I am against the principle of presumed consent for transplants.
I know this is a controversial position to some because "won't you think of those who will die and didn't have to" pov.
Personally I think its a easy way to phrase things without looking at the bigger picture.
Asking for consent, was always about safeguarding frameworks, which protected the most vulnerable - such as those who couldn't consent, had limited intelligence or language skills or something else.
Presumed consent sounds nice in principle, but to be frank about it, I don't think safeguarding vulnerable people within the system is up to scratch, particularly in an age where the politics of the time seems to be heading to more of a hierarchy of worthiness to live based on social status rather than a society which views all human life as equally important.
The state effectively owns your body after you die in a presumed consent situation.
And the idea of all the people you can measure who would benefit from presumed consent, does nothing to consider the number of vulnerable people who would 'lose out' because the mindset this would be a 'never event'. Except never events happen with reasonably predictable regularity. And I simply don't trust the state of politics which has produced Grenfell and Windrush.
The devaluing of human life and the deconstruction of humans into parts which benefits others rather than still seeing humans as humans is a process I feel is dehumanising in its own right. Its all very well meaning, but I think particularly in the context of a certain lack of understanding of how safeguarding is necessary, how it works and how easily rights are eroded or just ignored if someone is vulnerable until its too late it doesn't sit well with me.
I know this will upset people to say this.
I also stress that this does not stop you donating. It just means where the control and power in the dynamic is held is different.
I don't want to comment on the trans angle on this - I think the wider debate is more important and any part of that relates to trans agenda fits neatly within the wider stuff anyway.
For me its simply down to why safeguarding frameworks were build and how they originated and how once again that seems to be forgotten. Who were they set up to protect and why? Why was presumed consent never the default from the word go. It wasn't merely because of ignorance of transplants and emotionally distressed relatives. It went deeper and was about the role of the state and the authoritarianism of the state.
Yes people will benefit from presumed consent, but the who is important. As is who might lose too.
Once the system is changed, what might happen if the NHS was privatised for example?
This isn't a debate that will be held openly. Anyone who expresses views like mine, will be attacked as being 'selfish' or asked the emotive question 'but what if it were your child'. Personally I think it over simplifies the issue and reduces it to an emotional rather than one that seems to look at it from the pov of someone particularly vulnerable but without noisy and powerful advocates. And doesn't place the concept within the politics of the time, which are not as egalitarian nor as supportive of human rights as we might like them to be.
I can see problem, issues and even outright scandals arising which will be swept under the carpet in the name of the greater good.
None of it sits particularly well with me.
I wish I felt differently but I sadly believe that human nature simply isn't always nice or honest or ethical.
I'm sure others will shoot me down in flames for being some kind of heretic. I just don't see this as the simple magic solution without negative consequences that its presumed to be. Nor do I think we live in a political vacuum. Politics are changing and the timing leaves a change in the system vulnerable to exploitation if we are not very careful and aren't properly honest about this.