When the government and the opposition agree, should one be happy or be wary? It depends on what they agree upon. But the recent agreement about organ donation between PN MP Ivan Bartolo and Minister of Health Jo Etienne Abela is to be supported.
Bartolo, who has proposed in the name of the PN a bill about organ donation, had generously donated a kidney to a person who needed one, although this person was not even an acquaintance. His act of kindness helps one understand why, with the support of the PN leader, he now wants to make it easier for potential donors to be able to do so after their death.
The proposal is as simple as it is radical. It safeguards everybody’s rights – donor and non-donors – but most of all it safeguards the right of patients for a better quality of life and, in some cases, for life itself.
Currently, those who are ready to donate their organs after their death have to register their intent. On the contrary, those who refuse to donate need do nothing.
Bartolo’s proposal, seconded by Abela, flips these positions. Those who prefer to help others by donating their organs after their death will now have to do nothing at all. They do not need to register.
Surveys show that the vast majority of the Maltese are in favour of organ donation. However, only about 27,000 people have registered to be organ donors.
If registering is one of the problems keeping people from donating, then the proposed law eliminates this difficulty. Doctors can only make use of the organs of those who die while on life supporting machines. Since the number of such occurrences is limited, it is very important that the pool of potential donors be as big as possible.
This is not a question of the State taking anybody’s organs against their will- Fr Joe Borg
But those who prefer, as is their right, not to donate any of their organs, will now have to register their decision not to donate. This is not a question of the State taking anybody’s organs against their will. The proposed law contemplates nothing of the sort.
As it is essential to quell people’s fears and respect their decisions, the law should be phrased in such a way that the process of registration will be as simple as possible and within everybody’s ability to do so. It must be manifest that no one will touch any of the organs of those unwilling to donate.
Organ donation will, thus, still be a gift freely given and freely accepted by those sorely needing an organ either to live or to improve their quality of life. It is more than reasonable and justifiable that the State should make it easier for those who want to donate to be able to do so while not impeding in any way the registered will of those who are against such donations.
Although such a change could seem simple to its proponents, one has to keep in mind that all issues that have to do with one’s end of life are full of fears, emotions and feelings. Discussions about organ donation after one’s demise is difficult as we do not want to come to terms with our mortality.
Some fear that donation will disfigure their bodies. Others fear that doctors will not do their utmost to save a potential donor as they would prefer to help a recipient. Therefore, this change to current legislation or public policy must be accompanied by a communications campaign that addresses all these fears and emotions.
The winning card of such a campaign could be: why leave your body to decompose when you can save someone by your donation? Bartolo’s motion is pro-life as it saves lives. It deserves our support.