About 90% of people agree with the principle of organ donation yet only 25% of Britons have signed-up. As a result it’s estimated that each year 400 people on waiting list will die from not getting the organ they need. An opt-out scheme would solve this problem in one fell swoop.

The remedy is not to force everyone opt out, but to make a solid, convincing, case why people should opt-in. If the case doesn’t exist people shouldn’t be coerced into doing something they don’t want to do. If the case does exist presenting the arguments will encourage more sign-up without coercion.

The body is a use-once vessel. We don’t take our organs with us and wont need them wherever we go. However, other people might get great benefit from the things we have no more use for. It is selfish for people to want to hang on to their organs.

Some faiths argue that the body must be whole when buried or cremated. We must ask each one of them to opt-out and what if they can’t speak English, what if they just come here on holiday?

It might be selfish to hang on to our organs but our body is just about the only thing that’s ours. Surely we can do with it what we see fit?

Most opponents of the opt-in scheme seem to be arguing from the perspective of a relative to the loved-one. But imagine if you or someone you loved needed a transplant. What would you do in order to get the heart or lung they needed? If no organs were available I bet you’d be begging someone on life-support to give theirs. This scheme takes away that.

We can’t argue from emotional standpoints, reason and logic –and detachment – must prevail. We have to ask is this system right, is it proper. And taking something from somebody without their express consent is not right and it is not proper.

I- while it is distressing for the donor's family hopefully they can take comfort in the fact that someone has a better chance of living, with their help my son will need a transplant in the future it is hard to think someone will have to die for him to live

-Many people actually support organ donation but never actually opt into it but yet they feel free, when they are in need of an organ, to use an organ donors organs. -You have no use for your organs when your dead. -You should feel happy that even in death you can still save anothers life. -One organ donor can donate a majority of its organs, saving and improving many lives. -If you really don't support organ donation, you can always opt out

It goes without saying that organ donation, in virtually all cases, is a good thing. It helps to save lives, generally does no harm. Unfortunately, most people aren’t organ donors. This is not because they don’t believe in the cause, but because they’re simply too lazy to go out and fill in the form that makes them an organ donor. Statistics show that the majority of people in North American and European nations support the idea of organ donation. In most countries, however, only a small portion of the population are actually organ donors.

In France, 98% of citizens are organ donors, compared to only about 25% in North America and most other European nations. This is because in France, all people are organ donors at birth. As a society, we tend to choose the "default" option. If people are automatically organ donors at birth, they can still choose to opt out of being an organ donor at any time. However, those who are impartial and are not severely opposed to organ donation will have the chance to help people in need.

There is a desperate shortage of organ donors in the U.S. Your going to be dead anyways and your organs are just going to deterioriate! If you can give anything useful to another than it should be harvested. It also gives many people a second chance at life. What if your loved one was a reciepient!

If indeed the last thing people want is to be forced to make a difficult decision lets make the decision for them. If the golden rule is that organs will be used whenever there is a need their actual use will not come as a surprise and may even be a source of comfort in later years.

People will get over the fact their loved one’s organs have been used, even against their wishes. But the person who would have died without the transplant, or the person whose life is immeasurably improved, will never get over not having the transplant.

The death of a loved one is always a traumatic event, especially if the death is sudden – and people who die suddenly when young are ideal candidates for organ donation.

We are piling on the misery to demand that relatives allow their loved ones to be cut open and their organs harvested. The last thing people want at that time is to be asked to make an agonising decision about whether someone else should be able to benefit from their son or daughter’s death. If the donor has consented beforehand its one thing, but it is heartless and deeply upsetting to ask that people be made to opt-out at the moment of bereavement.

An organ donation list can hardly be compared to a mailing list. And imagine the stink that would be caused should people not be able to opt-out. You can be sure that the newspapers opposed to the scheme would be the first to learn about problems and would make a huge fuss if any were found. In such instances, the damage to the system would be irreversible and, therefore, it’s hard to imagine any system not explicitly following the requests of anyone not wishing to participate.

It’s hard enough to opt-out of mailing list let alone an organ donation one. Imagine the guilt that will be levied on all those who call up to have their name removed – and that’s if the system works (for lets face it, government does not have a good record when it comes to computer systems).

Surely it cannot be beyond our ability to come up with safeguards to prevent such an occurrence. Ethical specialists could create firm guidelines for doctors to proceed; perhaps only switching off life-support when approval from three different consultants has been gained.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine that relatives of people on life-support will be pressured into letting their loved-ones go if an organ is urgently needed. Imagine the pressure of having to let your child die so someone else can live. No-one should be put into that position, no doctor should have the temptation put in front of them.

Many European countries already have such a scheme with no problems

Countries such as Sweden, Austria and Spain have such a system, and their organ donation rates are much higher than in the UK. There has been no significant backlash from the public since such schemes were introduced, and indeed Spain has even had such legislation since 1979.

Spain has had an opt-out system since 1979 but has only seen an increase in organ donation over the last ten years or so, showing that the system did not directly increase donation numbers in this case. Instead, it is widely believed that the improvements in donor rates in Spain followed the implementation of a comprehensive national procurement system.