Is there any guarantee doctors dont know this information?

Do you people really want doctors aiming up for the parts of your body when you're still alive and they're supposed to be working for you not eyeing up your organs?

'Oh, that medicine might make him live a little longer, but I'd rather have his liver still intact for that person down the hall.'

There's lots of ethical questions arising when doctors know what parts of your body can be used for others who they believe might make better use of them.

Also what about if they decide 'this selfish pr1ck's not donating', and robbing them of useful spare parts? How will they react? Spend all their time on the nicer patients?

Houellebecq

You are right, there are ethical questions and scenarios to be gone into. I wonder if 'opt out' might impede eventual acceptance of voluntary euthanasia, for instance.

That is why I would much rather it if government could one day develop enough courage to enter into direct consultation with the public rather than fear it might be opening a Pandora's Box by being more democratic. The are good models of direct consultation available.

I don't mean the conferencing of notables and professional advocates as has happened recently, that would be the opposite of what I suggest.

I don't believe that the possible opt-out legislation would be a bad thing at all.

If the medical fraternity were considering the lifesaving benefits to many sick people, the Parliament would be surely adding safeguards to the laws by suggesting that perhaps some Doctors who were not employed by the same health facilities as either the potential donor or the potential recipient, would be able to check the decisions about to be made.

If these Doctors were uninvolved with the patients in question, then they could be more objective in the decision about the donors and recipients.

Anyone who was paranoid or cynical enough to feel there was some sort of conspiracy to harvest organs from 'bad' people and give them to 'good' people, could always 'opt out' from donating organs.

Personally, I feel they should also be barred from receiving any lifesaving organs either though.
It's only fair isn't it?

Consent is required from next-of-kin, that is a problem at present and for 'opt out', even more of a problem for 'opt out' where doubt remains as to whether the person wanted to donate or not and the relatives will be asked that question.

That is an example of a management problem in the present system that if deal with, could immediately improve the number and survivability of donor organs from the 1% of patients who are suitable for organ donation. 'Opt out' does not increase that 1%, well not unless you adopt the Python approach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

It would be far smarter, more productive and there would be far quicker results from lobbying government to identify and fix the management problems in the present system.
- in any event such problems would have to be overcome for the alternative system.