Libertarian Statement on Organ Bill (2006) (May 31, 2009) (UPDATED 2014)
Note (2012): I have a more negative view of organ transplants now. I was just taking it for granted like most would that it was a good thing. But the dark side of it is overwhelming and I wonder if there is any plus side to it. Someone has to die or lose an organ to save someone else’s life? (See comments at the beginning of this Jacques Ellul interview). It’s cannibalistic and the drift is all the way down hill of dehumanization. Government control over our organs is definitely Bad. Freedom is still better. But I think having a profit motive with organs – which is in effect happening, and amounts in the end to government control also, because they allow most of what is going on (public private partnership) – is driving the downward slide.
Ideas that are more libertarian are included in this statement (http://libertarian.on.ca/ann/PRs/2006_02_18%C2%AD_bodyownership.htm) from 2006.
Also, it’s the wider issues that are important and not the specific Bill or party. Nevertheless, I hope readers start to fundamentally question the system they live in as well as the direction their society is being pushed.
The statement doesn’t address the dark world of the current organ trade, which is a consequence of the system. The system – escalating totalitarian management under left-centre-right flavours – creates an underworld, one reality for the rich and privileged, and another reality for everyone else.
The same dilemma exists with the “war on drugs”: Making narcotics illegal creates a nightmare for many, but there are powerful people profiting from the high prices of the illegal drug trade. There are supposed reasons why something is illegal and then there are the real reasons that have to do with control: empowerment for a few and dis-empowerment for the many.
QUOTE
Libertarian Party: Ontario Organ Donation Bill Seeks Government Ownership of your Body
February 18, 2006 – Toronto, Ontario. Ontario M.P.P. Peter Kormos has introduced Bill 61, which Seeks to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act in order to allow “presumed consent” for organ donations. According to the bill’s explanatory note, the “purpose of the Bill is to ensure that upon the death of a person, tissue from the person’s body may be removed and made available for Transplant into another person’s body and that this may be done without the consent of the person from whom the tissue is removed.”
Trillium Gift of Life Network is a government monopoly that controls organ donation in Ontario. This agency’s restrictions follow a strict Socialist ideology that weeds out non-altruistic motives by potential living donors. For instance, directed-donation by living donors is forbidden except among family and friends. As a result, the availability of organs from living donors does not meet the critical needs of more than 1800 Ontarians on transplant waiting lists.
Bill 61 seeks to solve this government-created shortage by using the force of law to harvest organs from any deceased person who has not stated an objection. Various parties in the Ontario Legislature seek to force “solutions”, whether it is by declaring government ownership of peoples’ dead bodies or by forcing them to sign statements.
Libertarians believe that a person owns his or her own life and body. The Ontario Libertarian Party rejects Bill 61 as a shameful violation of personal freedom and self-ownership. We reject the belief held by Peter Kormos and other legislators, that the government owns the bodies of Ontarians, or that the government has the right to decide what happens to our bodies after death. The Libertarian Party utterly rejects the concept of “presumed consent” for organ donation. Nobody has a right to take organs and tissues unless explicit consent is given.
Furthermore, the government has no right to require statements or collect information on the various reasons – religious, philosophical or otherwise – that people may have for not donating their organs.
In fact, there should be complete freedom for Ontarians to make economic and charitable arrangments concerning what happens to their organs while they are alive and after they are dead. Freedom involves economic incentives, choice and initiative, whereas government solutions involve confiscation, restrictions and threats of punishment.
The Libertarian Party calls for the rejection of Bill 61 and for the abolition of the original Act.
END QUOTE
May 31st, 2009
NOTE: Update as of Sep 26, 2014
Now, I would say that of course the main thrust of the statement against the totalitarian bill was correct (2 + 2 = 4 but it doesn’t stop Big Brother), but I disagree with parts of the above statement, the unnecessary parts, because the moral validity of organ donation itself–and “brain death”–is something that should be examined. When I was talking about freedom, I was making an assumption that nobody’s rights were being violated even when it’s done in a supposedly voluntary way. But if people are not being fully informed about what organ removal means, then maybe their rights are being violated. Also, I’m sorry, I just don’t feel comfortable at all with people profiting from organs, or even wanting organs that belong to other people. Shouldn’t resources go into finding and using proper treatments that actually cure disease rather than turning the human body into an industry? There appear to be suppressed treatments for disease (e.g. orthomolecular medicine). Medicine should be about helping people get well and curing disease effectively.
RELATED POSTS / Updates on This Topic