This is a hot topic whenever I meet it socially. My inclination is to not have anyone cut my body once I'm dead and so I'm undecided whether I'd want to be harvested for parts.

However, there are those who will not take that indecision--perhaps like the indecision of the British people--for an answer. Instead, the PC attitude is that you must do this, you must sign that organ donor card--how could you not?

I feel it. I feel the PC pressure-guilt and you know, I think that's why I remain undecided. I've had enough of the social guilt trips. Or perhaps I see myself as an ordinary human being and giving away my organs will not make me a hero or a better person now. I'm still foolish at times, make mistakes at times, and think too long and hard on things at times.

Mr. Brown should watch what he says. His attitude smacks of big brother. It feels like a plot which stands poised at the precipice of a dark scifi novel where people are murdered for their organs. Aren't there tales--are they true?--that this actually happens in some parts of the world?

Bottom line: It's my body; don't pressure me. I've spent all my life taking care of it and it's no one's business but my own what I want done with it after I'm dead.

No one seems to have explored the possibility that British reluctance
to voluntarily donate organs compared to other countries might have
something to do with fears that an organ-hungry NHS might allow lives
to end prematurely so that usable organs might be placed with those who
are more "deserving."

Yes, that could be so. This is a modern problem, this shortage of donors, brought into being by the ability of medicine to even perform these operations. I don't suppose there will ever be enough donations as more and more operations are added to the list of can-do's. But if a person or a person's family is not comfortable with the idea of donating, their decision should be respected.

I hereby award the UK's new Prime Minister his official nickname: Bodysnatcher Brown.

Fox News has a series of gab fests presumably about the stock market on Saturday mornings.  I DVR them so that I can rapidly by-pass the liberal political posturing that is rampant on these programs in hopes of ferreting out financial news and commentary. 

But, I couldn't help but listen up when on the program Cashin' In, this past Saturday, a professor was interviewed on this very same subject.  He proposed that the government make it law that American citizens' only choice in the matter would be opt OUT!. 

That's right.

His proposal is that it would be the norm to harvest your body parts.  Doctors and hospitals would only be prohibited from doing so if you specifically opted OUT.

The liberal mindset never ceases to amaze me in their predeliction to declare all for the state. 

It's an outrage that when one is dead that you are paying taxes on your earnings for the third and fourth time in the form of death taxes, but now the state wants to own your body parts, too.  In either case, the state will be swarming over you before you are even cold.  Vultures!

Yesterday I posted the following related item in the Open Thread: 

With government healthcare being debated, especially by the Dems, here's a cautionary tale from Great Britain.  A kidney patient there received a transplant, then had to have it removed hours later when someone discovered that the donated kidney was the wrong blood type.  The patient was O-positive.  The kidney came from an A-positive donor.  The National Health Service computer had the wrong blood type, even though the correct blood type was clearly listed on hospital records.

This is a double tragedy.  One patient has his (or her) hopes raised only to have them dashed, not to mention two surgeries in less than a day.  And a healthy donated kidney was wasted instead of benefitting a patient with the right blood type.  If the donor was a live donor, then that person is running around for the rest of his/her life with one kidney based on an error.

This could be our healthcare system in a few years if we're not careful.

With a system like that, why should the Brits have any confidence in it?

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

If presumed consent was implemented in the United States, the supply of organs for transplant operations would increase significantly. According to polls, about 90% of Americans support organ donation but only about 50% have bothered to register. If everybody was automatically registered, few people would bother to un-register.

Presumed consent can only be implemented in the United States through legislative action — Congress would have to pass a law. The chances of this happening in the foreseeable future are somewhere between very slim and none, because there is wide-spread opposition to the idea of presumed consent.

Fortunately, there is an already-legal way to put a big dent in the organ shortage — allocate donated organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die. The United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the national transplant waiting list in the United States, has the power to make this common-sense policy change. No Congressional action is required.

In the absence of action by UNOS, anyone who wants to donate their organs to others who have agreed to donate theirs can join LifeSharers. LifeSharers is a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at http://www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.

Giving your organs first to organ donors will convince more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. People who aren’t willing to share the gift of life should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.