Source: Bigstock

Redistribution of wealth is in full swing in the U.K. under Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, but a lesser-known project is the redistribution of organs.

I don’t mean church organs. I mean body parts. A change in the law on organ donation, quietly put through, is very much part of the agenda that has been gaining pace in Britain for years under the always socialist NHS, which has been pushing deep-state, leftist ideas for years irrespective of the flavor of the government.

Unless you opt out, the presumption is that you agree that your organs can be automatically taken from your body “when” you die. This law change was put through a few years ago, during the height of the pandemic lockdown, from the previous system where you had to sign a donor card if you wanted that to be the case.

Or as the NHS puts it: “On 20 May 2020, the law around organ donation in England was changed to allow more people to save more lives.” Lucky, lucky us, being given this opportunity.

“Now that the law has changed, it will be considered that you agree to become an organ donor when you die, if: you are over 18; you have not opted out.”

Note to Americans, please realize that this is what state health care gives the state the ability to do. You’re just spare parts to them.

In the U.S., presumed consent as a form of almost mandatory donation has rightly been rejected on the basis that it cannot possibly be determined that someone definitely knows that the government is presuming they agree.

In the U.K., it is not so much Invasion of the Body Snatchers, if you like references to cult horror films, as Presumption of the Body Snatchers.

A year after they presumed they could have your organs, incidentally, the U.K. law was changed in 2021 to presume they could share your private medical notes with companies for “research purposes” unless you opted out. Again, no very great public warning was given, so you would not realize. I have no doubt a similar trick will be used eventually to presume everything.

Maybe the state will start presuming you agree to be vaccinated unless you opt out and a vaccine hit squad will simply bang your door and stick the needle in. Well, you agreed, they will say. You didn’t go online and opt out.

But for now, it’s just “sharing” your medical notes with Big Pharma and snatching—sorry, harvesting—your body parts.

Since the law was changed to presume you agree with this, there has been a jump in organ donation unsurprisingly—only 2.5 million people (out of a 68 million population) registered an opt-out.

There has also been a reported rise in the number of people declared brain-dead and switched off in NHS hospitals.

Of course, that may be a coincidence. But we also have to consider the possibility, don’t we, that whether or not we ever get official figures to corroborate the rumors on social media, the organ donor change has had an effect on how doctors are viewing the seriously sick lying unconscious in hospital beds hooked up to machines? Could they be switching people off more quickly?

Or indeed, if you want to consider another horrifying scenario, more slowly. Because I believe I’m right in saying that in order to keep your organs fresh and usable, they have to keep them oxygenated by a live blood supply, so they have to keep you turned on when you’re really to all intents and purposes dead, until the new host body is ready to get your organs.

In any case, the presumption that a human body can be stripped for parts like an old car being plundered for tires, door panels, battery, starter motor, leather seats, is bound to have changed something.

If you are asking me why I think the British state wants to strip people for parts, then I would allow the state to point to the shortage of organ donors.

But I would also add that an idea is gaining hold, and we see it in the euthanasia bill going through the U.K. Parliament, that life with infirmity and pain is not worth hanging on to, and that youth and what we now call “beauty” is to be worshipped and promoted and prioritized above age and falling to bits, which used to be considered okay, and inevitable.

If you accept that we favor youth and “beauty” and increasingly marginalize age and infirmity—and Botox and Ozempic are certainly part of that—and that we want to hurry oldies and sick people off to the grave like so many oxygen thieves (or indeed carbon emitters), then you maybe accept or fear that organ donation has now become part of a wider agenda to prioritize youth over infirmity.

In other words, if there are good organs inside bodies that the state deems worthless, then those bodies are maybe going to be less strenuously attended to and saved, and their organs redistributed, much like wealth through the taxation system, to those who are considered by the socialist state as more deserving.

And as it always does, the socialist state will say, “It’s for the good of society.” Everything horrifying the big state does is done beneath this banner.

I first discovered by word of mouth that my organs would be taken unless I opted out, very much in the way I found out my medical notes would be “shared” with companies for “research purposes.”

I had to go onto the NHS website and fiddle around with an opt-out registration. They certainly did not go out of their way to tell anyone, announce it, or explain it.

If you heard about it, you could opt out. If you didn’t, tough luck. You’re now an old Ford Cortina. You’re no more than a Toyota pickup truck. If you break down by the side of the road they might give you a few goes with the jump leads, but if that doesn’t readily work, then maybe it’s off with all four tires and up with your bonnet and out with various bits of your engine.

The mangled remains are handed back to your relatives to be buried, so what are they to complain about?

I’m Roman Catholic, so I don’t want this to happen for spiritual and religious reasons. But I also don’t agree with it because I suspect the state would write me off quicker when I might have lived, or indeed keep me artificially alive once I’m gone in order to preserve my organs. I don’t like it either way.

I also suspect the state is saying my value once I’m an old or sick person on life support is less than a younger person who is suffering from cancer or a heart condition and, in their view, needs my heart, or my kidneys, or eyeballs.

No, I’m sorry, I don’t accept that. You can keep me hooked up and do your best to revive me and sod the other person you want to give my headlamps and starter motor to, no matter how much younger and shinier than me they are. As far as I am concerned, if they are dying and I am surviving, then that is the way the cookie is crumbling.

If I am about to come back from the brink, more of a burden to society, so be it. And even if I’m done for, it’s up to me if I want to go in that coffin in one piece. Bodily autonomy either means something or it does not. Unlike your money, you can take it with you, actually. Or you can at least stop the state from pilfering it.