I'm afraid the argument you are pushing here is indeed a close cousin to eugenics. It may not be racially based, but in selecting what people have the right to be treated and what people don't, you are indeed indulging in precisely that. Organ donation is a form of medical treatment whether you like it or not.
You can rail about western society all you like, but the way I see it, one of the few things that separate us from the animals is a level or respect for the sanctity of human life... though I'm not so sure you consider people to be different from animals anyhow - you've said so in other threads. Perhaps it is little wonder that you are opposed to organ donation on this basis.

The issue really is, by assuming people will want to donate organs, are we somehow violating their right (which we are all agreed must remain) not to donate an organ?

My view, is that if people really are opposed to donating their organs, then they would have ample opportunity to simply say no. This would be a necessary component in the situation, and on a practical level, I can hardly see the situation being otherwise in Australia. It would be an electoral nightmare.

This argument isn't about people who've been killed for organs - we all agree that's wrong. But your suggestion that organ donation shouldn't occur at all... well, that shows such disregard for human life that I couldn't let it go without comment.

Perhaps It would be sensible for the Government to make it a complusary Question on the Medi Bank form
Then there would be a clear record[ One would hope] Of those who wish to donate and those who do not.

TRTL
All I’ve done is point out that human activity has consequences, and it is dangerous to ignore them. It could be argued that assisting ill people to prolong their lives is eugenics – except that eu means beautiful.
I have no problem with western civilization – I am a product of it. You are correct in assuming that I consider humans to be no more worthy of ‘inheriting the earth’ than other animals. I’d forbid all except minor medical intervention on new born infants for the first month, then, when the population consists only of people who have survived their first months unaided, it will be time to consider what medical interventions are ethical – taking not only humans, but the entire endangered biosphere of this planet into consideration. The fact that human overpopulation is causing the extinction of life on earth is relevant to this debate.
If people allow themselves to become unfit, obese, and deliberately poison themselves with too much sugar, alcohol, nicotine etc… then they ‘harvest’ what they sow.
I would not like to live with cystic fibrosis, and would never condemn anyone to that by medical intervention at birth. Nor do I want to be kept alive by medical interventions that will see me institutionalised for the last ten years of my life. A discussion on the ethics of modern medicine is long overdue.

Yes, I am all for making this a compulsory question, either on our Medicare form, Health fund form, or driver's licence or our future "Smart card".

I am also thinking about the following question (but haven't taken a stand on this yet is):

If people are not making their organs available for whatever reason, should that automatically disqualify them from receiving organs as well?

Yes, Celivia... it should.

Actually... that's quite brilliant, and could encourage more people to donate, though I foresee some difficulties.

How soon do people have to decide? when can they change their minds?

In some instances, you would have people simply changing their minds when the circumstances require them to do so (i.e. saying they don't want to donate organs, then when they need one, changing their mind).

There is also the issue of consent... is a nine year old child able to make an informed decision on the issue? If it requires parental consent, then in the event that child needs an organ, do we then punish the child for the parent's decision?

I suppose we could get around that by saying that up until the age of 18, children are automatically eligible for organ transplants regardless of whether or not they donate.

Actually that could work - it would lead to more organs going toward younger patients, and could also encourage more people to sign up to donating organs.