Brits are not selfish post-Thatcherites after all

One could be forgiven for thinking that the post-Thatcherite Brits, having elected the warmongerer and privatisation fanatic Mr Blair (also better known as US President's Busch's poodle) to be PM a few times, would be a fairly selfish bunch showing little concern for those in need. After all, if even the Labour Party in that country gets into the business of privatising public education and hospital care one would not expect a great deal of civic mindedness among the citizens that elect such governments.

Well, if you thought like this, you could not be more mistaken! The British Medical Association (a doctors' trade union) conducted a survey of patients' views on organ donation. The UK system, much like the Canadian system, requires people to opt-in so that their organs may be utilised in case of their death. The problem with this system is, essentially, that because many of us are too lazy or too forgetful, we forget to sign the relevant forms and as a result when unexpected death hits us, for instance on the road, our organs cannot be utilised to preserve the lives of people in need of transplant organs. Thousands of lives are lost each year, simply because we are phlegmatic, lazy or ignorant about this important issue. It has long been suggested that we have a moral obligation toward out fellow citizens in need. For that reason it makes more sense to operate a system where we presume that a given dying accident victim, for instance, is presumed to be ok with the organ extraction instead of saying that if there's no signature saying 'you may use my organs' we may not use them. In other words, instead of actively opting in you must actively opt out to selfishly (yes, I mean it!) take your complete set of organs to your grave (so they may be eaten by worms instead...). The same phlegmatism, laziness and ignorance that is the root cause of today's insufficient supply of transplant organs would be utilised to save lives.

2/3 of 2,000 Brits interviewed in the above mentioned survey confirmed that they support the presumed consent idea. That's a strong democratic majority if this was true across the country and the survey was representative. This contrasts with only 1 in 4 Brits being on the organ donation register.

Of course, waiting for politicians to act on this, is probably as futile as waiting for them to legalise voluntary euthanasia. They have long understood that such decisions are no vote winners, so they stay clear of making them. What's new?

On 'conscientious objection' in medicine again

'Regulars' on this blog will know that I have been railing time and again against a nebulous concept going under the guise of 'conscientious objection' in medicine. It gives doctors a license to pick and choose the types of medical services that they wish to provide, and, indeed, to whom they provide them. The 'rationale' for this sort of unprofessional conduct has always been that we should respect doctors and nurses who might be unable to provide abortions (or assist in the provision of abortions, respectively) when they believe abortion is akin to murder, as many monotheistic ideologies want to us to believe. Well, a LOT is wrong with this 'concept'. For starters there doesn't seem to be any test at all as to the truth of the conscientious objection. It seems sufficient to feel strongly enough about something (or someone) or other for a doctor or nurse to be excused. What would prevent a doctor belonging to the KKK to refuse to provide health services to black patients? Nothing much, as long as their belief is strong enough (and, as anyone will know who has had the doubtful pleasure of having to face racists, their beliefs are certainly strong). The result of legal provisions permitting 'conscientious objections' is that, for instance in South Africa women are unable to execute their legal right to have abortions in public sector hospitals because too many doctors and nurses (usually driven by strong fantasies to do with 'God') waive their hands (or slap the patient) and declare a conscientious objection. Backroom abortions remain common place, and human lives (real human lives, as opposed to cell accumulations called 'persons' by the Roman Catholic Church) are lost due to conscientious objections by medical 'professionals' who are more concerned about their private beliefs than about their professional service delivery during working hours.

The UK doctors' statutory body, the General Medical Council proposes that in future doctors should be entitled to refuse to provide any kind of professional service if their consciences tell them to do so. In a remarkable twist, the UK doctors' trade union, the British Medical Association (BMA) thinks that that goes too far, and that there must be strict limitations on the types of conscientious objections doctors are entitled to. It goes without saying that 'God' features again prominently, and abortion is the prime target. It goes also without saying that this is utterly arbitrarily a line that is drawn in the sand there. Why abortion and not PAS or IVF for lesbians? Your guess (or 'God' or 'culture') is as good as mine.

But then, in the UK today, like in the USA, religions are ever more pervasively infiltrating public life. The government is setting up ever more faith based schools to ensure an ever growing compartmentalization of, and segregation within society. If the GMC gets its way, us patients will soon need to know which religious beliefs a particular doctor or nurse subscribes to in order to ascertain which types of professional misconduct he or she is likely to get away with by means of reference (hands raised to the sky) 'conscientious objection'... - Seeing that there is no truth to the matter of religious beliefs, little should prevent a medical professional from setting up her own religion if her particular dislike of certain medical services isn't already covered by existing religious balderdash. After all, the numbers (in terms of other believers) are no indication of the truth of a religion, so a one-person religion should also work nicely. I wonder whether it soon will be OK in the country for taxi driver belonging to religion XYZ to refuse to take certain passengers to certain locations as they disapprove of such locations.

One can only hope that the GMC comes to its senses sooner rather than later.

British Medical Association Medical Ethics Committee on Access to Abortion

The British Medical Association's Medical Ethics Committee has issued a day or two ago a position statement on access to abortion in the UK. The organisation has been in favour of women's legal right to abortion since the 1970. I excerpt here the BMA's key opinions. In a number of key areas the organisation proposes to make access to abortion easier for pregnant women. This is quite significant, seeing that it comes immediately in the aftermath of public debate in the UK about the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy clamouring to have abortion outlawed altogether. You can find the whole report here.

The MEC supports the revision of the Abortion Act 1967 so that, in the first trimester:
• women are not required to meet medical criteria for abortion
• the requirement for two doctors is removed
• suitably trained and experienced nurses and midwives may carry out both medical and surgical abortions
• as long as safety is ensured, premises do not need to be approved to carry out first trimester abortions.

The MEC believes:• that changes in relation to first trimester abortion should not adversely impact upon the availability of later abortions
• that health professionals with a conscientious objection to abortion should retain the right to opt out of providing abortion services, but should make their views known to patients and enable them to see another doctor without delay.

The MEC believes that the requirement for medical criteria should be removed for first trimester abortions.

The MEC believes that the requirement for two doctors’ opinions should be removed for abortions within the first trimester.

The MEC believes that the level of training and experience a person has is the most important factor in determining which procedures should be undertaken by which professions. The MEC has no objection, in principle, to nurses and midwives, with appropriate training and competence, carrying out abortions.

The MEC has no objection in principle to removing the requirement for premises to be “approved” for first trimester abortions and allowing medical abortions to take place at home where that is the woman’s wish.