eadzi i,*:i,ii

^tr'%" #,sH

f'a:tr

'* .c9 . p,' ,,':,=PrS, W "# "*a*f; *p* i{

q?j " gs

r"*H d*H-H jffi* ffi ffi# LHng# ki fr & f;iei "r

,,-. .. 'F *i.F,*'* #*,*E #e. .-r*''%, ffi g *{S'." # &e B,E '# H A g

E
:E iH

*"*

*"*.**
.4+{?,,..

q.*

"''t'*=& 1E F Lu Lt H :,;.,+,li'>- ?-=o x--;' .;:, ^." ".ii*

?i

y body is mine. It may not be a

be regarded as tasteless

very good one. Bits have been knocked offit and other bits have been broken. Parts have been removed to repair damage elsewhere, and it is held together with plastic reinforcement.

should it be illegal to restrict the gift ofrvhat is

one's olvn to recipients ofwhom one approves? The politically correct ansil'er to this question is in no doubt. The use ofa person's proPerty must

even

immoral

but

conform to the nostrums ofthe politically correct.

The politically incorrect should not have rights. Andrvhat of my dilemma? Should I allow

It

parts ofmy body to be used to benefit the people

is past its best. If it were a car, it would

not make

lot on a trade-in, but

it

might be cannibalised for sPares.

Nonetheless, I olvn it. It does not belong to the
state, the community or the BMA. So it is evident

'Should it be illegal to restrict

of

to me that I, and I alone, have the right to dispose

it, all or in part, before or alter my death' I realise that the concept ofthe right ofproperty is under attack these days. Author'itarian or corporatist regimes believe property belongs ultimately to the state, not the individual. Property owners are seen as potential challengers to the polver ofthe state iu a way that tenants could never be. However, not even I had realised until recently that the doctrine ofthe illegitimacy of private property was creepir-rgly advancine upon our very bodies.
I knorv organ transplants can extend and

the gift ofwhat

ffi one s ol,vn
*)
aa

to recrnienEs I
of n,hon;

transform the quality ofpeople's lives. There is a porverfttl emotional blackmail in the plea that ive should donate parts ofa body that can uo longer
sen
e us to help others. No-one n'ants to be a dog in the manger. As usual, hon'ever, a broad and simple proposition. carrYing cot-tsensual support, gives rise to some more difficult practical and

one approves?'
n'r1, u'ife for political Sain? It is bad enough to be taxed in life to f'eatherbed terrorists but to be told I have no light to be partial in

rvho crippled

moral questions in its in-rplerr-rentation. Should the on'ner ofa bodv have the right to decide ifit may be used bv othcrs after their death, not onlv in prirtciple but in particular. Of cor"trse, the race relatiot-ts industry rvill come out beating its racist drr.rm ifa rvhite person savs their bodv
mav be used onlv to helP others

deatl'r over rvlto might benetit frorr clisrrantling

n)\' corpsc
is qoirrg roo lar'.

That the medical protessiorl shrinlis tronl the complications ofhaving conditions attached to who rright benet-it tiotn ilonated ot'gans is understlr)dable enottglt. Bttt ct,ttt etliettce is a poor
reason tbr overriding the right ofthe clead to leave conditiorrs upon the disposal oftheir bodies.

oftheir ethnic

origin. lvlavbe such a stipulation tvould these davs

Lord Tebbit is a former Trade and lndustry secretary and former conservative Party chatrman

54

ervln NEWS REVTEW tuNE 2ooo