I support the Chief Medical Officer!
Sunday, July 15, 2007 
For the first and possibly the last time, I am in agreement with Sir Liam Donaldson (left). According to the Sunday Times, "The chief medical officer wants everyone to be treated as organ donors after death unless they explicity opt out of the scheme."
Perhaps I'm biased because my own father had a long wait before he could have a heart transplant a few years ago and was at death's door when, eventually, he found himself at the top of the queue, but there is clearly a severe shortage of available kidneys, livers and hearts. One reason is that there are fewer deaths from road traffic accidents; another is that the vast majority of people (even smokers!) are living to a ripe old age.
No-one is being forced to donate their organs. We still have the freedom to choose, so on this issue I (choke) support the CMO! Full story HERE.
Reader Comments (18)
A few years ago I may have agreed, but not any more. I can't help think about the next logical step of simply removing the opt out clause. Or of how many people will have their organ's removed because they weren't carrying their card at their time of death.
This suggests the state asuming ownership of our remains, usurping the will of the next of kin because the deceased didn't take the time, or realise they needed to, opt out of donating their organs.
There is an old Chinese saying 'Destroy the image and you will destroy the enemy''
There could not be a better time for this to make sense.
I believe that the resignation of Sir Liam Donaldson should be called for, no DEMANDED by Forest and all other organizations against this ban, using all the media connections they have. The reasoning being.....that he has brought dishonour to his profession by using scandalous claims about ETS that are blatant lies, not based on scientific facts, and furthering his fanatical anti-smoking stance with a fraud leading to immense mis-information, and a change of Law, and this CAN be proved in court.
Are you willing to do this Simon? Are you angry enough? I hope so.
His recently stated his wish to extend this ban to even more extreme levels, so this has to be done quickly. Anyone who occupies his position, and misleads to this degree needs to be exposed.
They may laugh at this at first,and that's why it needs to be repeated and repeated, until it registers with the public, it wouldn't be so funny then.It has to be unrelenting.
Learn from the Antis.
Remember 'Destroy the image'.
Zitori, I agree with you and we have repeatedly challenged the CMO in the past. (In 2005 we even published an essay by our late chairman, Lord Harris, entitled 'Smoking Out The Truth: A Challenge to the Chief Medical Officer'). But smoking is not the topic of this post. The idea behind Taking Liberties is to discuss a range of issues. If every post is dominated by smoking-related comments, we will exclude many of the people we want to attract to our Free Society campaign.
Simon, I'm afraid you've dodged the question yet again, Are you willing to DEMAND his resignation in the strongest terms possible using your connections in the media to the fullest extent, and keep it up?
As far as this post is concerned,you mentioned Liam Donaldson, so that's good enough for me.
I find the proposal obscene. For all sorts of reasons there will be people who fail to realise the situation and do not opt out in time.
To create a 'default' position of allowing the State to own your organs is just something I find abhorrent.
Presumably, as with the smoking bans, Sir Liam thinks we are too stupid to think for ourselves (otherwise surely we would have opted in of our own accord), and must be forced to think and act the way he wants us to.
Sorry to disappoint him, but 'Medicalism' is not my religion and Sir Liam is not my God.
If my organs are not fit to be treated when sick, because I am a smoker, I'll be damned if I'll allow medics to have them off me when they become of interest to them.
Not a chance.
Given the likelihood that some who would have opted out will fail to, for any number of reasons (illiteracy, ignorance of the change, bad timing etc.) - I'd have to say that if I were to die through lack of available donors, then so be it. I would rather die knowing that nobody was providing an organ against their will.
Another thing to consider is that us 'filthy smokers' will undoubtedly be denied organ donation anyway, since we are already deemed unworthy of treatment by a number of PCTs.
Simon, you have an emotional investment in this subject and it colours your views. I understand that. My own father was destroyed and subsequently slaughtered by medical treatment, and that colours my views. I'm afraid that I think you are in danger of here of falling for the very same trap that others have in respect to the bans - that if it's in the name of 'health' it's OK.
That will never work on me. Healthism/Fascism - it's all the same.
I agree 100% with Gerry.
I tore up my organ donor card the instant that I discovered anti-smokers quite willingly accept my filthy disease riddled lungs, and any other organ that may prolong their miserable little lives.Childish? Selfish? Perhaps so. But I can live with my decision. Had they NOT been quite so childish about smoker bans, I would still carry my card today.
They (HMG) already treat me like a cash cow for my entire working life. They tax me at every turn. They help themselves to 85% of the cost of every packet of cigarettes that I buy, then have the audacity to tell me they will not treat me when/if I get ill? Now they want me to sign over all available pieces and parts of myself?
No. No. No. No. No.
Agree with prevailing sentiments above. I am neither a real smoker, nor have I lost any relatives to organ failure. But I find it astonishing that health authorities threaten to deny smokers treatment and then insist that their organs are fit to use in someone else.
This fits in with the whole approach of moral blackmail directed at smokers. 'We need your organs – why would you let resentment of our smoking policies, which of course are all meant for the best, jeopardise the life of someone in need?'
Absolutely not, Simon. If the authorities don't understand why anyone would withhold consent from such a scheme, it's about time they started to exercise their imaginations.
This could be an opportunity for protest and publicity. If smokers opted out of the donor scheme, tore up their existing cards and stopped donating blood, people would sit up and take notice.Until the NHS guarantees that all people, regardless of whether they smoked or not,will receive the same treatment then the boycott would continue.
As they reckon that a quarter of the adult population smokes, it would not take long for the effects to be noticed. The medical establishment would then have to justify why are organs and blood are suitable for others but our SHS is a killer.Would be an interesting scientific debate.
I agree with all the above posts in that we smokers should refuse to donate organs or blood. Another form of resistance would be to refuse to answer any questions about smoking status when visiting a doctor, it's none of their blooming business.
The idea that Sir Liam Donaldson can discriminate against smokers and yet expect us to donate our organs against our will is typical of any Fascist. Consider the facts. If his idea of SHS is as damning as he professes how can he then tell everyone it is safe for those organs to be used as donors. Surely, he has now shot himself in the foot.
In March 2003, the BMA announced that they would treat all patients according to their needs regardless to whether or not they smoked. What happened to the 'Hypocratic Oath' that all doctors take when joining the profession.
Obviously, the HMG considers that we are not entitled to any of our human rights except when it agrees with their own personal perception of their own beliefs. This exposes them as a continuation of the principles of the Nazi Propaganda Machine of the last century. Medical Science started to advance but now even the WHO has proved that such science has now moved in the opposite direction. Even charities are heading in the same direction.
Over the past 3 years, me and 132 other suffers of asthma in Wales have supported Asthma UK and organised a monthly get together to provide finance for this charity's research. This not only meant that they received £5 each month as a donation but even 28% tax rebate. Also the fund raising we did. Where did we hold our meetings? At a public house in Newport. When the ban came in on 2nd April, we took our meetings over the border. Before the ban was extended over there we then find that Asthma UK had then decided they could do without any help from our group.
When I did a further investigation into the way charities that I have supported over the past 30+ years, I realised that over 80% of that funding doesn't go into research at all but into the high salaries of their leaders.
When I checked with the Charities Commission's website I now find that ASH apparently do the same thing. According to their accounts, they have a total annual income of less than £1 million each year for the last 5 years so where did the HMG grant go?
I have supported Asthma UK, Caner Research and British Heart Foundation for years but never again. If they use our contributions for their propaganda activities then I am calling 'Time.'
I might not have the right to opt out of contributing by enforced means but won't be supporting these charities in future. I would suggest that others ask all charities they support for a copy of their latest accounts and check them.
It sounds to me that we will son face Frankenstein society.
Let alive people to live and the people that past away let them rest in peace.
By the way, does anybody know how long life span of organ recipient is?
Organ donor card destroyed. Blood donor card destroyed. Standing order charity donation cancelled. Letter of explanation sent to all - nil response. When I die I will not......... Rest In Pieces
I have to say I agree with the majority on this one too. I have no faith in anything the government or scientists,most of all Sir Liam Donaldson.
he scares the Country half to death with the bird flu killing, thousands if not millions of people, then tries to force his opinions down everyones throat.
I also stopped donating to any research or foundations, when I can see where an obscene amount of money has been wasted.
In this day of compensation culture, I can imagine my family getting sued should my filthy organs be not up to standard.
Some antis have quite clearly voiced their opinions, we should keep our filthy organs to ourselves.
Seems like this one may have backfired on them, good. Not good however for those that do need them.
So the fact the "Sir" in the picture has alienated more potential donors,will not fare well with many.
The rich and powerful will get them first anyway, everything else is corrupt and I can see the organ trade being no differant.
Talk about stealing your eyes and coming back for your eyelashes!!
I absolutely disagree that automatic organ donation should be the default position. Organ donation for many people is a sensitive subject and is still tied up for some with their religious beliefs. How typical of Donaldson to disregard those considerations.
With regard to his resignation, I believe that I read somewhere that the BMA has passed a motion of no confidence in him. Hope that they have the power to dethrone him. .
I'll donate my mouth organs and that's it. The state does not own my body!
Interestingly enough, have you noticed how corpulent Donaldson has become? He was on the telly tonight and he's no advert for healthy living. I believe he's in line for the Teddy Kennedy prize.
Mouth organs!
That'll surprise him. :)
I currently carry adonor card and have also registerd my 6 year old daughter (GOD FORBID) as it is voluntary and opt in. Should I ever be refused any king of treatment for being a smoker, I will deregister us both, and the same applies if the proposal by LD becomes law.
The right to use organs will undoubtedly lead to a scenario where the value of saving a potential donors life will be weighed by against the value of the life potentially saved, at which point factors like age and the 'wrong' lifestyle (in the donor) will deem that life less deserving (and cost effective) of being saved. It is already happening, but a nice clutch of organs would make the justification even easier.
It seems doctors want Liam Donaldson to go too.
Yesterday, doctors voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion calling for the resignation of England's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson.
This is a man who exaggerates every threat he encounters, whether it's avian 'flu, or CJD, or passive smoking - and makes a mess of looking after the medical profession as well.