Mandatory Organ Donation

[Matty]

Different countries have different systems governing organ donation. Some, like Spain and Austria, automatically sign up everyone as an organ donor, but have an option to opt out of the system. As a result, those countries have very high levels of organ donation, much shorter waiting lists, and much lower death rates of people waiting for an organ or tissue.

Laws in the US vary from state to state, but in all states, a person must specify his desire to be a donor during his lifetime. Perhaps as a result, the waiting list in the US is almost 100,000 people, and many patients die before receieving the tissue they need.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation

My opinion on this is that everyone should be signed up to be a donor, and to opt out, you would need to provide strong evidence that your moral or religious beliefs conflict with donating organs. The standards would be similar to those used to assess conscientious objectors who refuse to enlist in the armed forces when drafted. (It goes without saying that this would only apply to post-mortem donations).

What do you think the laws on this should be like? Why do you think the United States presently has a purely opt-in policy?

[Eaquae Legit]

I don't think the requirements need be so stringent to opt out. I think most peole aren't organ donors because it just doesn't occur to them. If they didn't have to DO anything, I think a lot of people would be content. And there are some people who it just... squicks out. They shouldn't be forced into it.

Now, what gets me is the low rate of organ donation in Canada. I mean... the information is part of the application for both driver's license and health card, and is coded clearly on each. (In Ontario, at least.) How does anyone above a certain age not know about this?

[Rei]

To be honest, I have no clue if I'm marked to be an organ donor or not. I think the form was seperate somewhere and I don't recall filling it out saying that I'd like to be one. I would prefer it to be a default that you are a donor and you check off a box if you would rather not be one. I do not see why it should be so stringent to get out of it. Some people honestly just have ethical issues with hacking apart a dead body and that needs to be respected. But I'd be willing to bet that, as EL said, more people just can't be bothered to try and figure out how to become an organ donor and then actually go through with it. *hates forms and other kinds of red tape and routinely avoids it like the plague*

[hive_king]

I have nothing against default organ donation, but if someone doesn't want to for any reason, they shouldn't have to. Its their liver.

[Guest]

People can decline to donate their organs if they wish (I for one will not donate, because I plan on being cryonically frozen and will need all my insides in the future); however, a solution people continue to overlook is to legalize organ donation for profit - as it stands, ANY sale of ANY organ of any kind is illegal, even though many people would be more than willing to donate their loved ones (or their own in the case of their death) organs in exchange for compensation - especially with the skyrocketing costs of funerals and final expenses these days. In addition, a lot of people who are suffering and dying while waiting on these insanely long lists would be able to, have they the means, purchase the organ they need. Some might call this discriminatory against the poor; but what's more unfair - that some people could buy the organs they need instead of waiting 10 years like everyone else, or that everyone must wait for an indefinite period of time to jockey for the donated organs that they don't even have enough of in the first place? I'm sure H_k will have some smart aleck one line question, so I'll wait for a moment....

[jotabe]

Well, i think it is quite more unfair that you can get an organ earlier depending on how much money you have, than depending on who got to need it earlier.
First in-first out seems to me a bit fairer.

[Guest]

Well, i think it is quite more unfair that you can get an organ earlier depending on how much money you have, than depending on who got to need it earlier.
First in-first out seems to me a bit fairer.

Well, you're f***ing wrong, and I'll tell you why:

Look, there are two ways of doing it in the current system, wherein abritrary beaurocratic processes determine who gets organs first: either to have it "first-come first-served", or to have it "most-needed first-served."

In the former, the method is inherently unfair because a person who becomes aware of their need for a donor organ first may not necessarily be the person who needs it the most desperately - meaning people who are in dire situations may be waiting for a long time at the bottom of the list, and very well may die while waiting for other, less desperate people to get organs first.

In the latter, only those in the most desperate of medical conditions would be serviced first, leaving those with less urgent (though nonetheless important) needs waiting interminably long times for donor organs, leading their conditions to become inevitably worse as they wait, becoming more and more desperate even though if they had been taken care of right when they become aware of their need, they would have never gotten that bad. This isn't even touching on the subject of who determines what patients get treated first, or even what criteria are to be employed.

In either sytem, everyone's needs cannot be filled. There are simply not enough organs available to save everyone who needs one - in short, there will ALWAYS be people who won't be treated "fairly." Regardless of what you do or what system you employ, someone is going to get the short end of the stick. All that I have suggested is that people have another option available (an option which makes more organs available on the whole, leading to more people able to be saved) - I would think a humanitarian and egalitarian like yourself would be in favor of increasing the number of available organs, regardless of the financial situation of the recipient. A life is a life, is it not?

Essentially, by denying people with means the option of using their money to save their own lives, you are telling them that regardless of how much money they have earned, they are not allowed to spend it to save themselves (or their loved ones). It is this kind of hypocritic double-speak that really pisses me off about socialist-leaning individuals (an oxymoron to be sure) - I mean, I'm a relatively poor college student (as most college students are), but I'm not deluded enough to be biased against the rich simply by merit of their being rich. In addition, if organ-sale were legal and regulated, covered by insurance, prices not swelled by black-market overhead, many more non-rich people would be able to afford organs, and those who still could not afford it wouldn't have to wait as long for the non-sold organs, as less people would be in queue for those organs. All in all, increasing the number of organ-donations by offering incentives for people to donate will HELP EVERYONE - while some people will still not get organs in time (or at all), more organs donated means more lives saved, PERIOD.

[jotabe]

I don't see how that would make more organs available, really.
In Spain, with our default donation system, unless opted out, the people who refuse to donate organs don't do so in the scorned expectation of profit. They refuse to donate on a religious/emotional basis. And this kind of belief, specially when dealing with the frontier life/death of their loved ones, is not swayed by money.

First in-first out, or medical urgency are methods to give organs that are far from perfect, and they do leave people out. But it seems a lot more fairer to decide on basis of who needs it most (from a medical point of view) than on who can pay more for it.

And well, i think you delude yourself thinking that medical insurances would cover it (for a reasonable price, at least). When they try to shave as much service as they can, that in cases you even need a different insurance for sight, and another for your teeth... would they pay the astronomical amounts that an organ can cost (and the organs would really cost that much: it's a matter of life/death).

A last topic: how could that kind of sales be regulated? Think of the extremely reduced half-life of the usefulness of the organs of a just deceased people. Also, when money gets in the way, you are subjected to con-artists: they would try to get useless organs in the market. And people would be desperate enough to buy them.

[Guest]

I don't see how that would make more organs available, really.
In Spain, with our default donation system, unless opted out, the people who refuse to donate organs don't do so in the scorned expectation of profit. They refuse to donate on a religious/emotional basis. And this kind of belief, specially when dealing with the frontier life/death of their loved ones, is not swayed by money.

You have a faulty assumption of your own knowledge of the situation. A great many people who die know they're going to die in advance. At least, in the more developed countries of the world (which is what we're discussing.) It is perfectly reasonable to assume that these people could make the decision to, after they have passed on, to have their organs sold to an organ bank and the proceeds benefitting their surviving family. The organ company would match the individual healthy organs with a person needing one of the same blood type, age, etc. These are all hypothetical situations, but when people don't have to operate in a black market, unlimited opportunities are available. Of course, this doesn't mean that people who are poor wouldn't be able to take advantage of this sytem - instead of waiting on the donor list like they would otherwise. Charities that already provide assistance to medically needed people would no doubt leap at the chance to help patients who need organs, but are at the bottom of the list. The organ bank industry itself would no doubt have many agreements with various charities, hospitals and insurance companies. This of course, also would be helped by that fact that more organs on the market (a legal market, in this situation) means that organs are less scarce. I assume you've taken some kind of basic economics classes in school, so you know that this decreases price, making more people capable of getting them.

First in-first out, or medical urgency are methods to give organs that are far from perfect, and they do leave people out. But it seems a lot more fairer to decide on basis of who needs it most (from a medical point of view) than on who can pay more for it.

It SEEMS a lot fairer, maybe it FEELS a lot fairer to you, but you haven't actually shown any reason why it IS fairer.

And well, i think you delude yourself thinking that medical insurances would cover it (for a reasonable price, at least). When they try to shave as much service as they can, that in cases you even need a different insurance for sight, and another for your teeth... would they pay the astronomical amounts that an organ can cost (and the organs would really cost that much: it's a matter of life/death).

I've heard kidney prices (on the black market) can range anywhere from 5,000 USD to 10,000 USD. While that's a lot of money, I think you delude yourself into not realizing that, without an organ, that person is going to spend many more thousands of dollars on medical bills just to KEEP THEM ALIVE. Maybe insurance wouldn't initially WANT to cover the cost of a 10,000 dollar organ transplant - but they'd realize that in the long run, it would be cheaper than covering the even higher costs of care for all the thousands of people NOT getting organs. And since, as you said, their job is to save as much money as possible, they'd want to cover organ transplants that would not only save people's lives, but would save millions of dollars overall. Add into that the drain on the healthcare industry that would be removed. Add to that the fact that organs, being LESS SCARCE, would have a slightly lower price.

A last topic: how could that kind of sales be regulated? Think of the extremely reduced half-life of the usefulness of the organs of a just deceased people. Also, when money gets in the way, you are subjected to con-artists: they would try to get useless organs in the market. And people would be desperate enough to buy them.

Con-artists can only operate with lasting success in a black market, where they can bamboozle people at will because there's no oversight (think abortions, pre-Roe.) There are ALREADY organ industries that are legal, they simply can't operate for profit and are thus limited in their capacities. (This cutting off of a profit-opportunity ALSO leads to black markets and their inherent problems.) People can donate their sperm for money. They can donate their eggs for money. They can donate their plasma for money. Why not organs? Because YOU don't think it's fair people could buy organs? Just because a person's rich doesn't mean their terminal need for an organ shouldn't be ignored because YOU don't want them to be able to buy it, just because poor people wouldn't be able to. But it's not just 'rich' people who would do it (or are doing it RIGHT NOW on the black market); people who aren't rich still realize that it's cheaper in the long run to buy an organ (if they have to wait a long time on the donor list) than to pay out-the-nose for 10 years to be kept alive until an organ becomes available. SIMPLE ECONOMICS. That's all this is, which is why I shouldn't be surprised a socialist doesn't understand it.

[Guest]

In fact, someone else I'm having this same discussion with pointed me to this website: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/ ... rgans.html

[hive_king]

Speaking of simple economics, AB, there are signifigant flaws in your own plan. For one thing, there will still be signifigant shortages. This is because there is such little supply. You seem to think that the market system will create a signifigant larger stock of organs. I disagree.

First, lets set the criteria. We have two plans here (the market plan and the opt-out plan). Out criteria to judge them should be which plan helps more people more fairly, and which results in better organs. Under the market system, organ supplies would not increase signifigantly, and might even decline. After all, what person would sell his organs, but would check the opt-out box under the opt-out system? The opt-out plan produces more organs for donation since most people don't donate after apathy or laziness to conciously get on the list. However, the majority will probably not go out of their way to sign up with an organ donation company under the market system. This means that there will be less organs to go around than the opt-out system.

The second issue is fairness. Which system is more fair? The answer is the opt-out's system of most need. This should be judged by what saves the most human lives. In the needed-most system, the person closest to death always (ideally) get the organ. This means that while a few people might be sick a bit longer, overall, more human life is spared. Meanwhile, under the market system, richer people would get organs quite early, while those of less means would be in much more danger of not being able to get an organ untill its too late. It is easy to imagine that a person at the very bottom of the list might never be able to get an organ because so many better-off people go before him since they can pay more for the organ, "cut" in line so to speak.

Another problem with your market system is the type of people it would attract. While it would attract mostly drug-free people, a disproportionate amount of the people selling their organs would be drug users. This means their organs would be more likely to be damaged and they're more likely to have blood-borne diseases like HIV. This is almost undeniable when looks at the precedent: blood donation. Most bloodbanks used to pay for each donation. Unfortunately, they got a lot of drug users since it was practically free money. This resulted in a lot of people catching HIV and hepatitus from blood transfusions, and a similar thing would happen with organ donation, especially if companies started paying even a little sum before death. You may get some drug addicts in the opt-out system too, but they'd be a smaller part of the whole

A fourth reason is that there is no gaurentee that the companies that deal in organs will screen them properly for blood-borne diseases. While the higher-end ones will, it is likely that many companies, especially poorer ones and ones in the red, will cut corners. This means that the likelyhood of sub-par organs will increase under your plan, while the opt-out plan would include a government with high uniform health standards.

On all these merits,

I'm sure H_k will have some smart aleck one line question, so I'll wait for a moment....

I believe that was quite more than a smart aleck one line question.

[Sparrowhawk]

First, lets set the criteria. We have two plans here (the market plan and the opt-out plan). Out criteria to judge them should be which plan helps more people more fairly, and which results in better organs.

Faulty criteria, which undermines the entirety of your following argument. I don't understand why you (or anyone) seems to think that they quantify what's "fair" when it comes to individual's life-and-death situations. The only 'fairness' is in creating an environment where as many people as possible have access to what they need to survive.

Under the market system, organ supplies would not increase signifigantly, and might even decline.

A conclusion you fail to support.

After all, what person would sell his organs, but would check the opt-out box under the opt-out system?

What person would sell their organs? Uh.. people with a functioning cortex? You have some faulty perceptions, which I don't blame you for, but you should honestly check out the link I provided, particularly the following section (only a small sliver of the practical approaches the author tackles, supported by data)

An options market in organs would allow firms to buy the rights to organs in the event of the donor’s death (Cohen 1995, Barnett, Blair, Kaserman 1996). Every potential donor would either be paid a small amount today to join the registry or they would register today in return for the possibility of much larger payments to their estates should they become actual donors. An options market, therefore, would work much like life insurance (which used to be called “death insurance” a more accurate if less appealing name). The advantage of an options market, over an arbitrarily-chosen license fee discount or similar plan, is that firms would have an incentive to promote donation and the prices offered would automatically increase as shortages become more severe. Payments for the organs would ultimately be made by insurance companies and government just as for other medical services (see further below on the costs of financial compensation plans).

An advantage that all forward-looking approaches share is that the autonomy of the donor is maximized and the decision-making burden is taken off the family at that most difficult time, when they have just learned that their loved one is brain-dead. And, fortunately, experience shows that when families are informed of their loved one’s wishes, they almost always assent to the donation (Siminoff et al. 2001).

“On-the-Spot” incentives are offered only to the families of people who are suitable deceased donor candidates. The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, for example, has said that it would be ethically acceptable to offer to make a charitable contribution on behalf of the deceased or to cover the funereal expenses of deceased organ donors (Arnold et al. 2002). In my judgment, a direct payment to the estate of the deceased would also be ethically acceptable. Payments of this kind can be given as a way of saying thanks for the sacrifice the family has made in service to the community and would be similar to the death benefit offered to the families of servicemen who die in the line of duty.

For example, the Ad Hoc Committee to End the Intractable Shortage of Human Organs, of which I am a member, has recommended a gift for the gift of life that would go the estate of deceased organ donors. We have suggested that the following type of language that should be used in approaching the family of a potential donor.

Dear Mr. Smith/Ms. Jones, as you may know, it is our standard policy to offer a gift of $5,000 to the estate of the deceased, as a way of saying "Thank you for giving the gift of life." The money can be used to help offset funeral or hospital expenses, to donate to your loved one’s favorite charity, or simply to remain with the estate, to be used in any manner the heirs see fit. No price can be placed upon the many lives that can be saved by your gift. Our donation in return is merely society’s way of honoring the sacrifice you are being asked to make, and is a token of our deep and sincere appreciation for your generosity at this most difficult time.

The opt-out plan produces more organs for donation since most people don't donate after apathy or laziness to conciously get on the list. However, the majority will probably not go out of their way to sign up with an organ donation company under the market system. This means that there will be less organs to go around than the opt-out system.

Society's laziness aside, you fail to make your proposed system fit the 'fairness' litmus test you forced upon organs-for-profit.

richer people would get organs quite early, while those of less means would be in much more danger of not being able to get an organ untill its too late. It is easy to imagine that a person at the very bottom of the list might never be able to get an organ because so many better-off people go before him since they can pay more for the organ, "cut" in line so to speak.

Fallacy. Your determination of "richer" has no quantitative value; people have to pay immense hospital bills if they need an organ, rich or not - what you qualify as 'rich' is merely those with the means to pay for their medical care, which in this country means most of the middle class as well as the rich. Furthermore, no one is 'cutting' in line for donor organs in a system where organs can be sold - buyers are purchasing from sellers, not from the pool of donated organs. In fact, you could very well combine both our approaches - have an "opt-out" system, but those who 'opt-out' are free to sell their organs if they desire.

Another problem with your market system is the type of people it would attract. While it would attract mostly drug-free people, a disproportionate amount of the people selling their organs would be drug users. This means their organs would be more likely to be damaged and they're more likely to have blood-borne diseases like HIV.

And under the current black market system, no one knows if an organ they're receiving is safe. Under a legal, above-board system, all current medical procedures would have to be followed.

This is almost undeniable when looks at the precedent: blood donation. Most bloodbanks used to pay for each donation. Unfortunately, they got a lot of drug users since it was practically free money. This resulted in a lot of people catching HIV and hepatitus from blood transfusions, and a similar thing would happen with organ donation,

Um, excuse me, are you f****** retarded? Do you honestly think a diseased organ would be passed along by real doctors? Unhealthy organs get into people's sytems because black market operators can't operate within the legal medical industry. That's even assuming that someone who's a drug user (not just pot or whatever, since you imply that they have HIV and hepatitus), is going to be healthy enough to even GIVE an organ/piece of an organ, and even if they WERE, since they'd be donating in a legal place of business, their organs, blood-work and tissue samples would be tested prior to even DONATING, let ALONE putting that organ INSIDE SOMEONE ELSE.

A fourth reason is that there is no gaurentee that the companies that deal in organs will screen them properly for blood-borne diseases.

Ever donated plasma? You're screened ON THE SPOT and are paid anywhere from 20-50 USD after passing and donating. Simple, effective, safe.

While the higher-end ones will, it is likely that many companies, especially poorer ones and ones in the red, will cut corners.

Only in black markets, again. How long do companies that cut corners in legal markets last? Not very long, do they? And this potential organ industry isn't dealing in microwaves and blenders, they're dealing in human lives - the consequences and immediate reprocussions from even ONE faulty transplant would sink a corner-cutting operation. THIS IS WHY LEGAL MARKETS WORK, AND BLACK MARKETS KILL THEIR CUSTOMERS. (Edit: even if you only think of it in terms of Abortion, comparing pre- and post- Roe v. Wade conditions, as analogous to the problem of organ donation and black market vs. free market)

[jotabe]

That system could work to increase overall the amount of donations. Still, the problem is still that the criteria for organ elegibility would be economic, instead of urgency of the transplantation. Rich people shouldn't be ignored for transplantations... it's their money what should be ignored.
True, i didn't prove that it's fairer using medical criteria than economic ones to decide on transplantations. Neither you did, for your own stance.

I don't know in USA, but in Spain, no matter what you say while alive, but once you are dead, your family still can deny the donation of your organs. And beliefs work strongly in this point.

Check out this graph. (official data from the autonomic govt. of Andalucia)
EU is USA, ESP is Spain. While Spain is in a better situation, it certainly doesn't look like you are doing too bad about organ donation (better, in fact, that many countries in the European Union).

That's why your graph surprises me a good deal, since in this other link (official data from the Spanish govt.) says that in the whole European Union, in 2004, from a total of 62,000 patients in waiting list, 36,000 received transplant, and "only" 3,500 died. (i placed the quotation marks because 3,500 deaths is still an enormous amount of deaths)

Btw, you are wrong labeling me as a socialist. Actually i am a libertarian-socialist.

Edit: man, cross that thing out! >_< It seems that libertarian-socialist is a term that already exists, and it's way different from what i mean

[Sparrowhawk]

Rich people shouldn't be ignored for transplantations... it's their money what should be ignored.

LOL. The faulty basis for socialism right there - just replace "transplantations" with any product, service, right or activity.

[jotabe]

For a socialist yes. But not for me.
For me, money shouldn't be an obstacle when it comes to receiving education, and receiving health care. Ah, and safety/crime-fight.

[Sparrowhawk]

For a socialist yes. But not for me.
For me, money shouldn't be an obstacle when it comes to receiving education, and receiving health care. Ah, and safety/crime-fight.

But it IS. That's the point. There is no socialist utopia. Not everyone can get an organ if they need it. So we provide everyone we can, on the basis of need, the organs that are donated freely - but there's no reason why this has to prevent people who have the money to pay for it themelves the opportunity to do so. You and people like you want to call it unfair, but all things being equal the same number of people are being serviced by the free organ donations, and there is absolutely no logical reason to prevent people from paying whatever it takes to get an organ if they aren't going to be saved by the governmental system.

You claim that money shouldn't be an obstacle when it comes to receiving healthcare - what your plan does is make HAVING MONEY an obstacle to getting healthcare as opposed to NOT HAVING it. This is the basic premise of the Marxist-Lenists - "everyone should be equal - equally poor", or more specfically, "everyone should have an equal quality of life - a s***** one - regardless of how successful they are."

[jotabe]

What you need to see is that the system of "market" for organs should be a heavily regulated and carefully checked one, since we are dealing with parts of human beings. And how easily would be to abuse someone in need of money to give up a non essential organ (for example, a single kidney), drastically lowering their quality of life, if this market wasn't so regulated. Or even resorting to assassination, if the origin and destination of each organ wasn't throughly examinated.

And you and me know how quickly, efficient and free of corruption are markets when they are heavily regulated.

[Sparrowhawk]

What you need to see is that the system of "market" for organs should be a heavily regulated and carefully checked one, since we are dealing with parts of human beings.

Do you know how stringent the qualifications are to become a blood bank these days? To get a charter for a hospital? Etc. All these are well-regulated industries that report very few problems - problems exist, but that's a natural offshoot of human fallibility.

And how easily would be to abuse someone in need of money to give up a non essential organ

Last I checked, forcing someone to give you their stereo was called stealing, so I don't see how forcing someone to give you their kidney would be any different. If you're talking about simply manipulation, as in, persuading someone to do so because they need the money, well no one forced them. There was no smoking gun at their head.

Or even resorting to assassination, if the origin and destination of each organ wasn't throughly examinated.

Now that's just silly. It's hard enough to launder money in this day and age, do you realize how hard it would be to launder BODY PARTS? Last I checked, they were chock full of people's DNA. It's pretty hard (see: impossible) to fake that.

[jotabe]

You missed my point.
My point is that there is a lot of room for abuse if there is not a very strong and detailed regulation on the whole market.
But a market will fail to produce all the advantages it should, when it is heavily regulated, because of bureaucracy and corruption.

The organ market might work on the paper. But as it happens to all regulated markets, it will produce the opposite effects.

[Sparrowhawk]

You missed my point.
My point is that there is a lot of room for abuse if there is not a very strong and detailed regulation on the whole market.
But a market will fail to produce all the advantages it should, when it is heavily regulated, because of bureaucracy and corruption.

The organ market might work on the paper. But as it happens to all regulated markets, it will produce the opposite effects.

You're talking in circles; saying that people will be abused by a free market, but that preventing abuse causes corruption.

[jotabe]

*sigh*

[Sparrowhawk]

Yes, discussion with you IS quite frustrating.

[Non Serviam]

Black market organs aside...the idea of being an organ donor should be terrifying to anyone. Image you've been in a car crash. You're messed up, you might be in a coma. But you WILL live. There are so many doctors out there who would let you die anyway, just to take your organs for the transplant lists. It's pretty scary. Neurologists and neurosurgeons would be willing to rush early brain death, just to get the organs. Hearts can be good for up to 5/6 hours, lungs 6 hours.
Not all doctors are this way, but when the donations are down, desperation makes an easy excuse.

[Dr. Mobius]

Hm, I don't remember if I was signed up to be donor or not at the time (I am now), but from what I was told later on (I was kinda out of it at the time) my neurologists and various other -ologists were a little too preoccupied trying to prevent brain death to worry much about those other people who would be more than willing to provide new homes for my organs.

[zeroguy]

^

Yeah, sheesh, even I'm not that paranoid. And if you're just trying to prevent every single way people can screw you over... I wish you luck in your impossible endeavor.

[Eaquae Legit]

I have mild worries about that, I admit. But not terrifying fear. I'm an organ donor, and I hope to avoid any premature death by discussing with my family exactly how I wish to be treated in extreme, near-death situations. They know my wishes and will insist they be carried out if I'm unable to speak for myself. It's the best thing you can do, whether you have that particular fear or not.

Sadly, I know a little too much about "end of life" situations to not worry at all.

[Luet]

I have a legal health care proxy filled out which gives another person the right to carry out my wishes (which are set out in the document) if I am rendered incapable of making my wishes known.

That pretty much takes away any worry that I might otherwise have had in being an organ donor. And yes, I have the box checked on my license and I've also gone to the national registry website and filled out the form.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

Currently, I am not old enough, but when I will be old enough, I won't have any problem donating my organs (if I can survive without them, or won't survive anyway) to a person who needs them..

...but can someone please explain to me, does religion conflict with organ donation? and if so, how? (by religion, I'm talking about the main Abrahamic religions- whichever you believe in)

[Luet]

This shares the positions of most religions. I found it by doing a search for "religion organ donation".

http://www.transplantforlife.org/miracles/religion.html


This link has some more comprehensive explanations:

http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/religion/

[John Locke]

Mandatory organ donation is something that should be obvious for any modern government.
I know that when I die, I won't need my organs anymore, I'll just rot!