±«Óãtv

PM in the PM

Comments

1. At 01:14 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Gillian wrote:

   The link's not working - takes you to 404 ;o(

2. At 01:28 PM on 17 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Yup, it Ain't working (yet)

   Direct from that (iPhone) manual:
   

   
   Do not attempt to dry iPhone with an external heat source, such as a microwave oven or hair dryer.
   
   Do not drop, disassemble, open, crush, bend, deform, puncture, shred, microwave, incinerate, paint or insert foreign objects into iPhone.
   
   Do not take notes, look up phone numbers or perform any other activities that require your attention while driving.
   
   Jotting down a to-do list or flipping through your address book takes attention away from your primary responsibility, driving safely.
   
   Turn off iPhone (press and hold the Sleep/Wake button, and then drag the on-screen red slider) when in any area with a potentially explosive atmosphere.
   
   And here's a special bonus to anyone who lives in Las Vegas; Palm Springs, Calif.; Phoenix; or other notorious hot spot: "Operate iPhone in a place where the temperature is always between 0 degrees and 35 degrees C (32 degrees to 95 degrees F)."
   
   -As reported in "10 things you must never do with a friend's iPhone"
   ComputerWorld July 16, 2007

   xx
   ed
   

3. At 01:34 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Piper wrote:

   ...and, it's not getting better...

   I think there's a PM Blog-bias operating within the ±«Óãtv

   Maybe, the PM Blog Controller's American?

   That might explain virtually everything

   Now, I've made the statement, I need proof, where's the proof...

4. At 01:45 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Humph wrote:

   Try to load it normally and then delete:

   "ht(ee)t(ee)p(ee)://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2007/07/"

   from the start and you will get there.

   A bit too much Mr. Mayor this time, I thought. We can hear him from 5pm.

   H.

5. At 01:46 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Rachel G wrote:

   Just listened to the arguments about presumed consent for organ donation on Martha's show. Hurrah for Liam Donaldson. I do think we should stop thinking about organ donation as some fantastic, altruistic gift. It is fantastic, I suppose, but more becasue it can save a life than because someone is prepared to offer up their body bits when they no longer have a use for then.

   We really should start regarding organ donation as the responsible act of a well-meaning citizen - like paying taxes or helping old ladies across the road. Saving lives shouldn't be optional, it should be expected of us all. Perhaps I am being a bit extreme here, and I know there are plenty of religions that don't allow it (though, I confess that says more to me about religion than it does about organ donation) but the time is surely past when people should be allowed to refuse consent for their or their relatives' organs to be donated purely on the grounds that it is a bit yucky.

   [Declaration of interest: close relative with CF who might need a heart-lung transplant one of these days]

6. At 01:47 PM on 17 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Now I'm back in the office, I can't listen to this even if it is working. Ho hum...

7. At 01:50 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Justin Smith wrote:

   There's an spurious extra space in the address.

   Copy and paste the URL into the address bar and remove the offending space (%20), or everything in front of the second 'http'.

8. At 01:54 PM on 17 Jul 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

   Piper (3) - that made me snigger at a completely inappropriate time!

9. At 02:07 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Gillian wrote:

   Humph(4) and Justin(7) Thanks for that - mission accomplished!

10. At 02:30 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    I'm too excited to listen to this, Eddie! The news in the newsletter has me all a-flutter.

    Eddie Mair on George Galloway.

    Two Scots slugging it out on air - Should make for very entertaining listening!

    By the way, have you thought of standing for MP in Henley on Thames? There may be a vacancy there soon, I hear.

11. At 02:38 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Rachel G;
    I'm glad that you declared an interest in the debate and I can understand why you feel the way that you do. But I have to say that I would never declare myself as an organ donor.

    It's partly that I have a slight degenerative kidney disease (so I wouldn't want anyone to get them!). And I'm diabetic too. But I also am horrified by the thought of being operated on, or cut up. And that extends after death.

    My remains are my next-of-kins to dispose of according to my instructions as laid out in my will. I do not become the property of the State, or the NHS, after my death. Nor should this ever happen to anyone. Presumed consent is nasty. The thought that the moment you expire someone will be slicing and dicing you to remove the useful pieces is like something out of a horror story, shades of Frankenstein.

    And what safeguards will there be to prevent abuse of the near-dead or dying in order to prevent a well-meaning doctor from harvesting their organs for someone who can better use them?

    The sanctity of a dead persons mortal remains is a hallmark of humanity. We regard those who would violate that principle as beyond the pale (the Yoxall disinterment or graverobbing, for example). Violating that sanctity is dehumanising and immoral. That a government should seek to permit this to happen by law is a disgrace.

    Just because someone like me would be first on the opt-out register doesn't make us immoral, that's emotional blackmail. How much of that would we see after the introduction of such a law?

    Certain religions have strong stances on the sanctity of the dead. That's no reason to belittle them or somehow imply they they are morally incorrect either.

    As a diabetic, and with the renal disorder thrown in, I am at risk of end-stage renal failure. I would rather have a central line and dialysis for life than a transplant and all the lifelong medication that goes with it.

    Si.

12. At 03:07 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Do you have to have that infernal man on the programme? OK, it's news, I suppose you do.

    *sigh*.

13. At 04:29 PM on 17 Jul 2007, wrote:

    What am I doing wrong. My posts rarely appear. Can anyone tell me?

    If this post appears, then someone is messing with my head - please stop it!

14. At 04:33 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Piper wrote:

    Witchiwoman @ 8

    Apologies if I caused inconvenience.

    But, why I wonder was it innapropriate to snigger when you did..?

15. At 05:07 PM on 17 Jul 2007, gordon myers wrote:

    ±«Óãtvr Simpson on PM would be truly inspired especially as I think he looks much better than the chalk giant with the big willie.

    Why not just interview the man himself. I'm sure he'll have opinions on just about everything or, if not, he could give us the inside edge on how Marge's hair stays up and how Lisa plays the sax wih such little fingers.

    What do you mean he's a cartoon ?

16. At 05:10 PM on 17 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Blinking heck, I pop back and what do I find? I agree with Simon... When this happens I find we reach the same conclusion for different reasons but I still abhor the concept of presumed consent.

    I think it is bias of a medic to assume that everyone wants to save lives as much as they do. That might sound callous but people do have a right to choose and not just be opted in because they forgot to choose. I can think of all sorts of things which would be ethically wrong on that basis. Doctors should be grateful for the donations people do make and philosophical about those who decline to do so. Advances in medical technology do not mean we can have everything, including our life, and nobody has the right to someone else's organ, even after death.

    On a slightly different note, colleagues at one work place were horrified when I wouldn't sign up to have my bone marrow tested to see if it matched a local child's for donation. I am not sure that some people were aware of the risk or pain they would be submitting themselves to and, whilst I can feel compassion for the child’s parents, I and am tired of personal tragedies being elevated into the societal tragedies they are not.

17. At 05:18 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Simon W(11) My attitude is the complete opposite of yours.....the NHS is welcome to make any use it can out of any of my bits. I would rather some good came of them, rather than they just rotted or burned away.
    As long as good folk like yourself fully understand that they can opt out, and that the process is easy to undertake, I fully support presumed consent. My body is my temple - kind of! -but only until I die.

18. At 06:29 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Oooo-ooooo, Helen Sparkles!

    Where have you BEEN! Glad to see that you're still around.

    Gillian;
    I can understand that some people have a vested interest (I hope NOT to become one of them). I can understand that some people, like yourself, want to volunteer for this process (Are you a card carrier?).

    But for me the thought of either giving or receiving is, oh I haven't got a word to describe it, simply awful. And to be presumed that I consent is a shocking thought. The notion that there will, certainly, be mistakes along the way adds an extra level to my desire to have nothing to do with it.

    People on another thread are already suggesting that if you opt out then you cannot receive. One commentator pointed out that it's fortunate that such a system doesn't operate on blood donation.

    Virtually every point I made above was brought out in the debate on PM.

    Si.

19. At 07:33 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Simon (18) I have no vested interest, have never had to put my opinions to the test (thank goodness!) and yes, I have carried a card for most of my life. I try to be non-judgmental, and would certainly not support penalising anyone who didn't wish to donate.

20. At 08:54 PM on 17 Jul 2007, mittfh wrote:

    I believe organ donation should remain voluntary, but it would be helpful to have more readily available information and cards about it. How many people realise that many types of demise make the organ owner unsuitable for donation, regardless of whether they carry a card or not? Added onto which, as Simon pointed out, your organs have got to be in prime condition as well, which really limits potential donors to those who die significantly earlier than nature originally intended, and for many organs, happen to be in hospital on artificial life support at the time of death.

    Personally, I'd probably carry a card - if I could find one...

21. At 09:44 PM on 17 Jul 2007, Rachel wrote:

    Simon,

    Interested to hear your views, as ever. I declared my interest because I thought it was honest to do so, but in fact i held the same view even before my niece was born so it is fairly immaterial. I am an implacable rationalist and so do not agree with your stance that their is something sacred or sanctified about dead bodies. Equally, I will criticise religion where it causes, rather than resolves, human suffering.

    Under the proposed scheme, you would have a chance to opt out. That is fine and I don't think you are immoral to do so. But I do think you should have to make the effort to register your objection. Under current arrangements your next of kin have to presume your consent or non-consent (and without the benefit of reading your will since you aren't dead yet). Changing the law would provoke many more people to give the idea some proper thought and leave less to the emotions whirling around the A&E department at the point of death.

    Your argument has merit where you suggest there might be a temptation on the part of doctors to work harder to save some of us rather than others. Regulation and professional standards will have to help us here.

    R

22. At 10:45 PM on 17 Jul 2007, wrote:

    All,

    They can have any of my bits if they need or want them so long as they let my folk put the rest in the earth (not too deep - within reach of the worms).

    BUT, I agree that they should never PRESUME consent, nor make laws with that effect. That is presumption indeed.

    I also agree with mittfh that it should be easier and more explicitly encouraged to register one's consent.

    xx
    ed

23. At 11:58 PM on 17 Jul 2007, wrote:

    What a lovely welcome Simon, thank you.

    I don't agree at all with anyone who thinks those who are unwilling to donate shouldn't receive. On that basis smokers should not only receive the treatment that they have funded with their taxes, but others should be denied it because they haven’t smoked enough to qualify? This is all hypothetical, and should I be in bad enough shape to need any transplant, I think I’ll pass.

    My relatives might feel differently about that, but this is also all a bit grim, and we should have more respect for the human misery of the recently bereaved because we really are talking about young healthy people who die unexpectedly.

    The CMO should have more respect for the loss of that life and the person’s wishes. Doctors think they are God already, they will be deciding who they can save and who they can harvest, and I just don’t trust them or their motivation.

24. At 12:12 AM on 18 Jul 2007, wrote:

    What a lovely welcome Simon, thank you.

    I don't agree at all with anyone who thinks those who are unwilling to donate shouldn't receive. On that basis smokers should not only receive the treatment that they have funded with their taxes, but others should be denied it because they haven’t smoked enough to qualify? This is all hypothetical, and should I be in bad enough shape to need any transplant, I think I’ll pass.

    My relatives might feel differently about that, but this is also all a bit grim, and we should have more respect for the human misery of the recently bereaved because we really are talking about young healthy people who die unexpectedly.

    The CMO should have more respect for the loss of that life and the person’s wishes. Doctors think they are God already, they will be deciding who they can save and who they can harvest, and I just don’t trust them or their motivation.

25. At 12:32 AM on 18 Jul 2007, wrote:

    What a lovely welcome Simon, thank you.

    I don't agree at all with anyone who thinks those who are unwilling to donate shouldn't receive. On that basis smokers should not only receive the treatment that they have funded with their taxes, but others should be denied it because they haven’t smoked enough to qualify? This is all hypothetical, and should I be in bad enough shape to need any transplant, I think I’ll pass.

    My relatives might feel differently about that, but this is also all a bit grim, and we should have more respect for the human misery of the recently bereaved because we really are talking about young healthy people who die unexpectedly.

    The CMO should have more respect for the loss of that life and the person’s wishes. Doctors think they are God already, they will be deciding who they can save and who they can harvest, and I just don’t trust them or their motivation.

26. At 12:58 AM on 18 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Welcome back Sparky! Good to see you!
    xx
    ed

27. At 10:04 AM on 18 Jul 2007, Gillian wrote:

    mittfh(20) and Ed I (22) You don't need a card, and registering is very easy - follow Andy Williamson's link at yesterday's Glass Box, comment 37.
    Andy is about to receive a kidney from a living donor - his wonderful friend.