Thus, like other elements of that estate - wealth, realty, chattels etc - it is not up for confiscation by anyone else, least of all by the state, by presumption merely and for whatever worthy and altruistic cause, however advantageous or compassionate that might be to others.
Would, I wonder, Mr Aitken support confiscation, in whole or in part, of one's residual money and property (his in particular) by the state for the laudable purpose of disposal for relief amongst the poor and needy? If not, the distinction of what he proposes by way of organ confiscation is not easy to discern.
I should not wish to find myself the recipient of a body part effectively confiscated by the state in default of a definite desire for it to be made available to me having been expressed or rightfully inferred.
Given opt-out, a scenario might not be too long coming wherein a choice might need to be made between prolonging a life or permitting death in order to harvest organs for others perhaps deemed more deserving. These would be very deep and murky moral waters indeed.
The least worst of two unsatisfactory and unsavoury choices to be made is to let the status quo of opt-in stand. This will not be advice welcome to the protagonists for change like Mr Aitken, of course, and is understandably repudiated by those awaiting organ transplants. The former group need not despair, however. They must merely double their efforts to have folk opt-in. The latter group might console themselves to some small extent (I know and despair that there will be little comfort in this) if they are able to see the honour in only accepting what is freely offered.
Darrell Desbrow,
Overholm,
Dalbeattie,
Kirkcudbrightshire.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article