Episode 3 Sunday Morning Live

A new out to the throne is expected any day now, a festival at

Buckingham Palace this weekend is the latest event to mark the

Queen's Diamond Jubilee, 60 years since her coronation. But as a

purely Christian coronation out of touch with modern Britain? Good

morning. I'm Samira Ahmed. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Also today:

A pioneering new test for Down syndrome in the womb is being

trialled this month, but will it lead to more abortions on the ground

of disability? And the NHS is considering whether

people on the organ donor register should be given priority if they

need a transplant. Is too much pressure being put on people to

become donors? We talk to a relative who faced a stark choice. They told

me that unfortunately, she had died. At the same time, they asked

me, would I consider donating her organ? My guests this week are

Jonathan Bartley, co-founder of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia,

author and columnist Kishwar Desai, whose novels have explored issues

like violence against women and gender selection of babies in India,

and Adrian Hilton, a researcher in social sciences at Oxford University

and well-known as a logger on all things religious. We want to know

what you think as well. If you have a webcam, you can join via Skype.

You can also join us through Twitter to give birth to her first child any

day now. Whether the child is a boy or girl, it will be third in line to

the. The news will be announced by a notice posted outside Buckingham

Palace, an old tradition. Inside the grounds of the palace, they have

been celebrating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Her coronation 60 years ago

was deeply rooted in tradition, too, a ceremony vested with the trappings

of the church of England, of which she has -- she is the supreme head

and has the title of defender of the faith. This child has talked about

becoming defender of faith rather than the faith -- wins child has

talked about becoming defender of faith rather than the faith when he

ascends the throne. But nearly a third of the publishing of England

and Wales do not consider themselves as Christian according to the latest

census. Jonathan Bartley thinks it should change. This is his Sunday

stand, from Westminster Abbey. If you have ever wondered why

progress towards religious equality has been so slow, you don't have to

look much further than the Christian coronation. Therefore all CRD

arrangements at the heart of the problem. This is not just a harmless

hangover from a bygone era will stop the coronation remains at the heart

of a cosy relationship, a deal which ensures that the church retains

control of its unjust privileges while not being too strident in its

criticisms of the establishment. The monarch and Mrs to uphold all the

privileges that the church of England enjoys. A Christian

coronation is in fact a contradiction in terms. Jesus did

not tell his followers to assume inequality and run empires, quite

the opposite. The only reason we have a Christian coronation is

because the church wanted power and privilege, and kings and queens want

a divine authority to rule. All faiths and even the nonreligious

should be part of the coronation ceremony. If they are not inclusive,

what is the point in having them at all? The time has come to move on.

Let's have an inclusive ceremony and take a step down the road towards

equality. If we are to have a monarch, let's have an inclusive

coronation. If we can't do that, let's scrap the whole thing.

The views of Jonathan Bartley. Time to make it multi-faith, or scrap the

whole thing, Kishwar? I would say it is tokenism anyway. Even if you

assume that Prince Charles would want a multi-faith coronation, which

faith is he going to choose? There are hundreds of them. So I don't buy

into this. That is the question for art text vote today. Should future

coronation is the multi-faith ceremonies? You can only vote once.

Adrian, what do you think? I don't think Jonathan has thought this

through. You move towards a multi-faith coronation, which

instantly excludes the atheists and secular humanist is. From whom we

shall be here shortly. There is too much theology here that is a

thousand years old. In liturgy, it is 3000 years old. But the ceremony

itself is all a bit of a construction going back to Henry

VIII. Not entirely, it goes back to 973 and the crowning of King Edgar.

The theology of this service was created by St Dunston will stop and

it has been adapted over the years to incorporate different political

or religious aspects of culture. But if you move now to multi-faith, what

happens to the part where the monarch wants to uphold the laws of

God? Which God are we talking about? Are we talking about sharia?

idea that the Queen now upholds the laws, every law passed by the

government is the law of God, is a complete nonsense. We should open it

up to those of no religion as well. It should be an inclusive ceremony

for everyone. Secondly, we should get rid of the stuff where the Queen

makes this political statement in the middle of the coronation and

says I will uphold all the privileges of the church of England

will stop that includes the 26 bishops in the House of Lords and

the right of faith schools to discriminate over admissions. It

entrenches unjust privileges for one dominant -- one denomination within

Christianity. But it is a very real thing, because this happens to be a

Christian country. What do you mean by a Christian country? It is a

predominantly Christian country. And then there are the other religions

and the atheists. The point is that when Prince Charles said this was

what he wanted, immediately, bang! - came the action -- came the reaction

from the Archbishop and others, who said, you can't do this. He was told

he could have his multi-faith ceremony later. So in any case, no

one will accept this. That is why it is tokenism. It is just a question

of having another little ceremony to please the rest of the Hindus all

Muslims, but it doesn't mean anything. In any case, the whole

thing of having a king and queen and so on is pretty much a redundant

phenomenon. It is a ceremonial status. These things just add to the

political correctness of this period and are meaningless. It would be

much better if they were to go out there and say they were working with

the community to help So you so you are therefore endorsing... I am

saying that this is the reality, so wake up. We have just heard an

ulterior motive. The ulterior motive is the abolition of the monarchy.

You think it is an anachronistic, and you would rather see the church

out of power altogether? I would rather see a level playing field.

Let me look at this idea of whether a multi-faith ceremony would be

tokenistic, or whether it could have meaning. Let's go to a viewer from

the UK Punjab Heritage Association. You have been to a multi-faith event

attended by the Queen. What is your idea on whether they have real

value? The event I attended last year was the first official diamond

jubilee event. Any event that recognises and celebrates diversity

is positive. But I don't back the monarchy to deviate from

Christianity, because they are so historically synonymous. But we do

believe in a multicultural society, and that must be embraced. How

meaningless and event is depends on how it is publicised and

represented. It is about communities and them being recognised.

Communities take great pride in their way of life and their history

being shared. Seeks take great pride in their contribution to World War I

and World War II being recognised. It is about community is being

recognised in national events. Adrian, she talks about history. It

is bigger than just religion, isn't it? That is very important, and I

would agree with everything she said. We forget that King Edward

VII, King George V and King George VI were also emperors of India. They

were monarchs over millions of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, but none

of those were agitating. They were not treating them very well! That is

a different matter. I am simply making the point that the Church of

England provides a sacred canopy under which people of all faiths and

none are free to believe as they wish. Let's look at this issue about

Prince Charles expressing his interest in being a defender of race

and the idea of whether you can represent all faiths. Let me bring

in a representative from the Muslim Council of Britain. What do you

think of the idea of Prince Charles representing all faiths? Could he do

that? Yes, of course. I am excited by this idea. Britain has

traditionally been a Christian country. Our monarchs have in

Christian, and it is right that every ceremony has to have a

significant content of Christian cultures. At the same time, the

monarchy has been very inclusive. They are recognising their diversity

of faiths and cultures in our country. I attended the Commonwealth

Day ceremony, which is very colourful and includes trailers from

all traditions and is a significant part of our society. It includes

secular and nonreligious people as well. As a Muslim, I feel included.

I don't feel disadvantaged, and I support the continuation of the

established church, with the monarch as head of the church and state.

That is modern Britain today. bring in one other contributor. We

need to hear the voice of the atheists. Andrew Copson is from the

British humanist Association. Many people, including those of different

religions, say look, it is a Christian ceremony, but there is

enough intrusion, and it is really about pageantry and history will

stop I think the coronation of a new head of state is an important moment

and it should unite all the people in the country of which that person

will be head of state. And I think for most people in Britain today,

even if they have a cultural Christian affiliation, which is

decreasing anyway, but even if they have that, for most people a

Christian ceremony is meaningless. It doesn't add any extra status or

significance to the installation of a head of date. It would be better

if we had a ceremony that emphasised what we shared in our civic nature

as citizens of this country, as they do in the United States of America

when they're in no great a president, or in France, or as they

did recently in the Netherlands when they brought in their new king.

interesting comparisons. The idea that the ceremony is meaningless

because most people are not religious. And there are so many

models in America and France. America you have had until the most

recent inauguration, the Reverend Lee Graham providing there, swearing

an oath on the Bible. They have their own Christian liturgy in the

United states of America. difference is he is talking about

Prime Minister 's, presidents who are democratically elected. It is a

different way of celebrating them. That can be multi-faith, whatever

you like. But this is a different tradition. To respond to that, if

you look at places like America, Christianity is at the heart of a

lot of these ceremonies. There have often been swearing on the Bible at

residential elections but that does not mean to say that it is somehow a

church service. The correlation is emphasising the late between the

monarch and God, between God and the government and that is something

that increasingly alienate the majority of people. Just to let

Jonathan respond. Non-Christians are saying, leave it as it is. We have

got Charles coming up on the horizon. Do we want a hypocrite as a

monarch with Mac someone who does not want that uniqueness to the

coronation ceremony, he has made it clear he wanted to be something

wider. We are actually talking about one denomination. When I do jury

service I do not swear on the Bible even though I am a Christian. I take

the word of Jesus seriously. That coronation ceremony is one narrow

part of Christianity and does not have the breadth of Christianity.

Just cause we have a historical dominance of the Church of England

it does not mean that we should carry that on in perpetuity. It does

have implications for people with Mac lives. I just want to let

Jonathan have the last word. Some viewers saying, this is a ridiculous

idea, Britain is a Christian country. Our identity has already

been diluted. Another saying, the idea of a monarchy and religious

head of state seems odd in a secular democratic society.

The poll is open on this. The question, should coronation speed

multi-faith ceremonies. You can only vote once. Texts will be charged at

your standard message rate. You have around 20 minutes before the poll

closes. In the next two weeks trials will

start at two hospitals in the South East of England of a new road test

for pregnant women to check for the presence of Down's syndrome. The

whole area of such tests leads to possible termination and is a

controversial issue. Next Wednesday an all-party group of MPs will

reveal the findings of their enquiry into whether too many abortions are

being carried out on disability grounds. The current law allows

abortion without time limit in cases where a child would be classed as

severely handicapped. More about this new blood test that could

provide more accurate diagnosis. This is the Professor of evil

medicine at Kings College, London. He is leading the trial of the new

blood test. You can see the heart beating. Unlike the current

screening method this test is as DNA to return more accurate results. It

ensures that fewer women have to undergo an invasive amniocentesis

test which can place them at risk of miscarriage. First of all instead of

picking out about 90% of the babies with down syndrome, it is likely

that it would pick up more than 99%. And secondly, instead of carrying

out an invasive test in around 5% of women, you only need to do it in

less than half a percent of women. Currently the new screening

procedure is available in private hospitals and costs around �400. If

that deal is reduced and the study proves a success, it could be made

available across the NHS. important thing is that space behind

the neck. In Down's syndrome the amount of water behind the neck is

eager. The professor feels the test will provide women with the

information that they need to make an informed choice about their

pregnancy. We will explain our findings, explaining the

implications of those findings in terms of the quality of life they

could expect. And whether a child with a given problem would survive

or not. And then the parents decide. He recognises there is an

ethical debate around this area of medicine. The ethical position of

whether by improving the methods of detecting babies with Down's

syndrome, we are taking a position that Down's syndrome is a really bad

thing and therefore there must be better methods of identifying it in

order to destroy them, that is an argument that I respect. The

alternative argument is that if society through the house of

parliament has legalised termination and the government has accepted the

principle of screening for Down's syndrome and therefore our role, if

those things are accepted, termination and universal screening

for Down's syndrome, is to improve the method of screening.

As with other medical advances the new test to create ethical issues.

Disability groups say children born even with severe conditions can have

a fulfilling life. What do you think? Should parents have the right

to choose whether a disabled child should be borne? You can join in the

debate by webcam, or by phone, text or e-mail. So many children can live

better lives. People do wonder if disability should be grounds for

abortion any more. I think there should be no discrimination anyway

on any level between what is called normal and people who are disabled.

So definitely this is a sensitive issue. But I think families have to

make the decision on this if they are told in advance if a child is

likely to be disabled. The right should be given to families because

we have had personal experience of this, we had somebody who was

physically challenged and mentally challenged in our family and I did

see it was difficult for everybody. The parents went through a lot of

difficult moments. And had they been told what they were in for they

could have made a more informed choice. I'm not saying that the

child did not give us a lot of pleasure. It is not cut and dried.

But information should be out there. Jonathan, what is your experience?

We have experienced it personally and it is one of the hardest

decisions, whatever you think, when you are faced with it. We went into

hospital for a routine scan and it became apparent that all was not as

we expected. We were sat down with medical vessels and they explained

to us that our child was going to be born with spina bifida. We asked

what the medical solution was and they said, you can have an abortion.

We felt very much pushed in that direction. What worries me, I do not

stand in judgement on any parents because I have been there and it is

a terrible decision to make. But at the same time the signals coming

from government and in that video just now, the sense is that it is a

problem to be disposed of and this is the solution. So the solution is

to get rid of the problem and that child. It is a strong undercurrent.

And we see that after birth as well and increasingly coming into public

policy. That if you are a parent and have gone ahead with a pregnancy,

people start to question whether you were irresponsible. You have to come

down hard on that straightaway. People will be watching thinking,

everyone's experience is different. Who is to say that the parents

should be forced to go through with a pregnancy where they feel for them

it is not the right decision. quickly forget Ellie Simmonds, David

Wear, Johnny Peacock. These are disabled people who have excelled

and brought the nation immense inspiration last year. I wonder how

disabled people watching this programme think in terms of, this is

a society moving towards abortion eugenics. They want us to be

cleansed out of society because we are somehow not quite fully human

enough to enjoy the qualify -- -- the quality of life that the

able-bodied enjoy. I want to bring in a contributor on webcam. Just to

get a different experience. Julie Langdon, you had to make a decision

when you were pregnant. Can you tell us about that? I became pregnant

when I was 36. It was accidental. I did not quite know what was going to

happen, if I was going to be on my own. I thought I would find it

difficult to have a disabled child on my own. And that it was not the

right course for me to take. So I had an amniocentesis. I was refused

a test because I was not old enough, I was told I was more likely

to miscarry from the test. I asked to see my consultant, he agreed with

me that they were not comparing like with like because if I had a

disabled child I would have it for the rest of my life and how would

that child look after itself after a high had gone? But if I miscarried

from the test, I could have another baby, I hoped. So the consultant

said, you can have the test. I did that and my partner was with me. At

20 weeks I learnt that I was carrying a Down's syndrome baby. At

that point I realised that by choosing to have the test I in fact

had already made the choice. Many disabled people live perfectly happy

and normal lives. And medical progress is helping people. I have

close friends whose children have enhanced their lives. But it is a

matter of personal choice and I realised I had made my choice.

can acknowledge that Down's syndrome babies bring enormous blessings to

babies. But there is this but that somehow damns millions of Down's

syndrome babies. This has been very judgemental. Do you feel that there

is this judgement placed on women who choose to have terminations?

That there is a political lobby around, you must have a child and

must never have a termination on the grounds of disability? If you take

my circumstances, which are mirrored by hundreds of thousands of other

people. I could have had an abortion because I got pregnant by accident

without knowing whether the baby was disabled or not. I took the decision

that I did not want to bring a disabled child into the world and I

am enormously relieved that I do not have a 30-year-old disabled daughter

now. My husband has died, I would be looking after this child. In my old

age. Thank you so much for speaking to us. Another contributor Haley, is

a parent who has a six-year-old daughter who has Down's syndrome.

People are concerned at the idea of having a child with a disability

whose severity may be unknown. You must be aware of that. If the answer

really just have good screening and let people make that decision?

Looking at the question of more conclusive screening, who is it

better for? Let us get this straight. Down's syndrome is not a

serious disability by any stretch of the imagination. Individuals with

down syndrome do not suffer in any way from the condition. Individuals

lead full lives and also contribute to society in an enormous way. Yet

30 million pounds was spent last year on screening, on the

termination process. 92% of all babies diagnosed with Down's

syndrome. Does it feel like a judgement on you when others choose

to have a termination? Currently, you can terminate up to and during

birth. We need to have some equality here so that all pregnancies are

treated in the same way. What upsets me as a disability campaigner is

that prospective parents are unquestioningly led down the path

towards a screening without explanation of what it means or what

you are screening for. They think they are going for peace of mind.

But actually, the doctors that we trust our catching Down syndrome in

language that makes it seem terrifying, as a syndrome that must

be screened out. That is something Jonathan was saying as well. When

you so much. -- thank you so much. Many people will be watching and

thinking, there is a huge range of experience of disability. There is a

political lobby now the other way to say that you must have your child,

whatever the condition. Are you conscious of that? I am only

conscious of the pressure in the other direction. It is remarkable

that we spend all this money on trying to screen out children with

Down syndrome, when we should be spending that money on making

society inclusive. The problem is not the children. The problem is

society and society's attitudes. There will be disabled people

watching this who think, this makes me out to be a second-class citizen,

a problem, a burden on society. We need to completely reframe this

debate. Disability is not the problem. Disabled people are not

just judged on whether they are Paralympian 's, they are people in

their own right. Let me bring in a contributor, Jane Fisher. You work

in a field which gives parents advice after they have had these

difficult tests and results. What do you make of the charge that the

medical profession pressures parents into feeling they should terminate

if they have a diagnosis like this? We take the opposite view. Many

parents call us on our helpline in emotional turmoil after they are

given the diagnosis, feeling that they are not being given any

direction and feeling that the decision is almost impossible. I

suppose they are reeling in grief that they are not expected the baby

they thought they were going to have and I are trying to adjust to

different reality, trying to work out what the diagnosis means for

them and their family. Our job is to help them do that and give them

safe, independent, non-space to do that. But the fact is that after

consideration, many parents find it is not something they want for their

child or their family. Kishwar? I agree. It is important that we are

not judgemental about this. It is important that families decide. We

do see examples of families broken up after they have decided to have a

child, but they feel they cannot cope sometimes. We need to look into

the feelings of the families. Are they emotionally, physically,

financially able to cope? If not, they must be given a fair chance

without us making them feel guilty. Which is itself you being

judgemental. Not at all.There is something immensely important here,

which nobody has defined. Society and parliament have not defined what

we mean by severe disability. You will know that in parts of the

world, to be female is to be severely disabled. In huge parts of

India and China, if the baby is female, it is deemed to be a

disability and it is aborted. look at it in another way. What you

said was important, the fact that we need to have a better understanding

and a better social structure around us, where parents can turn to people

who can give them the moral support they require. That is lacking, which

is why a lot of parents feel unable to deal with it. A lack of adequate

support is not a reason to abort. We are better than we were decades ago,

but there will always be more to do. We should not put the resources

into screening out, we should put them into a -- improving the

situation. Let me read a couple of comments. Lynn from Essex says, I

had an abortion after 15 weeks after finding out my child could not have

had -- my child had Down syndrome. If I had had the child, it would

have put a strain on the whole family. It is not easy to bring up

pages able to child. Thank you for all your comments.

Letter on Sunday Morning Live, there needs to be a revolution in public

attitudes to create more organ donors, according to a new NHS

strategy document. But are we put under too much pressure to donate

our organs? Remember to keep voting in our text poll as well. Should

future coronations be multi-faith about five minutes before the poll

closes. Time to look at another story that

has been making the news this week. I wanted to look at the Pakistani

schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, who made a speech at the United Nations

at a youth event. It was a remarkable speech, but it raises

lots of questions. Adrian, what were your thoughts? She is right that the

key to challenging the what hubby Islamist agenda is through

education. It is with books and pens, especially of women throughout

the world. The more you educate them, the more enlightened they are

and the more likely they are to be -- the less likely they are to be

duped into thinking that blowing yourself up takes you straight to

paradise. But much as I admire what she is and what she is doing, the

Nobel Peace Prize is absurd. She is one of thousands of girls in August

and who are -- girls in Pakistan who are trying to be properly educated.

She was randomly shot. Any of those girls could have been shot. Let me

make a correction here. She did have a website. She was blogging for a

long time and she knew this was dangerous. She had already received

a number of death threats, so she knew where she was going, and she is

a very brave girl. I have just come back from Karachi, and it is a very

difficult situation for young girls who want to pursue what they want to

do. You wonder whether her case, which draws attention to it, will

make the situation on the ground in Pakistan better or worse. People

might regard her as being appropriated by the West. No. People

are listening carefully to what is happening. In fact, I think if

something like the Nobel Peace Prize is given to her, it will be a

wonderful thing. The way they are picking out women is astonishing.

The Taliban have a policy of burning down schools and trying to insure

that women don't go to school. Jonathan, she now has a

multi-million book deal. She is an amazing public speaker. She will

never go back and live in Pakistan. We have made dubious decisions over

peace prizes being given to people who have gone to war. Well-known

statesmen all over the world. We have just had a review of what is

going on in Afghanistan, the tactics that have unused. A general said

three weeks ago that maybe we should have negotiated in 2002, when we had

an opportunity. The direction we need to be travelling in is to go

back to education and peaceful initiatives, which provide better

long-term consequences, rather than giving peace prizes to people

leading invasions. We have two lead it -- leave it there.

You have been voting in our text poll this morning. The poll is

closing now, so please don't text, as your vote will not count and you

may still be charged. We will bring you the result at the end of the

show. Now, proposals from the NHS this

week suggest that it might be time to follow the lead of countries like

Israel and Singapore and allow people already on the donor register

to be given priority if they need transplant surgery. The NHS blood

bank is also considering ways of preventing families from overriding

the wishes of deceased donors who wanted to give organs. The Welsh

assembly has agreed to introduce the system in 2015 whereby unless a

person has opted out of the donation scheme, consent to remove organs

will be presumed to have been given. We met one man who

experienced a tragedy and faced a difficult dilemma.

Lloyd Dolton Brown, from St old bones in Hertfordshire, had to make

a dish and we all hope -- he had to make a decision we all hope never to

face after his sister Jane was rushed to hospital following a

traffic accident. I went back and forth from the hospital over a day

or so, and finally they told me that unfortunately, she had died. At the

same time, they asked me, would I consider donating her organs?

Naturally, it was a decision which required a lot of thought. To my

knowledge, she didn't carry a donor card. So making the decision to

donate Jane's organs was a difficult and soul-searching decision. When I

spoke to her friends after deciding to donate her organs, all her

friends, each and every one, said that was exactly what Jane wanted.

She was 29 when she was knocked over, and I thought, what a waste.

Is there anything we could do to make her going less wasteful?

organs that Lloyd donated on behalf of his sister helped to save five

lives. 13 years after the death of his sister, Lloyd still receives

updates on how the recipients are getting on. One of the kidneys went

to a mother who had two children aged, I think, free and four --

three and four. And I got a letter relatively soon after the transplant

had been made, and one a few years later, saying how great the

condition of the mother was and how she was able to bring up her family,

which would not have otherwise happened. Lloyd now campaigns for

people to join the organ donor register. I think lots of people

have real concerns about organ donation. The way I look at it, it

carries on the person's life. They don't -nothing, and you can remember

them -- they don't die for nothing, and you can remember them in another

way with other benefits that they have given, the true gift of life,

to someone else. A situation all of us hope we will

never encounter. But three people a day are dying waiting for

transplants, so shouldn't the health authorities do all they can to get

more organ donations? Or is there a danger of putting too much treasure

on over an emotive issue? What do you think? Let me get the views of

our guests. I have met Lloyd and he does all this campaigning, but not

enough people want to make that decision. You can see why there is a

logic to say, what is wrong with giving priority to you as a

transplant if you are willing to donate? Because you are saying that

some are more equal than others. Where does that slippery slope stop?

Do we stop giving organs to those who drink or smoke 's maybe you just

do it with donors. But that is making it conditional. What happens

to Jehovah's Witnesses? There are issues here of religious conscience

and individual choice. What Wales is doing is the ultimate

nationalisation, quite a Borat, saying that when you die, your body

belongs to the state. That is not our tradition. It should be down to

the individual or the family. agree with that. It is to do with

the family. The family should be allowed to decide. In the Hindu

religion, the body is a very important thing after they have

died, because their ceremonies to be conducted around it. So it would be

difficult for families around religious reasons. In Israel, they

did research where a surgeon talked to patients who were religious and

they said, we would never give, but they were all waiting for

transplants full up --. It is down to the families. But what is wrong

with the idea that if you are willing to give, we will give back?

I agree about not giving priority, they could smoke perhaps 40

cigarettes a day. You could not make that moral distinction between a

heavy drinker and someone who signed up? You could have somebody abusing

their body but get priority because they are an organ donor which is

crazy. I think we we should presume. You do not think it turns from a

given intimate take? It is actually about the kind of society we want to

live in. We are not just isolated individual units with no

responsibility to each other but recognising we do have a a

responsibility to help people. What the Welsh assembly is doing, if you

die... People do not want to make these decisions. And with this if

you felt strongly you could opt out. I do not agree with Jonathan on

the premise that we are a community. We are individuals in a community.

And those individuals make decisions or not for the community. The notion

that the community can presume rights of individuals is going too

far. Just to bring in Simon Cooper on the webcam, you have had a liver

and lung transplant. Do you think it is right for people to have a

transplant if they are not willing to be on the donor register? No, I

think if you want to take you should give. That would be the right way.

In your experience you received organs because someone else had a

family tragedy. Do you know anything about the story behind your

treatment? Sorry, I did not hear the question. Do you know anything about

the family which allowed you to have your transplant operations? We do

not know much, they do not tell you much about the family. But I would

like to thank the families and the donors for giving their organs.

do you say when people are concerned that there is too much pressure on

people to become donors? I think it should be an opt out rather than an

opt in. If you were so much against donating you would go out of your

way to take yourself off. Whereas you do not really think about

signing up to it. Just to add something about opting out.

Supposing there is an individual who agreed but the family later on

resist and the NHS is now saying that they could override that. I

just want to bring back the point that it is a process, M birth, death

is also something people are consumed by. They have grief, they

have other issues and at that stage for them to get into a discussion

saying they want to retain the organs or donate them, it is

unseemly. I think in these cases when the individual does decide to

donate, if the family resists them in those cases they must uphold the

wishes of the family. The reason there is such a low number of organ

donations is actually because of the many cases in which the family

overrides the wishes of the individual. I understand it is

around 14% when that happens, the family overrides the dying wishes of

the individual. I think if the individual has made that decision

than the family should not override that. Effectively it is a will and

to challenge the will, there are processes to go through. It is

occasionally done in extremists but this decision to donate is made of

the individual. Families are in turmoil and grief, of course. They

are human beings, you know. You have to appreciate that. Just to bring in

an intensive care doctor, you often have to deal with these situations.

How would you feel about ignoring families who decide they want to

override what their loved one said about donation? As someone who works

with these families I'm always sympathetic to how they feel. My

family -- -- my patient is unconscious, it is the family I deal

with. But if the family at overruling the decision, that is a

lot, 14%. People would be surprised that there are strong held wish to

be overturned. I need to know as a doctor when you join the register,

how binding that is. We need the public today to tell us, how binding

should that be on me as a doctor going to your family when you join

the register? What about the concerns that some families could

have, the feeling is that these difficult decisions are having to be

made when a relative is still technically alive? When you become

an organ donor, you are always deceased first.

Bit because sometimes you have to plan for the potential for organ

donation, that has to begin while the patient is still alive in

intensive care. Then you approach the family and get their consent.

But it is an emotional time so I have sympathy for the families. But

the key issue is talking to your family to let them know your wishes.

Many times the family will overrule because they never knew you were

registered. So that leaves them in turmoil, did they really mean it?

need guidance from the public about how to treat families with respect

and dignity. If the law were to be changed and the family said we still

do not want to make the donation in matter whether you have presumed

consent, would you then ignored the law if the family said they did not

like that decision? I think in this country thankfully we will always

respect families. We care for everyone, the patient and their

family. But we have to ask this question. 13% overruling, what is

the implication for that? The effect is that someone's wished to donate

is denied and up to five people will miss out on a life-saving transplant

and die. So we cannot just ignore this issue. I'm interested in how

far, a lot of it is about being squeamish and the fact that people

do not want to think about death. Even if you have an educational

programme they will not necessarily make that decision. That is because

we live in a culture where death is not often discussed. It is like

discussions about sex in the Victorian era was. We should have

ethical discussions and debates in schools and universities. But in the

short term that is not going to help doctors who have patients who need

transplants and too often the families are saying no. Compulsion

is not going to help him either. It will cause too much unrest and

distrust. What you think about the fact that there is this debate?

you just waiting for a result and to go with the mood of that? We're

seeing some advances in Wales with their usual. The rest of the UK will

be watching carefully to see what that does. Both Ford the number of

donors and the ethical and legal issues that will stem from that. To

be the first ever UK to begin the debate and help me make these bins

do you come across a situation where someone is not on the wish for the

organs to be donated? Two thirds of the occasions, is not actually on

the register so to the family. And in that case it is 50-50. But if you

go to other countries in the world, Spain, the Rand, it is much higher.

Family refused it 50 years in spite of the organ donor register, in

spite of all though. Understand. Are one. Another saying, if I die I do

not wait given to other donors. Another saying, what is the point of

being a donor is a member of your The monarchy will become irrelevant

over the years and we will see change take place. So I don't agree

with you that it is at the heart of everything. As I said at the

beginning, I feel it is tokenism and it does not matter. We will have to

have this debate in a few years' time. Thanks to everyone who has

taken part in this programme and to all my guests in the studio and to

all our remarkable contributors via webcam today. Thank you as well.

Don't text or call the phone lines any more, they are closed. But you