We need a balanced debate about organ donation.

In Wales, nearly 300 people are waiting for an organ transplant, many through no fault of their own.

Which brings us on to the "controversial" issue of organ donation. Let me be clear as an atheist my thoughts on the matter are very simple.

When I die I'll no longer need my body or any of its parts. Therefore after my demise, if any of it could be used to enhance the lives of others, what's the problem? - especially if I'm to be cremated, isn't recycling the done things these days.

And that is why I'm a supporter of the "soft" opt out system. But what exactly would a "soft" opt out system of donation mean?

There would be a presumption that a person consented to organ donation on their death, unless they had indicated otherwise (opted out), or their relatives objected.

Which brings me on to some ill thought out comments made yet again by Rob Davies (The Daily Post's Outspoken columnist)

Putting aside the frankly ridiculous statement of "I suspect the drive to introduce presumed consent for organ donation in Wales is fuelled in part by the separatist agenda of Wales-isn't England' lobby".....he goes on to make factually incorrect statements, take for instance in his column of today in the Daily Post he states:

Take this scenario: a young man is fatally injured in a crash. His is not on the organ donor list but lives in Wales and so is presumed to have given consent to the removal of his organs. His distraught parents are duly informed that doctors are to take out his heart...etc...What will haunt them for ever more...that their son had never actively agreed [to organ donation].

But the above scenario is wrong, it would not happen.

In the first as is the practice today, their next of kin would need to be consulted before a decision could be made. As reported in the Telegraph: The new laws would still require doctors to consult with the relatives of the bereaved as part of a "soft" opt-out system.

Whereas today the relatives could agree to organ donation, even though the deceased person when alive objected to do so, it would be similar in a 'soft' opt out system. The relatives could object to the donation of organs, even if the deceased when alive had no such concerns. Or if they had any 'doubt' which would haunt them for ever more they could just say no.

In reality you are more likely to take action if you object to something, as opposed to those who don't think it matters. Let's be honest the vast majority of us are far more concerned about what's happening now, than whats occurring when were dead.

The Christian Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan says it has to be a choice "that is freely embraced".

Surely, if you decide not to opt out of the organ donation system, you have so to speak "freely embraced" the idea that on your death your organs could be used by others.

There could be a number of safeguard built in, your doctor, health nurse etc could easily explain to those who have not opted out the consequence of not doing so. I'm sure the church could also have a role.

At the end of the day it will still be a personal choice, you could always opt out.

Above all what is important is that we have a balanced debate, and using emotive language or spurious arguments, will not help at all.

Wales too small - what about Uruguay?

Yesterday I said that in my humble opinion Elin Jones AM would be a very good leader of Plaid Cymru.

I mentioned the dreaded 'I' word independence, which we shouldn't be afraid to discuss. I said "I do not think independence for Wales would be right as things stand."

This morning I listened to a conversation on the Today program on Radio 4. They were talking about the football game tonight, between England and Wales, and the Radio 4 chap said something along the lines of “why hasn't Wales qualified for any major football tournament since 1958. Take Uruguay for example, whose population is also just above 3 million and the amount of times they have qualified, and they recently won the Copa America."

And that made me think. One argument put forward by many against independence for Wales is - its too small.

Now I know you cant really compare Wales and Uruguay, especially if you believe some who say that Wales is the poorest Country in Europe. Somehow I don't think Uruguay is the poorest South American Country.

The CIA World Factbook says in a short history of Uruguay:

Montevideo, founded by the Spanish in 1726 as a military stronghold, soon took advantage of its natural harbor to become an important commercial center. Claimed by Argentina but annexed by Brazil in 1821, Uruguay declared its independence four years later and secured its freedom in 1828 after a three-year struggle. The administrations of President Jose BATLLE in the early 20th century established widespread political, social, and economic reforms that established a statist tradition. A violent Marxist urban guerrilla movement named the Tupamaros, launched in the late 1960s, led Uruguay's president to cede control of the government to the military in 1973. By yearend, the rebels had been crushed, but the military continued to expand its hold over the government. Civilian rule was not restored until 1985. In 2004, the left-of-center Frente Amplio Coalition won national elections that effectively ended 170 years of political control previously held by the Colorado and Blanco parties. Uruguay's political and labor conditions are among the freest on the continent.

And in an overview of Uruguay's economy say:

Uruguay's economy is characterized by an export-oriented agricultural sector, a well-educated work force, and high levels of social spending. Following financial difficulties in the late 1990s and early 2000s, economic growth for Uruguay averaged 8% annually during the period 2004-08. The 2008-09 global financial crisis put a brake on Uruguay's vigorous growth, which decelerated to 2.9% in 2009. Nevertheless, the country managed to avoid a recession and keep positive growth rates, mainly through higher public expenditure and investment, and GDP growth exceeded 8% in 2010.

Just in case you missed it, a GDP growth of 8% in 2010, making them 14th in the list of country comparisons, compared with the UK GDP growth of the same year of 1.3% putting us in 163rd place on the list.

And the Country's main exports:

beef, soybeans, cellulose, rice, wheat, wood, dairy products; wool

Again I emphasize you cant really compare countries, as Paul Williams (aka The Druid) has pointed out on numerous occasions, but to me at least it disproves the argument that Wales is too small to be an independent Country in terms of population. Its really down to the question of whether we have the economy to sustain us, as an independent state.

I would also like to thank Rob Davies, 'The outspoken columnist who tells it how it is' of the Daily Post, for his support for independence - ok maybe not - but all you have to do is change a few words from his rant of today and you get from the section headed 'Old Boundaries' (were he argues to retain the 22 welsh Councils - which in reality don't follow old boundaries) the following:

"At [national] level, [..] government works best following ancient [..] boundaries to which many people still retain loyalty. Many of these are based on natural divisions such as rivers. Far more people will engage with [governments] if they represent the actual geographical terrain they call home."

I also recommend you read an article by Adam Price, which was published in the Huffington Post titled - 'Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense' on 2 August 2011, by following this link: Adam Price - Huffington Post