Who actually owns a body when its dead?

Chis, northampton,

I think Angela Smith puts an angle quite tactfully, because, the way this country is centralising to an Orwellian state, I can think of worse things that could happen in the context of organ donation. We need a rigorous and easy opt out if Mr Brown s proposal becomes the rule.
Equally, in the matter of sperm donation, we need rules of information which will respect the individual and inhibit Mengelean operations by unscrupulous authority.

Henry Percy, London, UK

It would be less morally equivocal to adapt the present system so that only those on the donor register can be considered for an organ. It then becomes somewhat like contents insurance; if you haven’t got it, you don’t get it.

Nicholas Wibberley, El Contador, Spain

I agree partially with Mary Willis, but I would like the medical profession to be totally open about what constitues 'brain dead' and the tests that are carried out. Until I can be sure that either myself or my loved ones are DEAD, I would never agree to organ donation. How can a dead body feel pain and if there is a reflex movement, doesnt that mean that the body is in some 'live' state within the brain? This is a debate that is desperately needed and doctor's need to come clean about what they do.

wendy lamb, bergerac, france

The difference between a child fantasising about being a foundling and being told that he or she has a "real" parent somewhere is obvious. Libby Purves' use of the argument that "we all fantasize about being adopted" and the suggestion that knowing about a genuine absent parent is not different is nonsense.

Duncan, Birmingham,

I will gladly donate my organs and for this I want the government to waive any inheritance taxes/death duties and all the other state theft that goes on when a person dies.

David Smith, Stourbridge, UK

The problem is, that doctors are not always right about a patient who they say is dying. I have seen this happen a number of times.
One elderly woman was in a coma and the doctors wanted to take her off life support, but her son refused. She did come out of the coma, got better, went home where she lived alone for quite a long time.

margie, victoria, australia

Since you cannot guarantee the efficacy of an opt-out system, surely it is better to default to not taking organs?

That way, organs cannot be taken in error, just because paperwork is lost or procedure not followed.

W Smith, Oldham,

What an incredible idea, every child will have a certificate identifying who their parents are...natural parents that is. Even if the mother had an affair and 'Daddy' doesn't know he isn't the father. Please don't all rush and say it sounds too far fetched and there won't be many. In cases of Disaster Victim Identification (ie tsunamis, bombings etc), the Police do NOT ask the father of the victim for a DNA sample. The sample only comes from the mother. This is because in over 10% of victims the father is not the natural parent. Hence the Police have decided not to place themselves in a position where they have knowledge/information which should be passed to a father. Also, the ethical and or moral problems that are conjured up from this knowledge. Or will it be okay not to tell 'Daddy' that little bundle of joy isn't what he thinks it is. As for sperm donors, I encourage all men never to donate any of their sperm to any person or organisation. Men, everyone has rights, but not you!

david, Perth, Western Australia

Another issue relating to paternity is equally dangerous for the upcoming generation. In an estate in our town there are some single mothers who do not know, with any certainty, the identity of the father of their child.
Likewise I listen to the boasts of some feckless men who believe they have fathered a number of children on the same large estate.
Given the deprived nature of this large estate and the relative lack of social mobility (there are many families where 3 generations live in close proximity), there must be every prospect that siblings will meet and have children of their own oblivious to the fact that they share a father.
There is a chance that the heartbreaking sight of two newlyweds being separated will be more likely in the future.

Stan Hope, Darlington, UK

people who feel strongly about opting out will be precisely the kind of people who make sure they opt out (and everyone who matters knows it). people who don't care if their organs are used after they're dead are generally the kind of people who won't bother filling in any forms at all. there is no real danger (and I'm tempted to say the only danger is to people who believe in superstitious nonsense anyway).

I totally disagree with you about sperm donation. hiding a child's origin does not violate a basic right just because you say so. there is no basic right to know your biological parent. all of the information required to avoid siblings marrying or to provide basic health data can be held against a code number. there is a real problem that people will not donate sperm if there is a lasting financial or social obligation. what about a child's right to peace of mind (ignorance is bliss)? telling a child its parents aren't its parents is psychologically dangerous too.

jem, london, uk

well done, mary. that's one donor card binned. a good day's work for you.

let's hope you never need a donation, eh?

jem, london, uk

Bare body and bare heart!

river, jiangyin, china

This is part of a much wider issue.
I have two obvious genetic inheritances. Paternally, I have webbed toes on both feet. Doctors will think nothing of separating them at birth nowadays, even though they have never caused me any problem. The other is ‘cocktail party deafness’. This hearing loss runs in my mother`s family. It has presented me with numerous serious problems throughout my life. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to get to grips with, without knowing any of my true genetic history.
The whole issue needs full debate at all levels of society, with a right to full knowledge by those with a genuine ‘need to know’.

David Watson, Tagaytay City, Philippines

Its not 'your body', that's yet another feminist pretence. There will always be times when others claim it. Conscription in war is one obvious example.

When Ms Purves realises that an honest birth certificate will lead to paternity tests and the erosion of women's power to deceive and defraud men about their offspring she'll soon re-think her stance.

Rob Wilard, Reading, UK

It's not legally true that we do own our bodies. If I owned my body, I would own all the bits of it. That would mean that I could sell any bit I chose to - certainly a kidney. But actually the law specifically prohibits doing that. QED - this proves that the relationship we have with our bodies is not one of ownership, but something else.

Moreover, if I owned my body and the parts thereof, I would be able to specify particular recipients of various organs after I die, and to take money now for making this specification. But this is legally prohibited. No Libby, you are unclear on the concept; at least, you are unclear on what is the actual state as defined by British law.

Thomas Goodey, Cuxton-upon-Medway, UK

How would this law affect foreign visitors? How does it already affect us in countries such as Spain? Will they take my organs there?

emily, southampton,

perhaps this is why they have been so concerned for our health of late, they want healthy body parts to implant when govt needs them. See i just thought they cared about me for my well being.

First they rob me of my hard earn money as its earnt, tax what i leave to my family when im die, now they want to rape by body for spare parts after im dead.

Gavin, London,

I agree one hundred per cent with Mary Willis about anaesthetic. Not having looked into the subject properly before, I'd vaguely imagined that organs were removed after blood had stopped circulating but while still 'viable'. Clearly not. I have today destroyed the donor card I have carried for many years. Anaesthetic should always be given even where there is no appearance of brain activity, just as it should always be given to a foetus that is to be aborted.

John B, London, UK

Thank you Libby for agreeing with Lord Alton that donor conceived children should be accorded the right to know. A birth certificate with "no lies or omisissions" so that hopefully in the future children will not suffer as I have done. Aged 50 and told by an elderly family member who could no longer bear to carry the secret was dreadful. Your biological history is vital for all sorts of reasons, your lineage IS important. I don't fantasise about my biological father but I yearn to know something of his ethnicity,medical history etc not just for me but for the sake of my children on who this ghastly conspiracy of silence also has import.

Stella Kenrick, Worcester, UK

People feel that the government, with its increasingly large and comprehensive databases, is becoming the owner of their identities. People know that their data is handled ineptly, insensitively and incompetently. Now the government wants to take over ownership of our bodies. They will, for now, allow us to use them while we are alive but when we are in a state between life and death they will exert their rights of ownership.

Anyone involved with care of patients awaiting transplant would volunteer to be a donor. Let us, the people, make individual decisions to become donors. One way to help this would be to honour the deceased's gift in their memoriam. Could the religious leaders take this on? I am sure the non-religious could.

Mike Sedgwick, Eastleigh, UK

Brown must be frustrated beyond control when he sees all those body parts walking around that are not 'owned' by The Treasury.

Is the 'opt out' principle another form of Death Duties whereby the individual is allowed to keep 60% of his body mass with the rest to be paid as a tax to the nation on death?

Congratulations Mr Brown, you have coined the ultimate Stealth Tax.

Edwin, Bucharest,

Sorry,Mr.Smith, we did try to save your son's life but unfortunately with all the cutbacks...well you know how it is! Hope you don't mind, we helped ourselves to several of his organs. Not a bad result really, six lives improved or saved for the price of one. On the opt out register? Computer says No, Are you sure? We do recommend those choosing to 'opt-out' to regularly confirm their choice: once every two weeks is the best. Well, you know how unreliable State computer systems are! Of course if he has only recently 'opted-out' it could be that our records have not been updated yet. Again, we advise people not to die for at least two weeks after they register. Maybe, we have mistyped his name,NI number or address, you never know, but there must be tens of thousands of John Smiths so the girl imputting the info may have made a tiny mistake, but what can you expect from these work experience kids,eh?. Microchip everybody. I say! 'Fraid it's too late now to put them back.

Angela Smith, Penzance, UK

I look forward to the legislation that will force every "happily married" couple to have DNA tests on their "naturally concieved" (ie not through the NHS) offspring in order to prove that they are not concealing any forgiven extra-marital affairs. The same of course is equally true for grandparents, great-grandparents etc.
Maternity is a matter of fact- paternity a matter of trust.

Dave Parry, Auckland, New Zealand

Organ transplant is a area where I find I have little faith in doctors, and particularly in surgeons. The very idea of 'brain death' was put forward by the medical profession itself and doctors can be spectacularly wrong. There was some time ago correspondence in the Times about whether or not brain dead patients could feel pain or not. There were some doctors at the time who were unsure that it could be absolutely certain that no pain would be felt., and suggested that an anesthetic should routinely be given to the donor. It was pointed out that the donor was always given a paralysing injection so that sugeons would not be upset by a 'dead' person's limbs shooting out in all directions. This was, we were assured, simply a reflect reation and did not indicate that the donor was feeling pain.

Doctors have been wrong about pain before (eg pain in newborns) and until they are prepared to be less arrogant and give the donor anesthetic as a matter of course, I will opt out.

Mary Willis , Redhill, Surrey, England

But being your own body, Mr Brown and his cohorts naturally know better than you do how it is best used. Officials from the Revenue and Excision will be along to take bits of it from you, with menaces, in due course. Please fill in the attached direct debit form on the assumption that you owe us some parts.

P Orphyry, Skipton,

What do you think happens to your organs when you die?

If left in the body they putrefy and make a corpse swell up and burst open in a matter of hours, so a mortician strips them out, they then have the remains incinerated separately if they are still solid that is.

Do you really think you go off to the cemetery or crematorium whole, get real, people, your organs have all gone in a waste bin, and your bloods been run down the drain along with any other putrid material otherwise there would be a lot of very upsetting incidents at funerals as granny runs out of a leaky coffin and drips down a pall bearer.

So, you don’t take your organs with you anyway, surely giving life to someone else is better than letting them go down a drain.

The law doesn’t stipulate who gets an organ, but medical practice does, no surgeon is going to waste there time, success rate or budget on someone who is a dead beat waster, there are far to many good people out there needing organs through no fault of there own.

Alex, Tonbridge Wells, Kent UK

As genetic testing improves, other methods of dealing with these problems may become possible. At each birth, take a genetic sample whose information would be stored and released only in VERY specific cases. In the organ transplant case, one allowed use would be an anonymous search for compatable living tissue donors (for tissues like marrow which a living person can safely donate); positive matches are tracked down, tested for disease and asked for the tissue. In the accidental incest case, a required check for the risk of bad-allele enforcement would work better than a name on a birth certificate (it can happen even without inbreeding).

Michael, Pueblo, Colorado, US

As usual I'm with Libby Purves all the way.

Liz

Elizabeth Harvey, Dunstable, UK