I think I can see this from both sides.

Bananrama, my hubby like you thinks that if they are going to make it compulsory and take away our rights with regards to our bodies then some contribution should be made to the cost of funerals etc.. in fact he said he was going to write to Gordon Brown and give him a costing for his organs and ask him to pay for them now so he can benefit from the money while alive. A very black and white view from him lol

I think it is about choice. I dont think people are opposed to donating organs, I think it is that yet another choice is being removed from us. The one thing in this life we can be sure of is that our bodies belong to us, yet the way this has been put across is that this is no longer the case.

I do want to be a donor but I dont want my corneas to be used, now if we follow the route being proposed then this would be something they had the right to take. Dont ask me why I just dont want them taking bits of my eyes, it isnt going to save a life so leave them alone for gods sake.

"in fact he said he was going to write to Gordon Brown and give him a costing for his organs and ask him to pay for them now so he can benefit from the money while alive. A very black and white view from him lol"

Of course, in the time it took to write the letter he could have ticked the box saying they could not have the bits.

I don't see how it is taking away peoples choice. You can choose to opt out.

I think Jackie's point is the one we should look at. How can you ask a newly bereaved parent to make that call? A tough one.

For the record I have opted in. I asked my mum if she had any objections. She did not.

For those that would opt out. Would you accept organs? (not questioning your right to opt out)

I personally wouldnt opt out, I already carry a donor card I have for years. My daughter who is 14 has very clearly said she does not want them to cut her up if she dies, but that doesnt mean I would refuse an organ for her should she god forbid ever need one. She looks at the whole thing from a childs perspective and may change her mind the older she gets.

The thing is we already choose to opt in or out by deciding to take a donor card, why change that?

"why change that?"

Because there are not enough organs to go round. Obviously the rules should only be for adults. I am all so not saying that people who opt out would be blocked from receiving an organ either. I just wondered if people would take when they would not give.

I see what you say Dr, I am not sure I would if I opted out. I would like to think it were a 2 way street, but agree it should only apply to adults. I htink you will find that like always many would happily recieve without committing themselves to give anything.

My friend is a Jehova's Witness and already would refuse and organs or blood products and is horrified that she may have to be removed from a list, just the thought of it makes her angry. Thats a whole different debate though!!!

I don't see the problem with removing yourself. It will be as simple as this. X

All of this ignores the simple truth behind the real reason for a compulsory scheme.

And as alwyas the truth is very simple and very obvious.

One a compulsory scheme comes into play, the shortage of organs will, in avery short period become a surplus.

yet in order to make sure there are tissue matches for any new transplants all organs will still have to be harvested - this will happen daily.

Under a compulsory scheme then, some organs, once harvested will not be used.

At which point they will be shipped abroad, they will be sold - the families will not get the money the governments will.

Just like the revelation that china was selling organs of executed prisoners, with kidneys and livers going for $30,000, hearts and lungs going for even more.

This was awful we were told, this was being done without consent of the individuals - well in Britain everyone will be judged to have given consent, and the Exchequer will benefit.

I agree I think it should be about choice. Turning the NHS into body snatchers is degrading and potentially dagerous when there are conflicts of interest as to who should die in order for someone to live.

Many years ago and perhaps even now kidney machines were rationed to people considered most in need from a sociiety point of view. A family person would get prority over a single person with little or no family they would be the ones to let die because of a shortage.

Imagine a single person no family hanging on to life but with a small chance of survival could we trust our NHS body snatcher to treat all with the same degree of care....I don't have that much faith in human nature.......

More should be done to promote donation of organs.....I am sure more could be done. Perhps less spent on political party campaigns and spend it on an advertising for doners instead.

But then our immoral polititions of all parties always choose to squander on the pointless....

With everyone on the organ donation list, there will be more organs available. If there was a doctor, psychotic enough to murder one patient to save another, surely it’d be more likely to happen when there was a shortage of organs?!

Still, I couldn’t ever see that happening anyway- it wouldn’t make sense for a doctor to let one person die to save another and if they were planning to murder someone, I think the last thing on their mind would be whether they were on the transplant list or not!

Also, when critical patients are brought in to A&E for example, a team of doctors works on them and they quickly identify the problem, then follow a carefully practiced procedure of treatment, so not only would they all have to agree to kill the patient, they would also have to do it in such a way that would not put them under scrutiny when the autopsy is carried out.