5 ms·

For sure, but people should be given the information to exercise bodily autonomy. The BBC is a public service broadcaster paid for by TV licence fees, so should

For sure, but people should be given the information to exercise bodily autonomy. The BBC is a public service broadcaster paid for by TV licence fees, so should aim to inform the UK population about significant issues which impact them. Sure, COVID-19 and its fallout should be reported on, but it should not (and does not need to) cause the absence of this from the homepage.

crooked-v 6y ago
It seems like the kind of thing that should just have a small informative pamphlet mailed to everyone in the country. It's a relatively cheap, straightforward way to inform everyone.
- BlackVanilla 6y ago
  I agree, and it's happened before. Very recently, the Prime Minister sent a letter to every household in the UK on the COVID-19 lockdown measures. [1] This would be less intensive, as it would go to all households in England, not the whole UK. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-nation-on-coronavirus https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-nati...
  - fmajid 6y ago
    Since England is nearly 85% of the UK, it really doesn’t make that much of a difference.
chosenbreed37 6y ago
It's not coming as surprise though. Is it? If I recall correctly it was announced a while ago but only just coming into effect now.
- TLightful 6y ago
  LOL ... guess what percentage of the population are aware of this! Surprise!
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    People don't need to be aware of a law which has good intentions, and does not affect them while they're alive. This is a law with good intentions because it is going to save lives, and increase the quality of life of people. The few who care about this for religious reasons or liberty reasons are in the wrong IMO, but they surely know, as they care about this issue. They'll be able to opt-out.
wafn 6y ago
Regarding bodily autonomy, I feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here: if organ donation saves other lives at your own moral discomfort (because presumably you wouldn't be forced to donate organs until after death), what difference is there between this requirement and the requirement to vaccinate, wear masks, etc.? By this I mean if somebody claims bodily autonomy to oppose mandatory organ donation, should they also be able to claim it for those other "despite the public good" reasons?
- toast0 6y ago
  Accepting your premise that all of these things are equivilent, when you change mask rules or required vaccinations, etc, you need to let everyone know. So if they don't agree, they can protest, or leave, or attempt to arrange the circumstances of their death to prevent the removal of their organs (it's haddly a donation if it's forced). I'm trying not to argue for or against opt-in vs opt-out or no choice, that's a fine discussion to have, but this thread was more about notice.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    There was extensive publication as the law was being discussed in parliament, and when it was passed. It's more important to tell people when the green and white papers are being read and when the bill is being discussed, and then when the law is made, and there was a lot of publicity then.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  If you opt out vaccination or wearing masks, you increase the risk of the entire population to get infected, since we are talking about viral diseases. This is a dishonest comparison, as situations where an organ is needed can have a myriad of reasons. It could be gene related ("predestined"), it could be self inflicted (e.g. smoking), it could be from an infection (including COVID-19), it could be from an accident (who's fault?). The comparison is also moot because there is no opt-out of a law which forces you to wear a mask, or forces you to get vaccinated. There is an opt-out regarding organ donation. A comparison would be, that you'd be forced to wear masks everywhere, and that you'd by default get vaccinated, but you are free to decline (opt-out). Well, vaccinations in The Netherlands already work like this. Your kid gets asked to get a vaccination, and you are free to decline it. You don't have to ask the government for it though. That's opt-out as well.

crooked-v 6y ago

It seems like the kind of thing that should just have a small informative pamphlet mailed to everyone in the country. It's a relatively cheap, straightforward way to inform everyone.

BlackVanilla 6y ago
I agree, and it's happened before. Very recently, the Prime Minister sent a letter to every household in the UK on the COVID-19 lockdown measures. [1] This would be less intensive, as it would go to all households in England, not the whole UK. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-nation-on-coronavirus https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-nati...
- fmajid 6y ago
  Since England is nearly 85% of the UK, it really doesn’t make that much of a difference.

chosenbreed37 6y ago

It's not coming as surprise though. Is it? If I recall correctly it was announced a while ago but only just coming into effect now.

TLightful 6y ago
LOL ... guess what percentage of the population are aware of this! Surprise!
- Fnoord 6y ago
  People don't need to be aware of a law which has good intentions, and does not affect them while they're alive. This is a law with good intentions because it is going to save lives, and increase the quality of life of people. The few who care about this for religious reasons or liberty reasons are in the wrong IMO, but they surely know, as they care about this issue. They'll be able to opt-out.

wafn 6y ago

Regarding bodily autonomy, I feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here: if organ donation saves other lives at your own moral discomfort (because presumably you wouldn't be forced to donate organs until after death), what difference is there between this requirement and the requirement to vaccinate, wear masks, etc.? By this I mean if somebody claims bodily autonomy to oppose mandatory organ donation, should they also be able to claim it for those other "despite the public good" reasons?

toast0 6y ago
Accepting your premise that all of these things are equivilent, when you change mask rules or required vaccinations, etc, you need to let everyone know. So if they don't agree, they can protest, or leave, or attempt to arrange the circumstances of their death to prevent the removal of their organs (it's haddly a donation if it's forced). I'm trying not to argue for or against opt-in vs opt-out or no choice, that's a fine discussion to have, but this thread was more about notice.
- DanBC 6y ago
  There was extensive publication as the law was being discussed in parliament, and when it was passed. It's more important to tell people when the green and white papers are being read and when the bill is being discussed, and then when the law is made, and there was a lot of publicity then.
Fnoord 6y ago
If you opt out vaccination or wearing masks, you increase the risk of the entire population to get infected, since we are talking about viral diseases. This is a dishonest comparison, as situations where an organ is needed can have a myriad of reasons. It could be gene related ("predestined"), it could be self inflicted (e.g. smoking), it could be from an infection (including COVID-19), it could be from an accident (who's fault?). The comparison is also moot because there is no opt-out of a law which forces you to wear a mask, or forces you to get vaccinated. There is an opt-out regarding organ donation. A comparison would be, that you'd be forced to wear masks everywhere, and that you'd by default get vaccinated, but you are free to decline (opt-out). Well, vaccinations in The Netherlands already work like this. Your kid gets asked to get a vaccination, and you are free to decline it. You don't have to ask the government for it though. That's opt-out as well.