Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Burke and Hare

Burke and HareHow refreshing that Nanny's chums in the medical profession have not forgotten their history and are invoking the actions of their old time help mates, Burke and Hare, in addressing the so called "organ crisis" in the NHS.

Sir Liam Donaldson, Nanny's chief medical officer, has claimed that presumed consent is the only way to combat Britain's transplant crisis, where many die on the waiting list for an organ.

Sir Liam said the NHS needed three times the number of organ donors on its register.

Sir Liam said:

"There are simply not enough organs

donated to meet the need for transplant,

with one person dying every day while waiting

for a transplant.

Compounding this are issues surrounding consent,

which often reduces this number further

To meet demand for organs, the number of people on the NHS donor register would need to treble, Sir Liam said.

Here's the rub!

"I believe we can only do this through

changing the legislation to an opt-out system

with proper regulation and safeguards

Proper safeguards!


Who seriously trusts the state, or the "managers" of our health care system, not to twist the safeguards to meet their NHS targets?

It is funny how those in the medical profession sometimes take it upon themselves to make pronouncements about matters legal, when it is not in their remit at all.

Aside from the incessant braying from our substance abusing chums in the butchers' (sorry, medical) profession about banning smoking, banning booze, banning fat and other of life's little pleasures; they now take it upon themselves to ignore the fact that we own our organs individually...they are not owned by the state.

Any attempt by the state, or butchers' profession, to take organs without prior express consent would in fact be theft.

However, that "small" point of law seems to have escaped our substance abusing chums...just as it did Burke and Hare all those years ago.


  1. Anonymous11:35 AM

    I'm an organ donor but if they make it compulsory I shall withdraw my permission.

    OK, some will say that I'm cutting my nose off to spite my face, but I feel that organ donorship is a voluntary thing, not something the govt. will do to you automatically on your death.

    This govt. seem intent on taking away everyone's independence and free will.

  2. Andy,

    If you cut off your nose, will you be donating it?;)


  3. Anonymous3:41 PM

    sorry that I pre-empted you a bit (see my post under 'Fat is good for you'), but my reference to 'The Lady of the Lamp(shades)' while not entirely serious, does give rise to a very serious thought. If we are all to be considered the property of the State (body & soul) as seems to be the agenda here; how long before, in order to prove the government's commitment to saving the planet, we are told that gold teeth, replaced hip joints, human hair and so on are also to be recycled and that any 'leftovers' may just as well be turned into organic (literally)
    I also wonder if 'Mein Kampf' is now required reading for all NuLab MPs?

  4. Anonymous4:53 PM

    This is an entirely bizarre scenario really.

    Let me first say that once I am dead if anyone wants any of my organs, good luck to them. Probably not much use. Indeed one is tempted to take up smoking and heavy drinking in order to ensure such.

    On the other hand when did it become a right for anyone with a life-threatening organ failure to EXPECT a transplant? Or maybe several? And if they get one, how many people will be able to 'repay' society for the cost?

    And just for the hell of it let's observe the the cost and effort of transplants is hardly likely to be a Green benefit either, so what are the Doctors thinking when they try to justify keeping alive those who would otherwise die a natural death? If you treat it as a purely logical consideration they are increasing the human load on teh planet and probably preserving people with defective genes who MAY breed more people with defective genes. The purpose for the species is what? (Other than the potential for self destruction by genetic collapsed of course.)

    And frankly I feel the same about IVF as well.

    But only when I put my entirely rational hat on in both cases.


    Surely you would be cutting of your nose to spite someone else's face? I can't think of one reason why you would care.

    But I agree with your sentiment.

    Maybe we should demand the right to self determination at death and the option to disperse ourselves far and wide with explosive material?


  5. Anonymous8:26 PM

    When my mum dies she wants to be made into a diamond. Better start saving up the $5000 it costs...

  6. Anonymous10:01 PM

    Alice said...
    "When my mum dies she wants to be made into a diamond. Better start saving up the $5000 it costs... "

    Now that's an interesting thought.

    Would she be OK if the diamond was slightly lighter? You could sell, rather than donate, an organ or two to cover the cost.


  7. Anonymous11:08 PM

    you seem to have overlooked the relatively recent European past.

    As I recall, the dear old Fatherland established a pattern not unlike this. First they took all the 'mentally subnormal' into 'care' and sterilised them (since nobody wanted them to reproduce). Follwing from that, as these creatures served no purpose, either for themselves or for their society, they were considered expendable (although they did have some little value within the labs). Then, as that seemed to be acceptable to the public, they went further and a little bit further, researching into ways to help the infertile to breed, perfecting the design of prosthetic limbs for the disabled, brain surgery, endurance...and, of course, in order to protect the terminally ill from the trauma of a painful 'natural' death, they kindly helped them to go in peace (also under laboratory conditons).

    What followed is - as they say - history.

    Although this may seem irrelevant to the latest move; my point is this: once our masters get used to the idea that they can treat our minds and bodies as though they were THEIR property and we were only in temporary residence, at their discretion, (as the previous Reich did with certain of its inhabitants) all the bullshit stops.
    Instead of fannying about 'curing' people, the medical profession (just as in the much-missed Third Reich), may well be given the licence to treat us as a superior species of lab rat.
    In case you think this is fanciful - or just sheer bloody paranoid - remember all those medical paragons who kept themselves busy carrying out previously forbidden research on human 'subjects', in the 'rest and recuperation' camps at Auschwitz, Belsen and many other delightful locations.
    Since, pre-Hitler, the Germans were considered pre-eminent both in medicine and in medical ethics, nobody believed that it could have happened there either: until, of course, the full evidence was unearthed after the war.
    Perhaps I am over-reacting, but it seems to me that we should now stop thinking in terms of 'the thin end of the wedge' every time our British & European masters sneak yet another piece of dictatorial legislation into place, and start to accept that very very soon they will have driven the wedge all the way home.
    Just as they did to the complacent German nation in the 1930s.

  8. Anonymous11:50 PM


    Turning down the Irony level for a moment, surely what you are saying is that the more 'experimentation' doctors get into the more they take control and we allow them to do so.

    And the cycle goes again.

    Whereas by reducing transplants and similar activities ( as I suggested, sort of ) would constrain them by reducing the opportunity (overt and covert) to experiment.

    But more importantly (irony level rising) we must all strive to reduce the human impact on the planet and if that means avoiding lifesaving actions, so be it. Or at least that is what I think the Eco-ists are saying underneath all the surface BS.

    I'm sure the former occupant of the Eagle's Nest would be proud of them in many ways, though he might question some of their targets. No doubt the Italian chappy who liked trains would also be pleased to see that they shared his interests.

    More seriously - you have obviously seen the same large wedge that I have.


  9. Anonymous8:38 AM

    Surely the worst part of this idea is that it would be implemented in a health service that operates to government set targets. So there will no doubt be a target of harvesting x thousand organs per year.... cue Monty Python "Can we have your liver?"

  10. Anonymous12:52 PM

    Anonymous (12:38) said;
    "...government set targets...harvesting x thousand organs per year."
    And, of course, what goes with this is the general acceptance that setting such targets is a good thing in itself (operating on the good old principle '...well I'll be dead so it won't really affect me...') because, 'Well, think of all the lives it will save'.

    Following from this we will see a huge growth in the numbers of Doctors/Surgeons/other authorised persons, who 'accidentally' remove organs from people who didn't actually consent. But since donating organs will then be accepted as a moral duty to which 'most' people happily subscribe, there will be no public outcry, except from those 'libertarians' who will insist that the provision for opting-out should be withdrawn, on the same, specious, moral grounds as they trot out every time yet another of our liberties is snuffed out - 'it's for the greater good of mankind'.

    Such a stance is, of course, derived from the teachings of that greatest of all libertarians, Karl Marx, who's dictum, "property is theft" would, no doubt, have been applied to possession of one's own body, had he thought of it.

  11. Anonymous6:09 PM

    Soylent Green, anyone?