Over the top?
I stumbled across this story in the Guardian Unlimited, a U.K. paper. There is a hard-hitting campaign to promote organ donation in Scotland that is using this image in a television add.
In the TV ad, created by agency The Union, people were urged to sign up for the UK organ donor register.
The ad featured a picture of a young girl's head with a voiceover and text asking: "Would you allow your organs to save a life? You have 20 seconds to decide."
Then the girl's face slowly becomes faded and distorted, with the voiceover and text stating: "Kill Jill?, yes or no. No ... register and you could save a life."
This goes a few steps beyond, “you have the power to donate life” or “be someone’s hero” – this seems to imply an obligation to donate. As in other areas of the U.K. (and the world), there are a strong number of people who profess organ donation is a good thing and show interest in becoming a donor. But, that strong number of people do not seem to follow through and actually register to donate. The Scottish government credits this campaign with helping Scotland outperform the rest of the U.K. in getting people to register by a factor of three…
I think “killing” implies action – but if Jill dies because of inaction – because someone did not agree to become a donor – is that so much better? Is that so much more acceptable?
In the past few years I’ve posted about a three very special people who passed away because an organ was not available, or came too late. I wrote about Lizzy, Mallory and Kelly – but I know of so many more who didn’t get what they needed or waited too long and didn’t survive.
I know it’s far more than a “fine line” between causing someone’s death by your actions and letting someone die by your inaction – I know there is a difference between “killing” someone and letting them die. But does Jill understand that difference? Does she care?
What do you think? Is this promotion over the top?
