Celivia
Some good points arose from your research. I tend to agree with your three main points at the end as probably being the most effective in increasing donor participation.

Fractelle
I agree wholeheartedley that profit should not come into it - that would set a dangerous precedent.

StG
It must be very difficult to face those experiences that you and your partner went through and you have both shown great courage. Best of luck for the future and I wish you both good health.

Yes, I've made comment in past threads that I firmly agree the opt-out system is far better.

The only reasons I see raised against it tend to be rather emotive ones - when I've mentioned this to others, they've said they'd be a bit worried about people hovering over the life support systems keen on pulling the plug. Frankly, I don't think this is at all likely, and considering the number of lives that could potentially be saved, this one really does seem like a no-brainer.

Fractelle and Pelican,
at the risk of being provocative I’m going to say that I used to totally agree with the non-profit for donors stand, but I have to admit that I’m not 100% sure about that anymore, either.
For about 95% I agree that there should be no payment to live organ donors because there is always the chance that the poor will be exploited.
But because I have doubts, for the remaining, vexing 5% I’ve been sitting on the fence ever since I read an OLO article by (I think) Mirko Bagaric last year. Wish I’d kept it because I can’t find it back to show you.

From memory: he argued that if the government would pay live donors (I think the amount was $50,000) through the health system for a kidney, the problem of shortage of kidneys would be solved and nobody would have to die while on a waiting list.
He argued that exploitation wouldn't happen if it’s properly done through the health system and that poor people are capable of making decisions just as well as the wealthy. The poor are being exploited by the rich already by selling their time, through labour, cheaply. The pharmaceutical industry benefits financially, the surgeons benefit financially; the only one who does not benefit is the donor.

Well, I dunno, but I guess the best solution would be to all donate our organs post mortem, and we will all benefit because we’ll maximise the chance that there will be an organ available if we need one.

Thanks for the thoughts guys. It's very much appreciated by us both.

Fingers crossed for the Opt-Out option.