UK Doctors call for organ harvesting on death unless prior objections registered

Sir Liam Donaldson the UK Nu-Lab Government’s Chief Medical Officer is calling for a change in the law so only those who actually register their objections will be exempt from organ harvesting on death, for the ‘common good’.

If you have to specifically opt out it is certainly no longer donation. Something Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern was obviously thinking of when she stated: "Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.”

Predictably the BMA are fully on board. The Chairman of their medical ethics committee Dr Tony Calland said: "The BMA fully supports an opt-out system for organ donation. We must increase the number of donors available and the BMA believes that a system of presumed consent with safeguards, will help to achieve this.”

He does seem to be aware that they will need to brainwash‘educate’ the public before introducing any change ”it is essential that a public information campaign is launched”

A spokesman for UK Transplant stated: "There is no evidence that introducing a system of presumed consent would, on its own, increase transplant figures.” Observing that an opt-out system could in fact damage public confidence in the transplant programme.

Sir Liam is apparently concerned that the shortage of spare parts is fuelling "transplant tourism" where UK patients travel abroad often paying for a donor organ, which according to Sir Liam, puts them at unnecessary risk.

One has every sympathy with those who need transplants and are unable to find suitable donors, but this is not a comfortable or proper direction to go in. What would be next on their list if they got their way and that did not do the trick compulsion, a sort of organ death tax? The opt-out is the start of a slippery slope.

An individual’s right to control their own body should not be compromised, or stampeded.

You wouldn’t expect it from interacting with your average GP, but what is it about the medical profession that it appears to attract so many patrician, collectivist, authoritarians, especially it would appear to it’s upper echelons?

People who seem to believe (the non ruling classes) most of us should be treated as some sort of wards and regulated by the state, in as many aspects as possible of our lives, from cradle to grave? They seem to see nothing amiss in promoting fascist controls at the drop of a hat.

In fact they often seem to reach for these sorts of solutions to problems almost before considering anything else. It is like some sort of sinister, creeping, menace.

BMA planning on demanding yet more controls on alcohol

The health fascists at the British Medical Association are planning on demanding a national ban on drinking in the street should be introduced at their annual next Tuesday.

They say it’s to combat Britain’s so-called ‘drinking culture’.

Given that councils can impose local ones where required it would seem to be completely superfluous.

It would stop you having a glass of wine outside. Depending on if ‘street’ was actually in public then it would spoil quite a few adult pick nicks.

Dr Christopher Spencer Jones, the chairman of the BMA's public health committee, said of alcohol yesterday that it is a “mind-altering drug” he went on:

"It can lead people to drive dangerously, have sex without a condom leading to unwanted pregnancies and make someone punch somebody and land them in court.”

No! ~ Alcohol doesn’t make anyone punch anyone. It’s people like Dr Spencer-Jones that give people who have had a drink the excuse, ‘permission’ if you like, to punch someone. It wasn’t me it was the demon drink. Pathetic cop out.

Also I am sure the good Dr is probably unaware that it is already an offence to drink drive, probably especially if you are having sex without a condom at the time ;-) An offence to drive with a fairly small amount of alcohol in their system. Alcohol doesn’t ‘lead’ them to it, they do it entirely of their own accord.

People are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally ill, including the action of getting drunk, drink driving, or beating someone up.

Adults should be free to drink alcohol and should accept responsibility for their actions, weather or not they have been drinking. They should also be ready to face the consequences of their actions. That's what being an Adult is about, taking reponsibility for yourself.

Government proposals to cut drink drive limit

The UK Government could be cut the drink drive limit.

The UK ‘Roads Minister’ Stephen Ladyman, said the Department for Transport would be producing proposals for a consultation later in the year on reducing the drink drive limit, after Ministers have come under increasing pressure from the British Medical Association and road safety groups.

The limit is likely to be reduced from 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood down to 50 milligrams.

Apparently several police forces have ‘voiced alarm' that the "do not drink and drive" message was not reaching young motorists.

The Department for Transport’s figures show that there were 1,050 17 to 19 year olds involved in drink drive accidents in 2005, compared to 810 a decade ago. That’s a difference of 240 accidents in a year. What was the spread of severity? How many involved injury? What level of damage. How are they measuring these figs now compared to a decade ago.

The figures and portentious pronouncements all sound laudable and plausible, on the surface - if you are really thinking about what you are planning to do this week end instead of actually paying attention.

For a moment lets pretend we can believe Government Statistics and that the way they measure them and what they measure hasn’t changed several times over the period to render them unreliable.

Do they mention how much over the limit these 17 to 19 year olds were? Because if they were not somewhere between 50 and 80 milligrams then lowering the limit wouldn’t make a jot of difference would it?

Do these figures include passengers? If so were there actually more accidents, or just more car sharing... No surely they wouldn't have included passengers.

If they were over the limit of 80 then they would also have been well over a 50 limit and if they were not swayed by the penalties, risk of being caught - and dangers - of driving whilst impaired, then they were just not convinced and would be no more likely to heed a 50 limit than the 80.

It would probably be far more effective to actually increase their likelihood of being caught over the 80 limit.

Now the British Medical Association involvement - exactly how are they experts on road safety? When you think about it they are no more qualified to pronounce on this particular matter than my postman. Just because they may be qualified to practice medicine it doesn’t make them expert plumbers or trapeze artists - No they are just pushing their anti alcohol agenda again.

How many agendas are operating here?

Consider - Just how low can the limit go before, practically speaking, you will not be able to have a modest drink in the evening if you want to be able to pass a breath test whilst driving to work the following morning? Is it a sneaky way of forcing a reduction in general alcohol consumption tailored to, or below, their recommended number of units?

Also could this recent Government enthusiasm for looking at a 50 limit have anything to do with the fact that in the EU the UK, Ireland and Luxembourg are now alone in retaining the 80mg limit?

From what I understand all the others (except Sweden at 20) have reduced their limit to 50mg, are they looking to standardise legislation?