Organ ownership

Last week, scientists advised Gordon Brown that a "presumed consent" system, where all people are organ donors unless they opt out, or a family member refuses their organs to be harvested, was a bad idea. This is not compatible with Mr. Brown's desire to change the "opt-in" system we have at the moment.

The scientists of the Organ Donation Taskforce, which was set up by the government in 2006 think that a change would cause practical problems for the NHS and would risk a potential backlash among the public. 

The Taskforce imply that, despite an increase in organ donors, the number of skilled staff in the transplantation area and better facilities are still needed to improve transplant rates.

The Sunday Times magazine quotes a former heart transplant surgeon with, "Twenty years ago, if you did a transplant it made the news. Now they are done at night, when operating theatres are empty. It's hard, demanding work, and you're still expected to turn up for 8am".

Hearts are one of the least transplanted organs in Britain. That there are not enough hearts available does not appear to be the only reason for this. There simply aren't that many heart transplant surgeons and the operation is risky.

Lives to save

However, there are plenty of stories where people have been waiting for kidneys or livers and there just are never enough. I cannot completely understand the Taskforces view when it would be steps closer to more lives being saved. 

Nobody likes thinking about death and as much as many say they're not superstitious people worry about tempting fate by signing away their organs. An "opt-out" system would be more truthful of whether people actually want to become donors or not, as there is always that people "never get round becoming one" when they have always meant to be.

There is always the risk it could always work the other way round. That the person always meant to opt-out of the system due to beliefs or religion, but never got round to it.

A change could create a stir and a need for further change in staffing. But if it saves lives then is it not worth it?