Singapore makes post-mortem organ donation mandatory
03/06/07 -- Prodosh Mitra - Last week,
doctors in a Singapore hospital turned off the life support of a patient — in
spite of his family's protests — so that his organs could be used for
transplants.
This was done under an Act, which allows hospitals to remove kidneys, liver,
heart and corneas of all non-Muslim citizens when they die unless they have
given their objections in writing.
The ramifications of such a legislation, which is there in some other countries
too, is horrifying. This amounts to the ultimate invasion of privacy.
It means that even in death a person's body has no sanctity — the state can
defile it as it pleases. The modern state, as philosophers such as Foucault have
so tellingly described, tracks every little detail of an individual's life.
Laws such as the one in Singapore will ensure that even death won't free a
person from the state's clutches.
The other objectionable aspect of compulsory donation of organs is the disregard
for free choice. It must be left to an individual whether he wants to donate his
organs after death.
This must be a voluntary decision and cannot be imposed by the state.
Ironically, in the Singapore incident the patient's family had no objection to
his organs being used for transplants, but wanted doctors to wait one more day
before turning off the life support system.
But this plea was disregarded by the government in its unseemly haste to procure
healthy organs. The government offer to subsidise hospital fees for five years
for the patient's parents in no way compensated them for their trauma and loss.
It is well known that there is a shortage of organs for transplants, which has
led to a thriving black market to meet the demands of patients.
But that is no reason to make organ donation compulsory. To encourage organ
donation, government can run awareness campaigns and offer various incentives;
the state cannot, however, force it on an individual.
