It's a tricky issue this one, but it's good someone wants to write about it.

On the one hand, I have grave fears - likely unfounded, of lying in the street after a car crash having the ambulance officers overtop of me saying to each other 'he's too far gone, let him go and we'll save ten lives with his insides' type of thing.

No, seriously though, with the stories I heard a few years ago of Packer buying our medical records (something along those lines - if anyone knows please let me know what it was about) for some marketing reason.

I can see, unless there were serious checks and balances, a Packer type mogul scouring the lists for suitable donors if he were ever in need - and perhaps the person with the match might go missing.

Probably too many Sci-Fi thrillers have made me paranoid.

I know there is no point taking our organs with us when we die, I guess like you say, it's all about education. Just the other night I saw a documentary segment on Dateline I think, about this very topic.

Poor people in Pakistan were being abused by their wealthy class, with Doctors eagerly handing out the equivalent of $4000US (which is no doubt a lot to such people) for a kidney to sell to a wealthy Arab, Asian, or even westerner.

This turns people off.

However, I have no doubt that if looked into, a system could be set up that would put my mind at ease. If this could be done, and I would take more convincing than most, most would jump on board.

I believe that Dutch fake show was a wake-up call, and they're right -it's got us all talking about it again, which is important.

Good article.

We need to get serious about this topic. I have brothers who are listed as organ donors but I keep thinking it's a little scary.

And good on the Dutch for being the part of the human conscience that put this issue where it belongs, in the fore.

For many years I've been recorded as a donor and I've told my family and friends this. I'm passionate about it and if they can't use my organs then I want my body to be used by med students in their courses. I agree with the article though in that I trouble that when the time comes the funeral system and grief might mean I just get cooked. What a waste. Even if I do say so myself.

My missus is an organ donation recipient due to battling a lifelong genetic disease that caused her to need a double lung transplant. The more people that make society aware of the issue the better. Good on you for writing this, BUT you can tell how apathetic people really are in regards to something so massively critical to the lives of so many people by the amount of comments and discussion you have here. If you talk about Iraq, religion, politics, abortion, racism etc you'll have a literal debating war going on...BUT this barely registers a blip.

This is why I'm for the OPT-OUT option of organ donation. It needs to happen to save lives.

I too am passionate about donating any organs that I might have for a useful purpose in the event of my death. People are so emotional about such things and may feel that one shouldn't desecrate a body by cutting it up and handing out the bits, but then of course there is always the conspiracy theory over the abuse of such a situation in the same way there is about euthanasia. While safeguards can be introduced, we should have an "opt-out" condition so that organ donation becomes automatic unless, for some off-beat reason such as religion, it makes it unpalatable for the donor. When I go, I have stipulated in my will that anyone can have my body and do what they want with it and if the organs are not required then they can use my body for research or teaching purposes. Surely this is better than getting planted in a polished box or being burnt to a cinder. Why are people so selfish over this when their death can very often give life to someone else ?

Keep your hand off my organ unless you have the money to pay for it.
My body my right.

Good article that hopefully will motivate its readers to become donors, if they’re not already.

There have been a few articles that were written after the Dutch Big Donor Show, so I’m glad that it hasn’t just drawn attention of the Dutch but also here and assumingly in other countries.

I knew that there was a shortage of donors in Australia but didn’t realised that the number of donors was that low, so the article taught me something new.

I’ve been a donor ever since I can remember; so are the rest of my family. I figure, it’s the last good thing one can do for other people, even after one’s death.
Of course Chris is right: what else is going to happen to your organs: cremation or eaten by worms. I’d much rather give mine a new life (perhaps a more exciting one than I can offer my organs).

I really agree with StG and snake that it’s time that the government took action and introduced an opt-out system. This will dramatically increase the rate of organ donors. I am not sure why this still hasn’t happened.

Snake, “for some off-beat reason such as religion, it makes it unpalatable for the donor”
I find that interesting- for what reasons would religions want to discourage people to become organ donors; I thought they were supposed to be pro-life?
However, there is this one Australian cult, the Jesus Christians, nicknamed the kidney cult- google it and you’ll find articles about these people who are encouraged to (live) donate their spare kidney to strangers in the name of Jesus Christ, who taught the act of giving. I think that’s their reason- they were on Australian Story recently.

Aqvarivs, of course you have the right not to donate, but for what reasons would you not want to donate?
Only if you got paid? What are you gonna do with the money when you’re dead- buy a can of worms?

I think we need to have a referendum on the introduction of an OP-OUT system for organ donation. I believe it is only apathy that gives us our low donation rate as the vast majority of people agree that they would be donors.

If someone can make use of any part of my body after I'm deceased, good.

A referendum would force the politicians to take action.

I knew a recipient of a kidney transplant and the change in her health was remarkable. She had her transplant for 17 years before she got breast cancer and died.

Celivia, my body my right. I don't have to think about anyone else but myself. My choice. And I certainly don't want some alcoholic or drug user to benefit from my lifetime of clean living only to treat my gift with their who gives a "-" attitude. I want to meet my recipient and know they are worthy. If anybody is going to be the judge of who gets my body parts it'll be me and my family will benefit with some financial security. Not left to some social dictator to play at altruism at my families expense(or anyone else's)

What makes people think that an "opt-out" system, known as presumed consent is the answer to significantly increasing organ donation. Because Spain has a high donor, so therefore the answer must lie in presumed consent. I'm not so sure. Spain's high donor rate is the result of a number of factors, the least of which is presumed consent. In fact, one of the biggest contributors to organ donation is a country's mortality pattern (i.e. the number of people that die in a way which would lead to organ donation), and I would surmise that this mortality pattern differs from country to country.

I believe that presumed consent sounds great in theory, but I bet most countries that have presumed consent laws don't even use it, they still approach the next of kin for consent

My 22 year old daughter was killed in a road accident 8 years ago. When she was 11, she'd said, ’If anything happens to me, I want them to use all my spare parts to help people’. When the unthinkable happened we remembered. Her heart valves transformed the lives of a little English girl and a baby in Germany. Her cornea restored sight. This is a great comfort.

It IS sad there’s such a shortage of organ donors world wide. In UK, 8000 people are presently on transplant lists, waiting for organs we burn and bury every day. 450 die waiting each year. It’s not a nice thought but whenever there’s a post-mortem, pathologists cut and cut to find the cause of death.

We know from personal experience, organ donation helps ‘donor families’ as well as recipients.
Knowing someone you love gave others a second chance, gives you something to feel good about when life feels bleak..
A lady who emigrated to Australia, told me her daughter was killed in a road accident. She wrote: ‘My daughter carried a donor card. It was lost in the accident. We were so shocked, we did not remember. No one asked us about organ donation. Now all we have is her remains in the cemetery. I’d like to have thought she’d helped someone too’.

We SHOULD discuss what we’d want, with friends and family. Just one conversation is all it takes to save a life.
We’ll always ache for Zoe” but it’s a joy to see how strong and lovely Jemma’s grown. Her mother wrote telling how sick and weak her child had been; how Zoe”s heart-valve transformed her life. From hardly walking, Jemma could soon swim, dance, roller-skate and ride. Now she enjoys everything teenagers like to do. We are proud that Zoe” wanted to be a donor… and Jemma, for all she has achieved.

When you meet real people and hear their personal accounts of amazing things achieved through transplantation, you want to be a donor. Look at ‘Transforming Lives’ PDF: www.legacyoflife.org.uk.
See if the stories change the way you think

Good article, the author is clearly an interested party but that doesn't take away from the validity of what he writes.

Question though - what is the actual rate of organ donation from donors who can <i>actually</i> donate? Meaning that the majority of people unfortunately don't die in a way conducive to donation. Organs (certainly for such organs as liver, kidney, pancreas which don't do well with prolonged non-perfusion) need to be harvested under controlled conditions. So it is not true to say that every organ that gets burned/buried is wasted. I would be interested in knowing that stat, none of which detracts from the central point that we need higher consent rates.

Aquarivs - I have read much of what you post here and you normally come across well - on this one you are way off beam. Yes - it is your right to refuse but you have listed some ludicrous reasoning which I hope doesn't infect ill-informed readers:

1. not every organ recipient is to blame for their condition! kidney disease is rarely anyone's fault
2. smokers and drinkers don't get lungs and livers. you need to have quit and they want to be as sure as they can you won't start again. lungs are more likely to go to someone with a congenital condition like cystic fibrosis
3. money? why should you be paid for your organs? did you pay for them? did you pay for your last blood transfusion or plasma product? if you want user-pays in health, the USA is right up your alley - that's where the poor make ends meet by selling blood, sperm, whatever they can drain from themselves

It should be said that a kidney transplant costs around $16,000 and when you comsider the cost of dialysis it is staggering that governments don't push for an "opt-in" system. Dialysis doesn't cure renal failure, it just keeps people alive, but slowly the major organs will fail due to the added pressure of compensating for the kidneys. When you consider that when a person donates their organs can help up to a dozen people it seems an obvious choice.

I notice a one individual would want to meet the potential recipient in order to approve the donation. The VAST majority of donors are people who've just died, or about to die, you don't get the luxury of interviewing them.

Many of the comments here are absolutely typical of what recipients are up against...ignorance and misinformation.

OPT-OUT all the way, if you don't want to donate, then opt-out!. Something HAS to be done about the people dying on the waiting lists. Aquavarius (or what-the-hell-ever) needs to spend some time with Cystic Fibrosis sufferers.

Once you're dead, you're effectively just a lump of dead meat. While many people harbour irrational ideas and sentiments about the meaning of that lump of dead meat, ultimately its potential to extend the life of others has to outweigh the superstitious or emotional interests of those who interfere with the deceased's expressed wishes to be an organ donor.

I suppose people have the right not to be donors, but I'd prefer to see this expressed via an "opt-out" system.

Stickman,
My mother wasn’t a donor because she thought she’d be too old to be a donor until a doctor told her that there are always parts they can use no matter your age, especially the skin. But yes, sometimes donor’s organs might not be desirable, so I’m curious about these stats as well.
I agree with your points addressed to aqvarivs. Having watched the Dutch Big Donor Show, I have the strong impression that people who are seriously ill have learned to really appreciate their lives and every day they have. Most will be very grateful for another chance and look upon life as a great gift and will not abuse it. But even if they are party animals and decided to drink or smoke- I hope they still get a few years of fun out of my organs; they’re welcome to use them as they please.

Zoe’s Mum,
I truly agree with you- if one of my children would die before me, I’d find it pacifying to think that their organs helped save one or more persons. How very mature and thoughtful your daughter was at the age of only 11!

CJMorgan,
Well said! Even if an opt-out system is not the only factor that will help increase the amount of donors, it is still worth it. At the same time, attention to any other factors need attention like the author mentioned, e.g. discussing it with family.
Family needs to respect the wishes of their diseased loved one. What would it matter if the diseased would be buried or cremated without some the organs?

I wouldn't want to give the living any more value than the value that they themselves put on others lives as evidenced by their thinking on taking life when it suits them. Certainly as most of you seem to agree we are all just a useless bunch of tissue. Why place extra value or sentimentality on extending that uselessness especially with further suffering as is human nature. Long live those who wish to endure the uselessness of existence and a quick end to life's genetic errors. Why would I want to extend the life of a poor person or those terminally ill. They suffer too much at the hand of the rest of the world and death is their only welcoming peace. Same for our genetically incompatibles. Obviously they we're not designed for a long life and should have been screened out prior to birth and forced aborted. Like the others we allow no choice. Society shouldn't have to pay the price for that sentimentality. There should be no organ transplanting period. And certainly no life saving operations. My God, the contradiction in terms boggles. With fetal screening, and DNA testing, unrestricted abortion and euthanasia, life can be properly managed to limit existence to the healthy. Illness and disease and malformed organs are indicative of the further uselessness of the uselessness of we clumps of cells. We have put enormous and unnecessary strain on our health system and “world aid” negatively impacts our economics for no reasonable value except sentimentality for particular lumps of useless cells. The world is in turmoil thanks to unconstrained emotionalism. Procreation must be taken out of the hands of the individual person and given over to that authority with the proper vision for coping with lumps of cells of all manner and in all matters.

Please report to your local cell division for termination or life affirmation.

Brought to you by the makers of Soylent Green.

Make Room! Make Room!

Aqvarvis - The views you express are so extreme, I am sure you are writing this as a 'wind up'. If not, you must be feeling very depressed. Cheer up! Life's not THAT bad!

I have found that doing someone a kindness often comes back to you in the most unexpected ways.

Did you know that any one of us, at any time, can suddenly become so ill with a virus that only a transplant can save our life? Any one of us at any time, can find our lives cut short with an accident or brain haemorrhage.
It doesn't just happen to OTHER PEOPLE, believe me.

I wish you a long and happy life - but if something unexpected like that did happen to you, or someone you love, I think you might change your opinion.

I seem to recall aqvarivs on another thread stating that he is a medical doctor. If so, his comments in this thread seem decidedly odd.

If not, my sincere apologies.

aqvarius, under an "opt-out" system you could opt out if you didn't like the idea of a stranger making use of your organs after you no longer had any use for them. Most people seem to be okay with the idea when they think about it. The problem is that people don't always think about it.

To be fair, though, if a person chooses to "opt out" they should maybe go to the bottom of the waiting list in the event they need a transplant themselves.

I love all the emotionality and the implied backhanded coercion it brings with it in the form of "you selfish bastard, yes, it's your right but, why exercise your right at the detriment of someone needing your organs to live for a couple of more years."

This is the cornerstone of any "opt out" programme. Emotional coercion. The quality of life for most transplant patients isn't debatable. It's meager. Fraught with pain, fear, infections, heavy reliance on drugs and expensive medical attention and after care. The latter laid at the door of the taxpayer who receives no return on their investment. Very few are capable to return to the work force.

I've been enjoying the comments by those who don't actually take the time to read and digest someones post before launching into expressing their "feelings" about what they have not truly read or at least comprehended. Some of these same people can be found a couple of threads down advocating abortion, and the harvesting of the fetal remains for extending and treating those more alive. It's these moral inconsistencies that led me to my last post which is not opinion but, rather a satirical response to the self-righteous who advocate keeping alive the diseased. Desperate to hang onto the last vestige of life through harvesting organs and if necessary taking another life.

I would suggest those people who have asked that lucky Doctor to terminate their babies life to terminate their dysfunctional and ailing relatives. Oh no, wait. We can shove them off into long term care facilities and the "system" will take care of them. The taxpayer will take care. I wont loose out like I would have if I had to raise a child.

Some peoples values and morality is conditional on what it will cost them in terms of their own getting.

I suggest people read John Harris, The survival Lottery. (Philosophy. Applied ethics).

All this talk about transplants reminds me of the late Jim Cameron. Jim was in the NSW Parliament as the Liberal member for Northcott and in 1983 he was the only member to speak and vote against the Human Tissue Bill. This Bill was concerned with organ donation and Jim objected to transplants, apparently because of "God's will".

Jim was elected to the upper house of the NSW Parliament for Call to Australia in 1984, but had to resign shortly afterwards because of a massive heart attack. The only solution was a heart transplant... Jim apparently consulted with God and discovered it was "God's will" that he have a transplant.

Jim made a full recovery and decided he wanted his seat back. Marie Bignold, who'd replaced Jim as Call to Australia representative, decided that wasn't "God's will". Undaunted, Cameron offered himself to any party that would have him. Nobody was interested.

Apparently the prospect of imminent death sharpens the mind marvelously. I can't begrudge Jim Cameron his extra 18 years of life, but his hypocrisy was absolutely breathtaking.

I've seen 6 young relatives and friends (ranging from 13 to 40 years old) die in hospital in the last 15 years, None were transplant candidates, but who could say they didn't deserve the same chance as Jim Cameron?

Nice one, Johnj.

One reason I'm acutely interested in this issue is that a close relative of mine was fortunate enough to receive a liver transplant last year, and I'm witnessing firsthand the positive results of organ donation.

She is a woman in her 40s who had contracted a liver disease iatrogenically, via a blood transfusion during the birth of one of her children. Since her late diagnosis a few years ago, her health had rapidly declined to the extent that the available treatments were apparently deemed to be too dangerous, and she was consigned to the 'list' (and all that entails) for a couple of years.

After a couple of cruelly false alarms, she had in fact given up hope and had planned her own 'living wake' when the call finally came through. She went through hell during and after surgery, but now is living a relatively 'normal' life - in fact, her quality of life is better than it has been for years, notwithstanding a fairly heavy medication regime and obviously abstemious lifestyle.

Her liver apparently came from a young man who had died in a car accident.

What interests me most about the idiotic comments from aqvarivs above is that he is a medical doctor. How on earth could the young man who died in the car accident have met with my relative in order to ascertain her deservingness of his liver? What had she done that deserved the opprobrium that Dr Aqvarivs directed towards her disease (that she had contracted in medical hands)? Her life is certainly worth living from her perspective, so what value is the good doctor's snarky dismissal of the post-transplantee's quality of life?

It seems to me that this quack has traded in his Hippocratic Oath for hypocritical drivel. Heaven help any of his patients who might possibly benefit from an organ transplant - because Dr Aqvarivs apparently won't.

CJ Morgan, thanks for pronouncing me Doctor. Please deposit the concomitant salary to my palpal account. You make my previous post not incidental with your emotionalism and character assassination. How do you type with both feet in your mouth and all your hand wringing?

As aqvarivs didn't refute my apparently faulty memory of his occupation above, I took it to be confirmation that he's a doctor. My apologies.

However, given his snide, selfish and idiotic comments on this topic, we can be very grateful for that fact.

As usual CJ Morgan allows himself excuses that he wouldn't give any other poster. That would mean giving up his only recourse to contrary opinions, and that is belittlement and character assassination. It's not my business or responsibility to run after CJ Morgan or any other poster to manage their assertions and or accusations. Learn to read and take the time necessary to actually comprehend what others write. It may mean that you give up pouncing with personal attacks but, over all general discussion will improve.

Intriguing story, Johni. I wonder if Jim Cameron agreed to become a donor himself after he received a heart transplant.
I agree with Snout that it’s fair that ‘opt-outers’ should go to the bottom of the waiting list. Although I wouldn’t want to deny anyone a transplant, if there is a shortage of organs, donors should have priority.

Aqvarivs,
I’m interested in your reasons because I’m struggling to understand why people wouldn’t want to be donors. And you do bring some interesting points to think about into this discussion.

I understand that one of the reasons you don’t want to donate is because you want your family to profit from your organs. Even though it is kind to be concerned about the financial security of your family; there are better ways to secure them, e.g. life insurance. Thing is, if you want to sell your organs, someone has to pay.
Would this be a fair system? And what if one of your family members would pass away- would it make you happier to profit from their organs?

Another one of your reasons is two-fold:
A. Concern for the recipient of your organs- will the person’s quality of life really improve? You doubt that. Good point, but not all organs are the same.
For kidney patients their life quality improves significantly post transplant. People who regain their sight will also be able to enjoy their lives much more. And what about that little heart patient that Zoe’s mum’s daughter saved?

If you are concerned that your organs won’t improve the life of a patient, you could inform yourself about which organs definitely benefit people’s health. Then you could make a choice- you could only donate these organs that you know will make a big difference. You don’t have to donate all of your organs, just some of them will be better than none.
I assume that it is possible to tick only those organs that you want to donate- e.g. eyes and kidneys.
Continued below

B. concerns about costs for the tax payers. The author would refute this argument; he said “And think of what you are achieving: you are helping the general population by saving money and releasing the burden on our hospitals….” Releasing burden on hospitals is always a good thing. Again, educate yourself by finding out what donating your different organs will mean to taxpayers. For me, all taxpayers are there to support each other in times of disease or illness. Any decision that benefits patients AND taxpayers is superior to one that benefits just one side.

I am not convinced about your argument that very few organ recipients are able to go back to work; for kidney patients this is not so- being on dialysis takes huge chunks out of someone’s time and this will interfere with any job. I would’ve thought that after the transplant they’d be able to regain much of their working life again. Jim Cameron was able to work again as are other recipients of hearts. What evidence do you have that most organ recipients are incapable to return to the work force?

As a last argument you address human value.
First of all, nobody in this discussion has claimed that we are a bunch of useless tissue. You’re just having a go at me because you don’t like my pro-choice arguments in the Abortion Conundrum thread. I said that a zygote, blastocyst or embryo is not a human being. Since I am the only one in this discussion who’s also in the abortion discussion, you are just aiming at me- not at the others; they were not there.
Continued below

I wouldn't want to give the living any more value than the value that they themselves put on others lives as evidenced by their thinking on taking life when it suits them. I'm one of the few who believe that people should be held accountable to their beliefs and personal philosophy. And people with no moral or ethical philosophy but greed get nothing from me.
I believe in free will not in a free pass, and people who have shown no regard for their fellow man or the sanctity of human life need not be shown such consideration in their time of need. Especially the use of organs that will extend that selfish existence one iota.
Each human being is born with a clock that begins it's countdown from the moment of conception. Some life last but a single day. Some a hundred years. Some life is lost by accident and through disease and others life lost in heroic deeds serving their societies. I'm not under any illusion that all life is of equal value. YOU have shown me THAT. That values can be selectively applied. I'M saying that anything that would extend YOUR lives ought to be equally selectively applied. Do you have any value? Let those who want their lives extended through the use of other peoples organs prove their worth, their value. Who have you been in thought and deed that gives you more of a value than the lives you have taken for your own individual purpose?

Aqvarivs,
Are you saying you don’t want to donate your organs to immoral people unless they pay for your organs? As long as they pay you don’t care how immoral they are?

Back to “value”.
On the Big Donor Show, the ‘donor’ had the difficult task of selecting a donor out of about 30 matches. Who did she think was most worthy of her kidney? What I liked about this was that the elimination process highlighted that it is a near impossible to decide who would be ‘worthy’. Indeed, at one stage at the beginning of the elimination process, the donor eliminated all patients who were not donors themselves.

The thing about value is- worthiness is in the eyes of the beholder. We all have someone in our life who would find it worthy to save us, who cries with us when we suffer and who hopes with us that we will be saved. I wouldn’t want the impossible task of having to decide if someone is worthy of saving or not. Just trust that this person is loved by someone.

Even if, in your eyes, a patient is not worthy enough to be the recipient of one of your organs, then perhaps the people who love this patient are worthy enough to be spared the grief and pain of losing their loved one. Is a baby worthy of having its mother saved?

If you are against organ donations because each human is born with a clock and we have to just accept the length of our lifespan, then you would equally oppose any life saving operation or treatment.
Breast cancer? Accept it- it’s your clock.
Brain tumor? Too bad, accept your natural life span.
Car accident? Don't bother calling an ambulance.

All that suffering is unnecessary. If we can have daylight saving- we can manipulate that clock of life a little, too! As much as we can enjoy longer, lighter days, we can enjoy a longer, healthier life, if we choose. All we need to do is help each other.

Celivia, you continue to deconstruct to your preconceptions. Your a wonderful dancer and I like observing your movements circulus in probando and your fallacy of many questions. You seem to be unaware that such use is counter to the question at hand and your assumptions with in your questioning require similar proof, and that ideological emotive relationships do not prove assumptions.

Let me repeat again. I wouldn't want to give the living any more value than the value that they themselves put on others lives as evidenced by their thinking on taking life when it suits them. I'm one of the few who believe that people should be held accountable to their beliefs and personal philosophy.

I believe in free will not in a free pass, and people who have shown no regard for their fellow man or the sanctity of human life need not be shown such consideration in their time of need. Especially the use of organs that will extend that selfish existence one iota.

I'm not under any illusion that all life is of equal value. YOU have shown me THAT. That your VALUES can be selectively applied. I'M saying that anything that would extend YOUR lives ought to be equally SELECTIVELY applied.

Therefore, the question isn't should there be organ transplants or are you a willing donor? The question rather should be who is to receive said available organs and have they led a pro-life existence. Those who are not pro-life should not benefit from that pool of organs left by those who are pro-life.
Those who are not pro-life should be held to their philosophy that they adopted to take a life or allow a life to be taken.

Dance with the one ya brung.

aqvarivs: "I wouldn't want to give the living any more value than the value that they themselves put on others lives as evidenced by their thinking on taking life when it suits them."

If aqvarivs is equating "taking life" here to abortion (as opposed to, for example, capital punishment, warfare or eating meat), then this makes about as much sense as his demand above that he should be able to meet any potential recipients of his body parts in order to assess their worthiness. One therefore has to conclude that he is still engaging in hypothetical sophistry that privileges the rights and interests of the unborn and deceased over those of the living.

Clever though this may be (at least to him), it is still so much nonsense. I think I should have directed my apology above to the medical profession rather than to aqvarivs, for imagining that one of their number could possibly hold such execrable views.

I note that this thread seems to have generated more heat than light. A pity, as this is an important issue, though fraught with emotions.

Late last year I attended the funeral of a cousin who died at 35. He had been sick for nearly 10 years with an enlarged heart, due to a viral infection. He had been placed on the heart/lung transplant list, but had taken himself off the list, due to his concerns about the quality of life after a transplant. He commenced a job that he could cope with, but his health gradually declined. He went back on the transplant list, but after a heart attack (while in hospital) he spent 10 days in intensive care before the machines were turned off. I understood my cousin's reasoning and of course respected his choices. Who knows whether a transplant would have lengthened his life, or improved the life he had.

Potential donors and potential recipients are often not that different, many being unconscious in an intensive care ward. A donor (or recipient) is often not in a position to state their wishes, so it is often up to relatives to decide. It's important to let your next-of-kin know what your views are.

Aqvarius, I find your position interesting, but I'd like to reverse your perspective. If you (or your next-of-kin) were in need of a transplant what questions would you ask of a potential donor to evaluate their worthiness?

Johnj, let me say first that what I have posted earlier, in it's entirety, is not opinion so much but rather gruel for thought. I do believe that individuals who champion death ought not to profit by life. Especially the beneficence which is organ donation. They should be held to their personal ideology. Life is not a flexible value to be manipulated at will for any reason. Haven't we done away with the death penalty? If you can determine one life to be of no value, then by extension your life should be held to be of equal value.
As to your question I would answer thus. That the donor has bequeathed his or her organ(s) for a future use of another after the donor has finished with them. A Doctor will determine if they're viable for use at that time. Not all are. Sadly many of our young are taken from us through life's many fatal accidents. That advances in medical science allows an ailing person to be sustained for sometime through such an accidental death and an organ transplant is a marvelous thing. Should a killer, anyone who has decided another life to be immaterial be given that gift?
In one of my philosophy classes the question was asked,"How would you think post transplant, knowing it was a serial murderers, or rapist, etc., heart that now beat with in your chest?"
You would have been intrigued by the many different answers not limited to, I don't care. I'm alive is all that matters.

I don't think in my own mind that I am comfortable with a "system" of organ donation. A system for dispensing of donor organs yes but, not a system for donating. Systematic donation is too open to abuse and the gift of organ donating should remain sacrosanct and free from violation.