7/28/2019 Tebbit - Organ Donors

1/1

eadzi i,*:i,iif'a:tr^tr'%" H#,sHffi* r"*H d*H-H j-ffi ng# ffi#H ;iei "r q?j ki fr & f- "# '* .c9 .*p* p,' "*a*f; ,,':,=PrS, W

,,-. .. 'F#e. .-r*''%, ffi g *i.F,*'* #*,*E# &e B,E '# H A g *{S'."E *"* H ?i 1E F Lu Lt H "''t'*=&*"*.** q.* ^." .;:, ".ii* :,;.,+,li'>- ?-=o x--;':EiH

.4+{?,,..

y body is mine. It may not be avery good one. Bits have been

knocked offit and other bits have beenbroken. Parts have been removed torepair damage elsewhere, and it is heldtogether with plastic reinforcement. Itis past its best. If it were a car, it wouldnot make a lot on a trade-in, but itmight be cannibalised for sPares.Nonetheless, I olvn it. It does not belong to thestate, the community or the BMA. So it is evidentto me that I, and I alone, have the right to dispose ofit, all or in part, before or alter my death'

I realise that the concept ofthe right ofprop-erty is under attack these days. Author'itarian orcorporatist regimes believe property belongs ulti-mately to the state, not the individual. Propertyowners are seen as potential challengers to thepolver ofthe state iu a way that tenants couldnever be. However, not even I had realised untilrecently that the doctrine ofthe illegitimacy ofprivate property was creepir-rgly advancine uponour very bodies.

I knorv organ transplants can extend andtransform the quality ofpeople's lives. There is aporverfttl emotional blackmail in the plea that iveshould donate parts ofa body that can uo longersen e us to help others. No-one n'ants to be a dogin the manger. As usual, hon'ever, a broad andsimple proposition. carrYing cot-tsensual support,gives rise to some more difficult practical andmoral questions in its in-rplerr-rentation.

Should the on'ner ofa bodv have the right todecide ifit may be used bv othcrs after their death,not onlv in prirtciple but in particular. Of cor"trse,the race relatiot-ts industry rvill come out beatingits racist drr.rm ifa rvhite person savs their bodvmav be used onlv to helP others oftheir ethnicorigin. lvlavbe such a stipulation tvould these davs

be regarded as tasteless - even immoral - butshould it be illegal to restrict the gift ofrvhat isone's olvn to recipients ofwhom one approves?The politically correct ansil'er to this question is inno doubt. The use ofa person's proPerty mustconform to the nostrums ofthe politically correct.The politically incorrect should not have rights.

Andrvhat of my dilemma? Should I allowparts ofmy body to be used to benefit the people

*)ffi one s ol,vnto

onervho crippled n'r1, u'ife for political Sain? It is badenough to be taxed in life to f'eatherbed terrorists- but to be told I have no light to be partial indeatl'r over rvlto might benetit frorr clisrrantlingn)\' corpsc is qoirrg roo lar'.

That the medical protessiorl shrinlis tronl thecomplications ofhaving conditions attached towho rright benet-it tiotn ilonated ot'gans is under-stlr)dable enottglt. Bttt ct,ttt etliettce is a poorreason tbr overriding the right ofthe clead to leaveconditiorrs upon the disposal oftheir bodies.

i{"gs

illegal to restrictthe gift ofwhat

'Should it be

aarecrnienEsIof n,hon;approves?'

54 ervln NEWS REVTEW tuNE 2oooLord Tebbit is a former Trade and lndustry secretary and former conservative Party chatrman