Dead or alive, it'll still be my body

THE slow but relentless creep towards a society that invades your rights – not just from cradle to grave, but from conception to committal – continued this week.

As I argued last Friday, the arrogance of politicians who believe they know what is good for you knows no bounds. Not content with wanting to control what you might do in your own spare time, they want more and more. Last week it was your DNA, even if you are innocent. This week, it is taking your organs without your, or your relatives', consent.

Politicians have taken the rights of millions of humans by allowing abortion to become, for many, just another form of contraception. When the state puts such a low value on the sanctity of life, by, for instance, elevating the financial circumstances of a mother above the right to life of an unborn baby – is it any wonder that people show less respect for human life themselves? The value of human life is not a relative concept, it does not matter what colour, creed, gender or sexuality one of us is – we all should be protected.

The same goes for whatever age we are. From conception to birth, through life to death – and being returned to our maker, or the elements of the earth – we should expect the protection of the state. That is why abortion should be strictly limited – to protect life.

And now Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon has shown support for the latest idea demonstrating disrespect for the dead – making our bodies the property of the State when we die.

Unless we have signed a piece of paper requesting we wish to be buried as complete and intact as possible, it shall be presumed that our organs are up for grabs and health professionals can do what they want with whatever else they fancy.

After the scandal of the theft of dead children's body parts a few years ago the thought of how this change of law might be abused is nothing short of horrific. And with government-held data going missing on an almost weekly basis, the scenario in the future where your opt-out records are lost, conveniently or otherwise, is not difficult to foresee.

Of course, more organ donations would help save more lives, and with the advance of medicine the demand is going to continue to grow. We should do everything in our power to convince people that it is a worthwhile choice to make.

But that's what it should be: a choice to consent. The decision should be left with the deceased when living. Our bodies are not organ farms for the state to dispose of but ours and ours alone to give away. It's my body, dead or alive, and the presumption that it's for me to decide what should happen to it should not be in the gift of 65 MSPs to remove.

Divided Hillary falls
In winning three of Tuesday's four Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton has managed to regain the headlines and slow down the momentum of Barack Obama.

It is, however, not as much as reversal for Obama as some are trying to present it. Because Democratic Party delegates are apportioned to presidential nominees proportionately according to the votes cast, winning does not secure Mrs Clinton the numbers she really needed. Indeed, compared to what he could have expected a month or so ago, Obama must be delighted with his performance.

Clinton's hopes still remain in reaching the convention in Denver and hoping that even if still behind she can clinch victory by convincing Obama-leaning delegates to switch to her by a combination of horse-trading and the belief that only she can beat McCain. Her problem is that the Republicans would rather face the divisive, old-school Clinton than the inspiring change-monger that Obama claims to be – and Democrats can surely work this out.

Darling's a dummy
Next week will be Gordon Brown's twelfth annual budget since Labour came to power, only this one will be delivered by the ventriloquist's dummy, Alistair Darling.

I write that not to insult someone who is clearly an independent, sentient being; it's just that with such a centralising control freak as Prime Minister, there can be little doubt as to the author of what will be delivered by the beleaguered Chancellor on Wednesday.

Of course, this all means that any mistakes, mishaps and malaise that flow from the Chancellor's decisions cannot be solved by a new Chancellor being appointed.

Darling's problems are of Brown's making. They are two sides of the same debauched coin, which, in all honesty, should have the same mug of Brown on either side of it.

So, if Darling refuses to withdraw the previously announced petrol increase, hits responsible sober drinkers in trying to control the small minority of irresponsible drunks, and finds ways to hurt your pocket you had never thought possible, don't just blame the messenger – accuse the speechwriter too.