Organ donation should be 'opt out' as opposed to 'opt in'

Thank-you for the reply, The majority You say that we do not legislate for the majority when surely, in essence, that is exactly what a democracy does and what the purpose of democracy is. The most popular political party are voted in because the greatest proportion of the population support them; vetoes are decided because the greatest percentage of the population support it. As a democratic society, we, in essence, make most laws based on majority opinion. If the majority of the population support organ donation and would not oppose an 'opt-out' system and we are making legislation which does protect minority groups (see Alternative Options below), then this would be the logical decision. Honouring of personal opinions You also say that assuming they give permission unless they say otherwise is an insult to their beliefs and opinions. If this is the case, then surely assuming automatically that someone does NOT want to donate their organs is equally insulting to their beliefs and opinions. If organ donation is something I, as an individual, feel passionately is something I wish to happen, then the assumption that I do not want to donate my organs is equally as insulting. In this case, a choice between the two options, with neither being assumed for the individual would be the ideal solution, although this poses its own problems with laziness and unwillingness to think about death. As with the 'opt-in' system, many people would not find time or be bothered to make a decision and this would therefore be left down to their family, much like it is at the moment. Medicine/Science The statement that organs may be used for students is not actually true. Unless expressed permission has been given, organs and tissues cannot be donated to education or science. It is a separate process entirely and any organs unable to be used for transplant will remain in the donor's body as opposed to automatically being donated to science. Religion In the case of Muslims only being able to donate if it's going to save a life, that is surely a personal decision they must make. It also depends on what you define as 'saving a life.' A heart transplant may immediately save somebody's life but a kidney transplant may also save their life by adding 10 or 15 years to their life expectancy. All organ donations, one way or another, save a life, depending on your definition of the term. Alternative Options The 'opt-out' system, which is in operation in Singapore involves groups of people in society being automatically not included in the system. In this case, Muslims as a group chose not to be involved and it is therefore not automatically assumed that they wish to donate their organs. A similar system could quite easily but put in place in the UK; Muslims and Gypsies and other groups fundamentally against organ donation would not become part of the 'opt-out' system so would not have to face their beliefs being disrespected or assumed. They, of course, would still have the choice to 'opt-in' if they so wished. Another option is that organs can be taken from any patient who has not chosen to 'opt-out' unless their family state otherwise when they die. This is a system in place in Belgium. This eliminates the risk of people not having 'got round' to opting out and still allows some element of a late change in religion or personal belief. However, this option does still hold the issue that the current 'opt-in' programme possesses; that in times of grief, families are much more likely to say 'no' than 'yes.' Mixing paperwork Although to some it may be the case that your body being cut open is a 'bigger issue' than your body remaining the way it was, it could also be seen as equally as large an issue for your organs not to be donated due to mixed paperwork. Personally, if I was somehow to find out my organs had not been donated following my death due to mixing of paperwork, this would be as big an issue to me as a Gypsies body being cut open and organs used for donation. People feel just as passionately about their organs being donated as they do about their organs not being donated. So the mixing of paperwork is equally as potent and damaging on either side of the fence. Conclusion For the greatest good of the population as a whole, an 'opt-out' system of organ donation brings the most benefits. There are nearly 20,000,000 people registered as organ donors in the UK, with 7,259 people waiting for transplants. If an 'opt-out' system was introduced, this number would rocket and instead of a third of the population being organ donors, the figure would be closer to two thirds or three quarters. With systems such as those in place in Belgium and Singapore, minority groups in society would be protected, with an automatic 'opt-out' granted to them because of their religious beliefs or their family given the final decision surrounding their donation. The difference between the percentage of people on the organ donor register (31%) and the number of people who have stated they would be willing to donate (quoted as high as 85%) would be much smaller. Those who were passionately against donation would still have the ability to choose not to donate their organs. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not organ donation should be 'opt-out' or 'opt-in' revolves around political ideology and belief. The Socialist opinion would favour 'opt-out' as it undoubtedly benefits the population as a whole much more than 'opt-in'. The Capitalist view would be much more favourable towards the 'opt-in' system as it values the opinion of the individual much more strongly.