Episode 7 The Big Questions

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to The Big Questions, from the Perse

School. I am Nicky Campbell. Christianity, or the lack of it,

has hit the headlines nearly every day this week. At the Vatican,

Baroness Bhatti attacked militant secularism. -- Baroness Warsi. On

the radio, Richard Dawkins appealed to God. The first big question, is

Britain a Christian country? Professor Dawkins says we

overestimate the number of Christians in the country and give

it too much significance in public life. There is still a huge gap

between the number of people who need a life-saving transplant and

the number organ donations each year. Three people a day die on the

waiting list. The British Medical Association is asking for a debate

about previously contentious and even illegal methods of increasing

the supply of organs. Our second big question, should it be easier

to harvest organs for transplant? Sue Burton's sun's organs saved or

improved the lives of at least six people. But she thinks the new

proposals are concerning. Welcome, Good morning. Well, back in 2001

when the next -- last census was taken, 71% declared ourselves to be

Christians. Yet we know that churches are pretty empty on Sunday

mornings. A new survey published this week by the Richard Dawkins

Foundation found that the majority who call themselves Christian do

not actually practise the faith in any meaningful sense. Is Britain a

Christian country? Richard, your foundation, it was an Ipsos MORI

poll and it polled people that put Christian on the census. What was

interesting is, to a greater or lesser extent, whether it be

evangelical, all the way through to a vague belief, 78% said that they

believed in God. That is quite high, isn't it? The poll that we

commissioned was done by Ipsos MORI. As you know, that is a very

respectable organisation. It should be attributed to them, rather than

to us. The first thing that it showed was that the number of

people who call themselves Christian has dropped from 72%, I

think it was, in 2001, down to 54%. The margin of error might be plus

or minus 2%. That is already a dramatic drop in the number of

people that call themselves Christian. What was more

interesting, in a way, was that when we look further at what those

54%, after wiping out all the people that do not call themselves

Christian, we call these the censors Christians, when you look

at them, even they are not, in many cases, really Christian in the

sense that most of the Christians here would recognise, I suspect. Of

course, they are absolutely free to call themselves Christian if they

like. Totally free country, you can label yourself anything you like.

What worries us is that if you label yourself Christian, the

numerical strength that you add to the Christian figure may then be

used by a much narrower constituency of Christian who it

will then argue, well, the country is such and such percentage

Christian, therefore we need bishops in the House of Lords and

so on. I want to dispel a misunderstanding. We are not

telling Christians, you are not a true Christian, it is up to you if

you are a true Christian. But beware of using the ammunition of a

percentage number of Christians, even though it has now dropped from

72, down to 54, beware of using it as ammunition for pushing through

really strong, narrowly defined Christian values when the number, a

large majority of people who take themselves as Christian, actually

do not support those Christian But if they say they are Christian

in some sense, whether it is a broad church... It in a very broad

church, that is the point. Whether they are evangelical or vague

Christians, isn't that what we have? A gentle Christianity. It is

not a theocracy. That is the precise point that we are trying to

make. If you boldly ask people of the censors, are you Kristin? You

embrace this broad church of people who say, well, I feel I have a good

person, I'd better tick the box. That is insulting to Muslims and

Jews, as a start. How is it effective policy innate detrimental

way? Time and again, politicians, after the last census, had

justified Christian inspired policies like reserved seats for

bishops in the House of Lords. They say, well, the 2001 census shows

that 72% of the country is Christian. We must respect them. Of

course, we must respect their right to call themselves Christian. Why

not ask them if they support bishops in the House of Lords? And

they don't. All the Resurrection, etc. There have been strong words

during this debate. Very strong words. Baroness Warsi, referring to

the militant secularists, saying they are deeply intolerant. Using

words like Stalinist and totalitarian. You called Richard

the Ayatollah of atheism. I'm not sure if you are aware of that. Why

is the slightest challenge, not even a challenge, but a question...

Research, indeed. Seen as militant? At the did you write. I will let

Baroness Warsi fight in the way that she does. -- absolutely right.

What I said in the book was in reaction to eight specific moment.

I have seen Professor Dawkins behave in a way that seems to me to

be very similar to the way that I have seen religious fundamentalists

perform in meetings and in the way they conduct themselves in public.

You know, maybe that was over the top in the book. The point is, I'm

sorry, Professor, I think you are a brilliant scientist but I did you

let yourself down by behaving like a fundamentalist. When was the last

time I threw a bomb? He asked, when was the last time he threw a bomb,

rather than an intellectual bomb? Can we talk about the survey? Your

introduction said that these people did not practise Christianity in a

meaningful way. It is meaningful enough for them to put down on a

form that they were Christian. In the basis of a poll that I think is

1000 people, Professor Dawkins is dismissing as largely irrelevant,

and that is the word he used, the belief system, by his statistics,

of more than half the population. What the poll shows is that we are

still a nation, whether or not we are post-Christian or post

imperialist, whether we off the growing of the kind of Christianity

that dictated us for 500 years and finding a new way forward in a

multi pate world, we are still a country that very firmly and

emphatically has some kind of engagement and fascination with God

and spirituality. Wasn't that exactly what I said? You feel an

engagement with Christianity, so you tick the Christian box.

Absolutely fine. I feel a good person, I will tick the box. When

it went on to say, when you are faced with a moral dilemma, do you

turn to your religion for moral guidance, only 10% said yes. The

whole point is that the people that ticked the box are entirely welcome

to do that. Of course they are, I am not denying them that right. But

don't use those figures to justify much narrower Christian policies

when you come to make government decisions. That is all but we are

saying. I want you to address this tag of militancy. A backlash

towards you, Cole has nothing to do with it, but the Telegraph had done

a who do you think you are, and they found out that one of your

great ancestors was a slave owner. You would be amazed at what has

been going on this week. One after another, this one in the Telegraph

is just the latest, I really feel we are rattling their cages. When a

Telegraph reporter feels the need to retaliate by going back 300

years till an ancestor of mine, I think he was my great, great, great,

great grandfather, who owned slaves in Jamaica, how desperate can you

get? If, instead of listening to the argument, you say, his great,

great, great, great grandfather owned slaves. The best of my

knowledge it is not a smear tactic, it is a story that somebody found

out and printed it in the paper. I'm not involved in that story. To

the best of my knowledge there was no sense of smeared tactical

retaliation. I have to admit, working for the Telegraph, as I

do... Telegraph on trial! We were rather amused by the fact that

Professor Dawkins has often talked about how religion enslaves

humanity. And it was interesting to see that he comes from a family

that used to enslave people. That was what prompted the article,

then? No, I don't think that is what prompted it. It was amusing.

We are all more related to each other in this room than he is to

the ancestor. This is a political debate, as well as religious.

Richard has made that point very powerfully. These figures are being

used in a political wave of the Op is this a Christian country? I'll

make the point of the Slade issue. People speak out in defence of the

Christian country by saying we abolished the slave trade. What of

the agencies of the Church of England was branding slaves and

bishops were supporting the commercial trade. We have a

situation when neither side and the debate is being realistic about the

history, accepting the mistakes of the past, recognising that religion

had a good part to play but also a terrible part. So did secularism.

Is this a Christian country? This country has never been a Christian

country. I don't think it is now. Let's take our definition,

controversially, as the values of Jesus Christ. Are you really

endorsing the values of Jesus Christ? Really. What would it look

like if it did? We might forgive our enemies a little bit more. We

might have a more equal society. We might not encourage a capitalist

system that makes people compete Cristina Odone? I think it is a

Christian country and should stay a Christian country. What do you mean

by that? I mean that everything from the language we use every day

comes from the Bible. The church we walk past on our street is part of

the Christian culture. Charity, all kinds of institutions from

hospitals to orphanages, to schools, they were founded by churches. Our

culture is definitely a Christian culture. That religious, but not

necessarily Christian. Let's take the rich man in his castle, the

poor man at his gate, the Lord God made them, each to his estate. It

was an endorsement of medieval feudalism, keeping end --

inequality. That's not Christian, that is religious. It was written

by a Victorian lady, an expression of her values. What religious

barriers, but not Christian. We need to make a distinction, the two

are not the same. I think, as I said, we have a culture that is

Christian. What completely confounded Richard Dawkins was that

he thought we were textbook Christians. That we knew which was

the first book in the Bible, that we knew the first five books of the

Old Testament. That's not the kind of Christians we are. We are

everyday Christians. It informs our every life. It means we do believe

in charity, we do believe in helping others. We do believe in

turning the other cheek. Much, much more than if we were a totally

secular culture. I didn't think anything. I asked Ipsos MORI to

find out, research. Research is not preconception. That is not what the

research shows at all. It doesn't show that people live their lives

as if Christianity is cultural wallpaper. Although they say they

are Christian as a cultural box, the most common reason being that

their parents were religious, actually, Christianity forms very

little of the common sense of their lives. Most people, for example...

Can I put a David Cameron quote to you? He recently said, and he

described this as just that, a Christian country, he said, the

Bible has given Britain a sense of values that has made Britain what

it is today. What do you think of that statement? I think

Christianity has contributed to the formation of culture in this

country. But it is not the only factor. It depends when you start

the story. Of course if you start the story that when this country

became Christian, if you started it earlier, you are with the Romans

and Cripps. Before that, it is the secular enlightenment. -- Greeks.

Lot of influences have shaped us. But the more interesting factor is,

actually, why politicians are suddenly seeming to be breaking out

all over saying we are a Christian country. I think that is the real

question. It is so self evidently Let's bring the historical

perspective in. We are at the end of a period of something like 500

years in which a kind of Christianity, a British state

Christianity, has informed he we are, laws, language, literature,

culture, superstitions. That period, because of the way church, state

and crown are pulling apart, and because of the way our population

is changing, is coming to an end. People asking, what does it mean?

Do we throw it away? Is there something we can keep? It is a mere

speck in the span of time. At the moment, we are asking, is this

country we are living in informed by Christianity? The Archbishop of

Canterbury said we were haunted by Christianity, which is a good way

of putting it. The question is where we go from here? Once it has

lost its grip on the hearts and minds of people in the country...

It has lost constitutional grip. has totally lost its grip. Most

people... A according to your survey, 54% of the country care

enough to say, I am a Christian? But it turns out they do not

believe it. It is neither my plays the will to confront what they

believe. Yes, it is! York Hall set out to prove there are fewer

Christians than you thought... -- you're poor. It did not. Of course

you did! When you ask them what they believe, it does not have a

very large part, hardly any part at all, in many cases, in their

feelings. I am happy to live in a country where Christianity is

ambiguous and generous. So am I. is he! I am panicking, we have had

an outbreak of consensus. We cannot be having any of that! We have got

to move beyond polarisation and say, what do we want to hang on to, and

what do we want to make new? That is an important question. This is a

Christian country? My personal belief is that this country is

built on Christian values, and I think it is a very beautiful aspect

of this country. I am a Muslim myself, and that is something I

value about this country. I cannot think people are necessarily

Christian in terms of the technical details of that faith. I think they

have a general awareness of belief in God. And over here. Good morning.

Good morning. I think both sides are talking about Christianity in

an incredibly practical way, and I do not think we are addressing the

fact that we have a very moral country. Especially the politicians

at the minute, the Tories are using this, the riots and things like

that, using it as moral guidance that they want us to follow.

Although I do not like the Tories! But I do think that our country is

not Christian in a practical way. The Queen is our head of state,

head of the Church of England, but realistically the government leads

us. We do not attend church, but people still hold those values.

Then again, most religions offer those values. It is very much

geographical, actually. I think that the Far East is incredibly

moral, and whether that is because of Islam or whatever other religion,

it is not as practical as we are talking. Interesting questions,

thank you for that. The whole idea of this slightly vague armour some

would say wishy-washy, others would say it comfortable and gentle,

tolerant, and if you look to France, which is validly secular and

arguably, as a result perhaps of that even, has some pretty

illiberal laws, you know the banning of the burka. Completely

intolerant. Would that not be a danger? Well, I think you cannot

over-egg the extent to which it has a link to tolerance, and it was a

very hard right and burnt itself out with persecution over the

centuries and eventually arrived at this sort of tolerance settlement.

But I think there are many other factors in this country that have

led to tolerant feelings, a long centuries without any particular

civil war or internal conflict, relative prosperity, economic

factors. We have had civil war in these islands in the last 30 years.

That is true, archaic, let's say England and Wales! But your

question was about the Anglican Church. Christianity in these

islands. There are many Christians in France, so that cannot be the

deciding factor, and the French state indeed funds various Catholic

groups even despite of secularism. My argument would be, yes, this is

a very tolerant country, and that is to be welcomed, but I think the

sort of things the establishment of the Church of England and the

artificially inflated Christian figure preserves are far from

tolerant. At 72% figure has been used to justify not just existing

state funded faith schools that discriminate but an expansion of

them, and it is at the hard edge of political debate that that figure

is used to inflict damage on other people, and that is why the survey

is important, because it shows people in that 72%... They are very

popular, a lot of people want to send their children to them.

would not ban the burka, that is illiberal. Some of the specific

questions on theology are interesting as well. I'll come to

in a moment, but Rowan Williams recently said that you do not have

to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. You believe in it?

Do I believe in it? Yes. Well, literally, not necessarily. What

does that mean, literally? New line identify me as a Christian. Today

Virgin give birth to a thousand years ago? I don't know. Does it

matter? Does it matter to me personally? No, it does not. I

think we are making an interesting move on the basis of what Andrew

and Richard were just saying. This week we have had a comment from the

Queen, who has made a shift and I started to talk about the Church of

England acting as a kind of broker, using its influence on the stage.

Those things that are left of its influence in official circles, to

become a broker for people of all faiths. Now, actually, I think that

is a positive way forward, may be the only way forward the Church of

England has got left. Do you believe in the Virgin Birth? I do,

and I believe in miracles. Do you have to believe that to be a

Christian? No, and the whole thing is, what is so interesting, what

Richard and his fellow secularists want is for science to be the only

guiding force. A lot of religious people are secularists. And for

rationality and reason to be our God. But actually, what

spirituality is is a whole other dimension that we enter into and

you do not. I do not care what you believe and what you save.

greatly! You keep trying to play another game, a numbers game, and

7,000 members of the National Secular Society is just about as

many... Are please don't start this! The national British sausage

Association. We all know this is political. Let's not let the

secularists drive policy on that basis. Remind Richard what he was

going to say! I was just interrupted, I cannot remember.

What was the point when you were making? Oh, yes, I do not care what

you believe, so long as what you believe is not used to legislate in

this country and affect what the rest of us believe.

Why do we have 26 places in parliament reserved for bishops of

the Church of England? Could I finish? Let him finish. Why not

have 26 places reserved for white men? If you did that, there would

be righteous outrage. Why do we have 26 places reserved for bishops

of the Church of England? What to think about this, I do not know

about the virgin birth, is that key to being a Christian? It is up to

them... If they want to believe supernatural nonsense, that is up

to them, but don't force it on the rest of us. The Majid Katme, to you

think this is a Christian country? Now, let me give you a Muslim

perspective on what you're asking. I have been working with hundreds

of Christian organisations, family, morality, chastity, marriage,

heterosexual etcetera. This is my Islamic values the same. We share

together the same value, and these values are very few today

implemented! What has gone wrong? disagree a lot with Professor

Richard Dawkins, but in his point, the Ten Commandments of broken day

and night by the majority of Christians. We badly need to go

back to Christian values. Islamic values are the same, exactly like

you. But at the same time... are talking about licentiousness

and depravity? A course. We believe in Virgin Mary, Jesus, the 10 per

cannons 4th -- the Ten Commandments. Practically, we should be careful.

And not as a Christian country, we are practically a multi-faith

country. Two main point I want to make. First of all, faith is a

force for good, and it is often portrayed that there is a chance of

something inherently extremist about religion, so you half but

actively moderate. That is not true. Secondly, when you look at the pole

that has been commissioned, it says people are not Christian according

to the textbook definition. Over time, People's affiliation has

changed. Just because they did not tick the box according to what we

might think our traditional religious people, that does not

mean they are not religious. They care enough to tick the box, I am a

Christian, so because they do not follow the commandments, you are

not a Christian, that is like saying, it is a poor example, on

Radio 4, Professor Dawkins, you could not pronounce the name of the

Book of Charles Dawkins, you're not a good enough atheist. That is

wrong. Just because you do not go to church as regularly as it says,

therefore you are not a good enough Christian. That is incorrect, you

cannot go down that road. People choose their values, that is up to

them. Nobody is just saying that, just to clarify. The survey that we

did, that Ipsos MORI did for Richard's Foundation, what is being

said, after the 2001 senses results were published, there was a high

proportion of Christians. Lots of lobby groups, bishops, politicians

leapt on the figures with glee and said, look, it proves what we knew

all along, Britain is a Christian school, and this testify state

schools and contracting out public services to Christian groups. What

this research is trying to articulate is that that was a

mistaken assumption by those people, because actually that 72% has been

hijacked, and what they believe is not what is being claimed that they

believe that is something else. That is the important point.

given everything that you have said, does that mean that you want the

state to take back from the religious institutions any work

that they do with youth, schools... No, certainly not. State-funded

schools... So what is the point of this? OK, so if there was to be a

sudden awakening of atheism, and also secularism, two different

things, what would we lose? I think we would lose a great, great deal.

In the public space, we do not want just the government to be dealing

with the running schools, with running charities, because we want

voluntary spirits, and many of them... Faith schools are state-

funded, government standard schools. Many of them are not. It is the

state funded ones, a third of all of our state-funded schools.

are you going to have state-funded charities? Are you going to have

state-funded hospitals? Secularism does not affect the thriving civil

sphere. We already have charities. It affects what is funded by the

state in public life, treating people without privilege or

discrimination on the basis of religion. State-funded schools

should not be choosing pupils on Good morning, hello. You must give

this country is a Christian country. I believe, if you are buying

Christmas presents and Easter eggs, it is a Christian country. Yes, it

is a Christian country, but when it comes to moral issues, yes, it is

not. What I believe is that the professor's research could be used

and a positive manner, thinking, yes, we are failing as Christians

and we need to upgrade. Now, every time there is a wedding taking

place, I think that should be applauded, rather than

discriminated against in tax. Family life should be encouraged.

Abortions and single parenting should be discouraged. We should

help people in marriage, create Is this your view of Christianity?

I think it's a different view, but the important thing is that we have

a conversation about it. While we have this polarisation, we don't

get a sensible conversation. Would it be good to give tax breaks to

married couples? I don't think so, I'd like to see tax breaks for

civil partnerships, heterosexual and gay people being able to get

married. I think that is the tolerant view. You can't have a

Christian country, a faith organised country, when you have

civil partnerships and you are encouraging X, Y and Z. I'm sorry.

What is a Christian Dior of government? What is the Christian

view of the state? To me, it is one that allows for parity. A secular

one, not one that is value-free, but one that does not impose one

particular religious form on the nation. Surely that is the best

religious view of all. Absolutely. I think we are in a position where

we will have to find a way forward that allows for variety... I can't

even say the word, having 1000 jobs -- gods. We have 1000 gods in this

country. We need a way forward to allow that to be and to celebrate

that. Nobody really believes there should be 26 bishops and the House

of Lords these days. Why do we have them? We do have to find their way

forward. A way forward that reflect the fact that Britain is still

There is a point, I have been debating with a number of people

this week who do believe there should be 26 bishops in the House

of Lords, that do believe that church schools should be allowed to

discriminate in admissions and employment. There are people that

need to be called to account as well as secularists. Religion on

one side, atheists on the other, by Richard's estimation there are 30

million people sitting in the middle scratching their heads,

watching this programme and going, what about us? 30 million? I wish!

You have said faith is a spent force in the UK. Do you think that

friends are very much that religion is slowly crawling into the dustbin

of history? I think so. They are showing some signs of desperation.

When you think what faith actually is, it is delayed in something --

believing something without evidence. How can you justify that?

If there is evidence, it is not face any more, it is evidence. It

is what people who believe in science believe in. What percentage

of the universe do we not know anything about? A very great deal.

I don't say, therefore I believe such and such, I say, I am waiting

to find out. So do Christians. why do you have faith in things

like the Virgin Birth? I don't. glad you don't, many do. I do.

know you do! How can you justify believing something of which there

is no evidence. I believe in the Resurrection. It offers me a hope

of a future. It shapes my ethics. I come to similar conclusions in some

areas because of my faith. We disagree on some things because I

come from a different route. That is very revealing. You believe

something because it gives you hope. My case rests. We are going to

leave it there. Thank you all so Now, if he would like to have your

say about that the date log on to: -- a debate. We are also debating

live from the Perse School in Cambridge. Should it be easier to

harvest organs for transplant? If you would like to be in the

audience at a future show, you can e-mail: We are in Cardiff next week.

On March 4th we are in York to record two shows. We are in

Leicester on 18th March. In transplant surgery there is a

narrow window between the death of a donor and the removal of their

organs to save someone else's life. All too often, even when the dying

carry a donor card, the gap is reduced even further because

families have to be persuaded to honour their loved one's which is.

Doctors asking if donors could be kept on ventilation to preserve

their donors -- donor organs for longer, or if hearts to be

restarted after death. And whether newborn babies who die could also

become donors. All very challenging stuff. Should it be easier to

harvest organs for transplants? Professor Gurch Randhawa, this idea

of an elective ventilation, putting a dying person on life-support to

keep their organs preserved for longer, so that when you are ready

for them to die... Is that acceptable? A lot of families would

have a huge problem with that. think you have hit the nail on the

head. It's about families and individuals. Consent is crucial.

What we need to do is to refrain the question. You have asked,

should it be easier to harvest organs? The question should be

asked, should it be easier for us all to have the opportunity to

become and organ donor? I think it is enormously disrespectful to the

many thousands of families and individuals who have consented to

organ donation. Do you despair when the medical profession used that

word? I don't think many people do. I think they find it uncomfortable

to use that language. We need to be far more positive about this. If

families and individuals have consented, I believe it is our duty

to make sure we explore every single option, elective ventilation

or other areas of that. Resuscitating the heart? As long as

there is consent. This is all about consenting to organ donation. What

we don't do well enough in this country, we are beginning to put

those building blocks in place, is unsure that the public are thinking

more about organ donation in their life as an employee, in schools,

through the media, so that people recognise there is a shortage of

organ donation. All of the research in this country shows that most

people on the street do not, to this day, realise that they have to

wait for a transplant. People are soon you are going to receive a

transplant if you join a waiting list. As anybody will tell you,

this is not the case. I totally agree. I think it needs to be that

people need to be more comfortable talking about it. Possibly more

education in schools about it. So that families are aware of what

their loved ones actually want. If they have to come to that decision,

then they know what they're that one wants, rather than going

against their wishes because the rate of them saying no at the

minute is 40%. That is a lot of where the problem is. I think

intensive care units need more help, more intensive training on

approaching the family. It's about education, giving information?

think simple steps like that will make a lot of difference. Dale

Gardiner, do you think these techniques, keeping a heart going,

keeping a body going on ventilation, do you think they are acceptable?

It's extremely complicated, this medical technology. What is

possible is not always right. People think a simple solution is

all that is required. When they have a donor and a donor family and

they have to walk into a room and talk to them, there is a tragedy

going on in their lives, and I have to walk in and give them the most

heartbreaking news they will ever receive and then approached them

about organ donation, it is never going to be an easy task. We need

to get into understanding the families and supporting them. It

easy means supporting the families and helping them cope with this

terrible tragedy, yes. But if easy means that we start to turn into a

commodity, tweets them like and use words like harvest, as if it is a

body to be consumed, what they're doing is giving the greatest gift

anybody can give in peace time to another person. Keeping somebody

alive for longer than they would normally be alive, interrupting the

natural processes of death, for you, is that beyond a line of

acceptability? What happens now when people become an organ donor

is that at the moment you may have been entered... I'll give you an

example, you are entered into it at this and emergency, you have a

terrible bleed in your head. We tried to resuscitate you. Over

there next few days, we learn as doctors that you're not going to

survive. Then we start to think about end of life care. That is

when you're going to talk to the family. In that regard, they are

having treatment continued. Once a family says yes, we are happy for

them to be an organ donor, we are going to make this gift, then

starts one of the most complicated processes in the NHS. It takes at

least 12 and sometimes 24 hours from that moment to went donation

proceeds. That is because you can donate multiple organs and saved

many lives. That requires multiple teams to come from all around the

country to that hospital and then recipients, again, there might be

getting a phone call saying to come into hospital. It's extremely time-

consuming. It takes 12 or 24 hours. A family and dying person is there

the whole time. This question of elective ventilation is a new thing.

It was tried about 20 years ago. Because of the donor shortage,

people are trying to think about it. Is it beyond the line of

acceptability? It creates a brand new system where we initiate

treatment that we would never start, that has never been started on that

person. It potentially makes the last moments one of intervention,

of doctors intervening, rather than You understand this position.

Martin, your teenage son, died of a brain haemorrhage. One of the

things we need to change in attitudes is the fact that his

organs save at least six people. We were discussing this earlier, over

a cup of coffee. He is a hero for what he has done for others. And

that should be absolutely a highlight. That is kind of part of

changing attitudes, isn't it? I think the support of thing for

families is that it is seen as a gift. It is also an important thing

for a lot of recipients. They need to know that the family made that

choice, they made that decision voluntarily. With no controversy.

All of these various, slightly controversial systems... SLIGHTLY

controversial? How would you have felt if the situation was... Well,

we need to put Martin... You know, invasive is what Dale called it. We

need to prolong his life in order to preserve his organs and make

them ready for a donation, we need to resuscitate his heart. You have

been in a situation not dissimilar. How would that have been for you?

think it would have made it harder. The approach is the most important

part to identify donors, especially for nurses to approach the donors

as soon as possible, so it is looked on as a positive experience,

as positive as it can be at a time of family tragedy. For us, it was

made a positive experience. It's so important so that families... You

have a short experience, a short period of time to make the decision,

and it can be the most important decision of your life. Whether it

is yes or no, it is important not to regret. We have processes in

place, without controversial procedures, for that to happen.

That is an organ donation task force, there are recent NICE

guidelines, what we need is to campaign, as the doctor said, we

need a campaign for the general public to make sure everybody

considers organ donation. Not when they are sat in hospital with a

member of their family who is dying. It is something to be confronted

with at the hour, at that moment, isn't it? It always will be. Well

said. Richard? Well said indeed. These are very difficult matters.

But Dr's life and the patient's life would be made easier if

everybody carried wannabes. I want to appeal to people to carry a

donor colt -- card. If the doctors knew that much more people were

carrying donor cards, many of these dilemmas would not arise. Do get

one. But families might still ultimately say no. That is where

the problem occurs. It doesn't matter if you are on the list or

not. If the family say no, that is what he wanted, that is where

problems arise. It is all about timing. Doctors go in there to

discuss a donation. If the timing is wrong, if they get there were

digging out of place, it is just... If the family have discussed it in

depth, around the tea table, then that helps as well. They should be

campaigns to encourage people to discuss it before they are put in

that situation, so they did not change their mind because they are

put on the spot. I would ask someone like Amy, would you not

prefer to know that when you receive your transplant that it

comes from somebody that has voluntarily made that decision?

Definitely. It makes it easier for you to accept? I try not to think

about it. Some people think I am waiting for somebody to die. I try

not to think that way. You are waiting for someone that is going

to die anyway and for their family to say yes. It's a totally

different situation. I think it is hard for people to understand what

brain stem dead is, in comparison to being in a coma. It's the

darkest time anyone can go through. If someone is asking for their

organs, that they are preserving, keeping alive, the family are still

going to have that hope that person is going to come back. A lot of

people do not understand the difference. It is a dark time to

try to explain that to someone. know you are thinking about the

number of times, as you might put Well, precisely, and it is so

humbling, because I did not know the figures about donation, I was

wondering whether I should feel guilty about not carrying a card.

As Richard managed to do that? Finally! But it is also true,

because I do believe that miracles can happen in everyday life, it is

a horrible thought that a family is hoping, hoping, hoping for their

child or their spouse to come back from almost the dead. And that hope

is extinguished. When do you let go? Where the sated then, that hope

is extinguished? -- When do you say to them. She surely it is brain

stem death, Richard. I do not know enough about it. We are talking

about somebody who would have been taken off a ventilator, so has far

as the doctors are concerned, the decision to Ard Fheis has already

been taken. It is about incubating somebody. The patients are on a

breeding machine, they have a tune that is helping them with breeding.

I would echo those thoughts. When I enter into a room and talk to a

family with terrible news, if they have actually talked about it as a

family or they are on the register, it is such a relief. Even if the

answer is no, because they have spoken about it, when they are left

not knowing what the person wanted, that is an agony for Royal Family.

You should never put your family in that situation. -- for your family.

I would pick up a me's point about families say No even when you're on

the register. That happens very rarely. Only in about 10% of

occasions. But you have got to imagine the 24 hour process that I

outlined, and it sort of begins when you have had three days of

Knowsley at all, because you are going through the worst tragedy of

your life. -- no sleep. Sometimes 12 and 24 hours in a lifetime in

that circumstance. For us now, it is nothing, you should go through

it, but... It is an eternity. an eternity for those people, and

you should respect that. As a humanist, do you think one's dead,

dead, it doesn't matter? wonderful thing that modern medical

science has given us is a sort of afterlife in that you can help

other people to live on. Donation is an incredible achievement. I

personally, and the British humanist Association, too, has

supported the idea of an opt-out system. However invasive the

procedure, should we take that chance, make the step to help

others? The greatest good for the greatest number? You have to be

rational and ethical when you're making policy decisions, but you

have got to appreciate the emotional situation case by case.

Any system that says, for example, an opt-out system, where the norm

would be for organs to be donated, there will always be a provision

for families to still be able to say no, the safeguards that are

being discussed. We would get two different Islamic perspectives,

which you have a donor card? I will not carry a card, do not take my

organ after my death, for many reasons. What is the theological

reason? The day of judgment, is it? As a Muslim, no organ donation, but

with strict conditions. I would like to go back to the basic, if

you allow me, with respect to the medical profession. We have a

rising number of organ donation failures etcetera. What are we

doing? You know alcohol will give you liver cirrhosis, why are you

chasing me to give my liver to you? You caused by your drinking! You

know that smoking will give you lung cancer, why are you chasing me

for my lungs? Medical profession has to go back to the basics.

most people, it is through no fault of their own. Who are we to cast

the first stone perhaps? Why do you believe it is important to have

organs intact on a day of judgment? Obviously, first, God is the Lord

of our body, we have no right, we have to keep the organ functioning,

no alcohol, no smoking etcetera. Not many Muslims no doubt. The holy

book, the Koran, my hand, my feet, my ears, my vision, my skin, record

every deed of what I do in his life, good or bad. On the day of judgment,

all my accounts will be put to God by my organs. More important...

it says in the Koran, whoever saves the life of one person, it is like

saving the life of all mankind. This is what I do in my campaign

against abortion, 600 babies a day, I am trying to stop this daily

massacre of babies in Britain! have a slightly different

perspective. It is too simple to say, you said yourself that the

organs will testify, they do not have to be new to testify, that is

the first point. Secondly, going back to what was said before, the

fundamental issue is that people do not know enough about organ

donation. From a Muslim perspective, there have been fatters that have

been religiously sought during this. -- fatwa. The majority of people

say that it is a good tea. The thing is, as a Muslim, I believe I

have been sent to do good, to help people irrespective of their faith

or religion. God does not need to see your heart. It is the spiritual

heart, Bajaur actual heart. The point is to help others. It is very

easy to become very theoretical and say, should we give organs or not?

The fundamental thing is, if it was happening to your own family, you

would not think for a second, you would do it. I find it very

compelling that you should talk about your organs testify to the

deeds that you have done, when actually you can stand before your

God and say that you save six lives with those very organs. God has the

power... He has the almighty power to save everybody's life. If

everybody lived to 200, how many billions of people what we have in

this world? We have to respect our own body. If somebody... Let's say

I needed units of blood, I refused to take them. I am a blood donor,

but I would not take an organ, God forbid I suffer from anything.

have a question in that theory. If one of your children needed an

organ, would you let them take one? No. I would ask them to go against

it, I would say no. So you would happily let them die? Yes. We

believe there life after death. cannot understand that. Jonathan!

Jonathan! I do not tend to see my faith in legalistic terms, and it

tends to be about... I see human beings as gifts to one another, and

that is why we are here, there is a communal responsibility. 4,500

people die in London from air pollution, and I have contributed

to that. I have a responsibility to work that out. There is a sense

that there is an individualistic approach which says, my body is my

own to do what the hell I like with. I do not see my faith leading me to

that conclusion about what it means to be made in the image of God. It

is about my obligations to each other, my gift of myself to one

another. Gift is a word much used in this. And grace comes from that,

which is about forgiveness when you mess up your liver! Certainly after

this show! You have looked into the into fake aspects of this. How much

of a problem is it? I just think these are just Muslim views, others

would take a different view. To come up against problems like this

in different fates? We do. There is a range of positions within any

faith. I think what is interesting for me, though... Do not force it

on us, opting out. I am not forcing anything up on anyone. Do not make

law to force all Muslims, Christians to take his organ! This

is what you are pushing with the BMA. I am not part of the BMA.

Carry on. He is entitled to this view? Absolutely. He is entitled!

We need to recognise that one of four people waiting for a kidney

transplant is from an African Caribbean or South Asian community.

They have chosen, because it is a choice, to join the transplant

waiting list. They have obviously decided that they have a set of

values that permits them to join a waiting list, and it permits them

to receive an organ, most importantly, permits that family

and individual from where the organism to come from to reconcile

their values, be they faith or whatever, to donate an organ. So I

think it is interesting that we have people from lots of different

faiths the war on the waiting list. Happy to receive. Most importantly,

not just happy to receive, but they are happy for another family who

may have those same faiths, happy for them to reconcile those

barriers and decide, yes, they should be an organ donor, and I

will receive that organ. We should recognise that. What is really

powerful, which has been highlighted in this debate, is that

we are now beginning to get people of faith at senior levels across

this country in rooms together to debate these issues. Most

importantly, to give to the public the various opinions, because most

important to this is that the public make an informed decision

and to have the different perspectives of their faith or

whatever else is important to them so that they can make a personal

decision with their family, but I do think it is a really interesting

thing, as Amy points out, that proportion bleak Asians and African

Caribbeans on the make-up 8% of the population but are three times

greater represented on the waiting list. -- only make up. Good morning

to you. There is a microphone there. I would like to say, it should be

seen as a gift. It should not be a perspective where it should be a

matter of fact thing that people automatically receive. It should be

perceived as a gift in the first place. Families should have that,

people should have that conversation with their families to

say, this is what I want to do, so in the event of any tragedy, the

family know what their wishes were and they do not feel bullied into

saying, you should do this, you should give your organs. It is a

change of mindset, isn't it? Absolutely right. Over here, you

wanted to say something. I just think, as a country, we are really

poor at discussing difficult things around health gap. I work in

healthcare research, and yet I have no idea how I feel about this issue

for my own organs are what my family would want as well. I think

we could really engage people in this, it is something that affects

all of us, but we systematically fail to do that. Because of that,

we always end up going to top-down solutions, where we would go to an

opt-out system, which I do not feel very comfortable with. I think we

could easily address this problem so it would not be an issue and we

would not have to go to these more controversial top-down approaches.

Over there, hello. Well, personally, I believe has almost no limits now.

John Lennon said that reality is anything that you can dream of, and

in medicine you can keep ploughing on, so I think that they need to be

limits, but when you get to these moral-immoral boundaries, it

becomes so great, we do not know what is wrong or right any more.

And so I personally believe that we need to pull back some times of the

things that we do. I believe organ donation is a good thing Bach

steady as we go. Exactly, every article pipping alive to harvest

organs, I think that is immoral. -- if we are keeping people alive till

harvest organs. Richard. It is difficult, and that is why I would

advocate more people carrying cards, many of whom probably have not

thought about it. If the medical profession knew that they had a

larger starting base hot support for organ donation, then there

would be less pressure to resort to these more controversial areas like

keeping people alive for longer than they otherwise would. Are you

going to carry one? Yes, what were you going to say? I have got four

kids. I'm finding myself very much persuaded by the testimony of

people here this morning. I have not carried one, partly because I

have not thought about it. Have you changed your mind? I did not think

it was a sin in the first place Whyman not to think about things,