I'm trying something new here, not sure if it's going to work as well as intended but here it is. Read more for the transcript of this movie.

Over at Dizzy Thinks I seem to have got myself into an impasse with the titular member of the blog over exactly what current law is on organ donations and presumed consent, and over the finer points of what such a system means. In particular here I have drawn attention to the current law on organ use and in particular to Part 1 Section 6 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.

Activities involving material from adults who lack capacity to consent
Where—

(a) an activity of a kind mentioned in section 1(1)(d) or (f) involves material from the body of a person who—
(i) is an adult, and
(ii) lacks capacity to consent to the activity, and

(b) neither a decision of his to consent to the activity, nor a decision of his not to consent to it, is in force,

there shall for the purposes of this Part be deemed to be consent of his to the activity if it is done in circumstances of a kind specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

It seems as though the issue of presumed consent blew up quite loudly in the end which is good to see, it needs to be debated and it is quite literally everywhere except the headline news right now. But in the debate there have been some things come up which are worth some clarification or further discussion, in some cases because they're not necessarily true, and in others because they're being used as arguments against change without any real thought going into such arguments. I'm going to tackle the following issues that have been raised from both sides

• "Doctors will feel the need to let us die quicker for our organs"
• "This is state ownership of my body"
• "There will be huge screw ups and scandals because of opt-out"
• "What about sudden deaths?"
• "This is an anti-religious policy"
• "I'll opt out in protest despite being a donor"
• "Who cares, when you're dead you're dead"
• "Surely a free market on organs is the way forward?"
• "Why don't we try asking first?"

Tories around the blogosphere have decided that Andrew Lansley's recent comments about compulsory organ donation means another thing to use against the Labour government.

Only four years ago, Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson voted against assumed consent in organ donations on the basis that there was no public support, they said that there were better ways of increasing donations and that the State should not determine what happens to people's bodies after death. Parliament concluded that to take organs without consent was wrong. It is neither right nor necessary for us to change that view

Tories have therefore been stating that Brown's plans are a "nationalisation" of our bodies, a quite frankly ludicrous claim. Thankfully though, not all Tories are mad as we must remember.