Quite right - and I can't see what the all the fuss is about - except it involves agreeing with Gordon Brown. Now that is hard!

So how many national debates on the go now then? I've lost count.

Spot on Bob.

robin, try using the fingers on your other hand.

Your insensitivy to a sense many have of the sacredness of the body is unsuprising, neither is your arrogance in assuming your rationalist views should be imposed on others. You clearly feel the state is a caring and responsive organsation which will not desecrate the body as some would see it. I have doubts and do not feel ignorance or indolence is something you can pretend does not exist when framing legislation.

Having said all that I still support the measure overall. This does not imply any shift on abortion , embryo research and other subjects where faith and spiritual values may clash with the barbaric machine minds of New Labour though and it is not as easy a subject as you pretend

I was going to post a reasoned comment as to why we should resist the state's presumed consent to anything until I remembered the old adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Well I suppose you would classify me as one of the 'right- wing loonies', however I do think that the government is 'nationalising' our bodies.

I have held a donor card since I was 18 - but if this legislation comes into force I will opt out in protest.

The worry is that being dead is not as clear-cut as it used to be - i.e. when your heart and breathing stopped. Now the moment of death is open to debate and people worry that they may not be really dead as the doctors eye up their organs!

All societies hold some attachment to their own and loved ones bodies - hence the efforts to recover bits of people from the Twin Towers. Muslims wash and shave bodies before burial etc. In some religions you cannot go to heaven, or to the next stage of enlightenment etc unless you are complete. So even if you regard your own body as of no consequence such a proposal is culturally insensitive.

Of course you can opt out, just as you should have a will. However, we are talking about 'youngish' people here - I don't suppose a 90 year old heart would be of much use who don't think that a sudden death will ever happen to them so won't get round to it.

Best one I saw last night was Cameron declaring the Labour Party dead because of the 'failure' of possible nationalisation of Northern Rock.

Up here in the People's Republic they've been praying for such miracles for eons.

We normally have to use a chairs, whips and a bit of red meat (not too much though) to keep these caged animals in check.

Then, as if by magic, a couple of bent Director's fill up their pension funds before doing a runner and my people suddenly come to life.

We always thought Blair or Brown would restore order. We were wrong.

So to the probable inmates of Ford Open prison. We salute you and offer you the freedom of STOKE-ON-TRENT (an honour).

Gary

I expect we are all supposed to be grateful that Gordon the Bodysnatcher is going to wait until we're dead before nationalising our bodies.

And this opt-out scheme, it's not going to be another spectacularly successful government IT project by any chance is it?

bob, I already have, and my toes.

chas at least has the virtue of humour... not much else, but hey, who's counting (apart from robin).

believe me, I'm not laughing after more than a decade of new liebour.

Perhaps, Torymory, we should be getting people to write wills from a much younger age...16 or 18 perhaps? It's a tragedy that young life is taken, even more tragic that we as a society don't face up to these realities because of some perverse sense of not wanting to broach the issue of death with our young.

There are plenty of procedural solutions to everything that opponents of presumed consent are bringing up on line, bar of course the cultural issues which are also partly solvable by clauses such as not taking donations without familial consent from people of X, Y and Z religion, and indeed a "soft" line on taking organs from people of a certain age, etc. But they're only solutions if people would debate the issue rather than let points of principle get in the way of working on something that could potentially save twice as many lives a year.

Spot on Lee.

robin... get over it... and get used to it, you've got a lot more to come.

bob, I admire your optimism, if nothing else.

In today's Metro there is a letter from Muhammad Umar, Chairman of the Ramadhan Foundation, saying they object to it and they're going to campaign against it.