Earlier this week in England, politicians and health officials put forward an idea aimed at increasing the number of donated organs by implementing, among other measures, a system of “presumed consent.”  That is, peoples’ innards become the property of the government unless the cadaver to be specifically “opts out” before he quits ticking. This is something we in the US should keep an eye on because if it becomes law in the UK, it’s only a matter of time before it reaches our side of the Atlantic.

According to the BBC, “Among proposals outlined by the Organ Donation Taskforce were 24-hour organ retrieval teams, a doubling of the number of transplant co-coordinators and a UK-wide minimum period in which donor co-coordinators must be notified of patients whose death is expected.

Other suggestions included reporting rates of referral, identification and approaches to families by individual NHS (National Health Service) trusts, and reimbursing trusts which aid the process of organ donations.

The aim is to boost the number of organs being donated by 50% within five years. The Department of Health said work would begin immediately to implement the plans. The prime minister said it had the potential to close "the aching gap" between the benefits of transplant surgery and the limitations of the existing consent system - in the UK 40% of relatives refused to give consent for donation.”

It isn’t that I particularly object to having my moving parts re-used by someone in need, though I expect they will be worn out by my expiration date; it’s the principle of the matter that I dislike. A “presumed consent” system is something that only a society thoroughly infected with socialism could countenance. Socialism is basically a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the government. Individuals are merely worker ants that exist for the benefit of the common good, as defined by the state.  Americans are not walking spare parts warehouses for the government, at least I’m not.

There was a discussion about bringing such a system to this country on a Fox News Channel program. A doctor argued for the notion, citing the expected points such as saving more lives and saving money on procedures such as dialysis for kidney patients.  

On the other side, Jonathan Hoenig, Managing Member of a private investment partnership: Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, said what one might expect from a money man. He said, sort of, that his gizzard was not government property, but his alone. If someone wanted to use a piece of him after he was through with it, he didn’t mind as long as his family got something out of the deal. After all, it would be left up to them to dispose of his carcass. That costs money these days. Swapping one of Jonathan’s serviceable parts for a little help with the burial expenses would be fair, wouldn’t it? It would be like taking your old car to the shop and finding it needed a carburetor. The mechanic could replace your old one with one from the junk yard, but it wouldn’t be free. Why would you expect a used organ to be free?

Most people aren’t quite as money-faced as that. I think most folks would agree to donate a few of their organs to the medical industry provided they had no religious prohibitions and were asked in a nice way. However, I don’t think a scheme such as “presumed consent” would get very far in this country. The only reason it is even considered in the UK is because of their nationalized health system. The government can reasonably say that since they treat their citizens for “free,” they have a claim on one’s used parts without asking. So far we have been able to fend off attempts to bring in socialized medicine schemes like they have in the UK and Canada. That might change if a certain candidate wins in November.