Organ donation talk on "hard but fair": "Yes, that is an interference with freedom"

When was the last such an unobstrusive "hard but fair" issue? No bosses, no catch questions and maneuvers, nothing. "Moral compulsion to donate organs: Do you want that, Herr Spahn?" Asked Frank Plasberg. The title was accustomed to catchy, "morality" and "compulsion" were still the keywords most in demand for indignation, which could be found on the subject. The discussion then turned out really quiet.

The balancing of the evening : Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn of the CDU has just presented a bill with other health policy makers. Therefore, a contradiction solution is envisaged: Those who do not agree to an organ removal after death must object in their lifetime. "Is not there a right to say, I do not want to deal with it?" Plasberg asked. Spahn replied judiciously, "That's the weightiest counter-argument." There is no duty to donate organs if the design goes through this, but "an obligation to engage in. Yes, that is an interference with freedom."

"It's a piece of freedom, but I think it's justified by the consequence it has for those affected." Federal Health Minister @BMG_Bund @jensspahn @CDU at #hartaberfair @The first to the contradiction solution. #Organspende. pic.twitter.com/ir6vXmFtq8

The opponents of the evening: Oh, adversaries - no: the word would be inappropriate for what happened. The physician and medical journalist Werner Bartens of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" formulated various arguments against the project. The nudging - to be teased to force employment - he finds "simply not appropriate," he said. But he was not a rival in the boxing sense of the word. The closest to each other in the discussion were: the social and the individual perspective on the topic. From a social point of view, more organs are needed - that was Spahn's ministerial perspective. But you can not ignore people who do not want to give theirs. Ulrike Sommer, who lives with a donor kidney, put it this way: One could find something "in principle in order", but not in the concrete.

WDR / Oliver Ziebe

Moderator Plasberg (r.) With his guests

The victims of the evening: In addition to the competitive athlete Chantal Bausch, who told of her life with a donor heart, were the Ulrike Sommer and her husband Michael Sommer, the former boss of the German Trade Union Federation: she recipient, he donor of her kidney. He campaigned for Spahn's design: Unfair was not to have to deal with the topic itself. It was unfair to push a decision to the relatives. She argued against it: "Mr. Spahn says it quite clearly: He wants to have more organs." It is an organ but a "huge gift". To give, for this the giver must be "actively ready".

"Everything that I have experienced in my life, I owe only to another person." Chantal Bausch has been living with a donor heart for 13 years - and the thought that she will eventually need a heart again. #Organ donation #hartaberfair @Thefirst pic.twitter.com/6Yl8Hz0pnl

The semantic questions of the evening: brought up the journalist Werner Bartens, who claims to have no donor card, because he keeps the integrity of the body even after death for a high good. He rejects the concept of donation, he said, because he is "actually misleading" here. In addition, he finds it more honest that he does not speak of a brain dead person who takes an organ, but of a dying person. The process of dying was irreversible in those cases, he emphasized. But: "The heart beats, he is warm."

The alternative concept of the evening: Annalena Baerbock from the Greens presented this. The discussion was also objective because she and Spahn did not aim in two different directions, but conveyed that they were in search of the best way. "The goal is the same," said Baerbock. The suggestion: Citizens should be informed about the organ donation when applying for an identity card. When picking up the document, they should be asked to make a decision. So you would reach the 84 percent of Germans who are actually willing to donate organ. But they would not become donors against their will, if they did not receive appropriate letters or could not read them. The hurdle to be able to contradict, "is relatively large," said Baerbock.

The three places of the evening: Spahn and Ulrike Sommer visualized how sensitively the citizens of Berlin could be talked about organ donation. Bartens said: "Then I can do it at the gas station or at the cash register at Edeka."

The non-German perspective of the evening: Anyone who crashes while skiing in Austria is automatically regarded as an organ donor, said Michael Sommer. In 20 out of 28 EU states, there was the contradiction solution, said Jens Spahn.

The data of the evening: Whether it was really alright to assess silence as approval, asked Plasberg Jens Spahn. On every website you have to explicitly agree that data should be processed further. And not with organs? "Can you do that," said Spahn. But there are also other areas "where the state has determined certain legal consequences". In the case of an heir, for example: If you do not speak out, then here too the legal regulation applies.