I read an article published by the Telegraph that had this opening line. "Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent." (Read the full article here:
I guess I have a mixed reaction to the idea of presumed consent regarding harvesting human organs and tissue. There is a terrible shortage of donor organs available for transplant and society would benefit if the shortage were to be relieved. On the other hand, who actually "owns" the organs? The person or the State? If they belong to the person, then wouldn't "presumed consent" actually be a form of government seizure of property? Given that human organs do have monetary value, would the estate of the deceased be compensated for the seizure in a similar way that a property owner is compensated when property is seized through eminent domain? Would compensation for organs lead to the sale of organs?
While I think donation is a wonderful gift, my personal goal is to wear my organs out to the point that no one would want them.