Phil Booth Profile picture
Aug 5, 2018 20 tweets 7 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
"#OrganDonation is an altruistic act that should be celebrated..." (p6)

So why not do that, and devote more resources to making donation easier - an approach that has delivered measurable results - instead of a regressive move to #OrganHarvesting?…
Describing a *significantly narrowing* shortfall (cf. graph, also p6) in available organs is not a justification for a change to #OrganHarvesting; nor are emotive appeals. This reads like #PolicyBasedEvidenceMaking.
"We want... to change the culture around organ donation in this country in the longer term." (p7)

Stopping it being a gift, freely given, and instead the State 'deeming' you to have given permission will certainly change that! Presumption ain't 'donation' and will erode trust.
Hmm. "...record their wishes through our new #NHSapp & also highlight to us if their #faith is important to their decision" (p7)

Why "highlight"? Will some sort of 'two-tier' system be operating?

Why should people of faith be *forced* to act, to have their beliefs respected?
On that last point, someone who has a religious objection need take no action under the current donation system. Under proposed harvesting (i.e. 'presumed consent') they *must* act if they wish their beliefs to be respected. That seems #disproportionate & #discriminatory to me...
The detail on this aspect (p8) are hopelessly confused and waffly. Stop trying to make desperate nods to 'inclusion', @DHSCgovuk, and meaningfully address the fundamental point about religious discrimination I made in my last tweet!
The hypocrisy of running a "campaign to increase black and Asian organ donors" (p11) is quite staggering, given you've said you're just going to take their organs by default anyway. Or are you hoping people won't have spotted that?
The consultation responses are illuminating; overwhelmingly yes to more ways to express "a decision" (p13) but notably NOT whether that decision should be based on donation ('opt-in') or harvesting ('opt-out')...
p15: "Q4: If the law changes, would this affect your decision about organ donation?
Yes, I will opt in - 13%
No - 72%
Yes, I will opt out - 15%"

Shows 13% *didn't understand the question*, which'll happen when you misleadingly refer to 'presumed consent' as 'donation'. Also..
...suggests a significant number oppose such a move, even before the scheme is "communicated" to the public. (And we know how terribly that can go, given recent attempts...)
p16, Q5: 32% believe "change could have a negative impact on people from some religious groups or ethnic backgrounds"; amongst Jewish & Muslim respondents this was 85% and 79% respectively. Aren't you listening @DHSCgovuk? Pretty sure @EHRC, @HumanRightsCtte & others will be...
p16, Q6: coincidentally, 48% opposed "their family be[ing] able to make the final decision". So you'll be going with the 52%, right?
p18, Q8 reveals some concerning attitudes / significant misconceptions: in responses, children under 18 escaped inclusion in #OrganHarvesting by only 53% to 47%, and 32% thought *visitors* to England should have their organs taken by default!
(More later. Possibly. I'm off to make tea.)

Meanwhile, you might want to have a read of the documents yourself:…
(Back from BLTs...)

The tone deafness on p20 is staggering. That the Register will from 2020 'include' more people who don't want to be on it (cf Q5) & who'll be *forced* to act in order that their beliefs are respected is NOT "inclusive". It's coercive.
More subtle, but also concerning, is the suggestion that children "will still be able to sign up". What social pressures are likely to operate here? And what's the implicit messaging: "Opt in, 'cos we're going to presume you have in a few years anyway"?
p22 "..during the transition period the Gov't will launch a year-long communication campaign to raise awareness – likely in the spring of 2019." You're kidding, right? Just as the country crashes into #NoDeal, with medicine stockpiles, etc. you expect people to talk about this?!
Oh, $deity! 'Spot the technocrat' on p23, how many more times must we hear "overcome barriers" as code for "We're going to do what the hell we want anyway, regardless of the evidence or what you think"?

Plus, faith-specific identifiers "for sharing on social media"? Hmm...
What has "gaining full citizenship rights" (p24) got to do with the proposed exclusion for under 18s? I understand the cut-off, but adducing this seems to imply that "full citizenship" is intended to include the "right" to have your organs harvested!

#NannyState strikes again?
(Good to see the #NHSapp get its full and proper name on p26, i.e. "the @NHSEngland app" - that body and its (other) initiatives all too often hide behind the 'whole' #NHS 'brand'.)


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Phil Booth

Phil Booth Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!