Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 4, 2008 21:37:52 GMT
Alex Singleton, writing in today's Telegraph, makes the observation concerning this particular BBC bias, and rightly criticizes it.
BBC bias on organ donations should be dropped
Thursday, September 4, 2008, 05:13 PM GMT [General]
The BBC's liberal bias is well-known, but even I was taken aback at the one-sided nature of yesterday's BBC News at Six. In a remarkably emotive story on organ donations, the Beeb promoted the view that consent shouldn't be required for doctors to take organs. People objecting would have to consciously opt out.
There is a case for a change in the status quo, and yet many of us feel uneasy about this sort of reform. Would doctors be less likely to make every attempt to keep an elderly pensioneror alive if they knew her organs could save the life of a 20-year old?
One Californian doctor, Dr Hootan Roozrokh, was charged earlier this year after allegations he had given overdoses in order to secure organs. He has denied any wrongdoing, but whatever the merits of that case, I think we'd see we'd see an alarming number of similar allegations here if we went for an opt-out system.
Besides, doesn't the system promoted on the BBC fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of the individual by allowing the Government to assume ownership of a person's body? Surely a better way to boost donations would be to promote the current opt-in system with more vigour, for example by handing out blank donor cards more widely.
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging a balanced debate on the issues, the editors at the BBC chose to promote a biased, one-sided report complete with someone crying because of the lack of a donation. If the Beeb wants to undermine its arguments for the licence fee, it is going about it very well.
]
Thursday, September 4, 2008, 05:13 PM GMT [General]
The BBC's liberal bias is well-known, but even I was taken aback at the one-sided nature of yesterday's BBC News at Six. In a remarkably emotive story on organ donations, the Beeb promoted the view that consent shouldn't be required for doctors to take organs. People objecting would have to consciously opt out.
There is a case for a change in the status quo, and yet many of us feel uneasy about this sort of reform. Would doctors be less likely to make every attempt to keep an elderly pensioneror alive if they knew her organs could save the life of a 20-year old?
One Californian doctor, Dr Hootan Roozrokh, was charged earlier this year after allegations he had given overdoses in order to secure organs. He has denied any wrongdoing, but whatever the merits of that case, I think we'd see we'd see an alarming number of similar allegations here if we went for an opt-out system.
Besides, doesn't the system promoted on the BBC fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of the individual by allowing the Government to assume ownership of a person's body? Surely a better way to boost donations would be to promote the current opt-in system with more vigour, for example by handing out blank donor cards more widely.
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging a balanced debate on the issues, the editors at the BBC chose to promote a biased, one-sided report complete with someone crying because of the lack of a donation. If the Beeb wants to undermine its arguments for the licence fee, it is going about it very well.
]