A friend of mine believes that if people (of adult age) are not organ donors then they should not be allowed to receive transplants if they so require them.
I'm not too sure if I agree, it seems a little extreme, but on the other hand perhaps it is the best way of increasing organ donors in this country.
What do you think?
I'd feel uncomfortable about being forced into that position- do/should the government really have that kind of control over our own bodies?
It seems a bit extreme and I think there are perhaps better ways of getting people to become donors than forcing them to.
Also, I thought doctors weren't allowed to discriminate when it comes to those who need transplants? I'd have thought that would be some kind of breach of ethics.
Perhaps a better way of doing it would be to say that those that are organ donors, if they need an organ, will be given preference over non-organ donors. That seems reasonable.
It wouldn't be government control, you would still have the right not to be a donor. And I agree with bob, not being a donor would just put you on a lower priority.
As for those objections due to age or whatever, adults can be donors even if they might not be usable, same as for a donor who later became ill. Children are more problematic, so they should be exempt from the requirement; but that shouldn't stop the parents from deciding to allow organs to be harvested from their child after death.
I think it's a great idea. It would the hypocrisy.