That is a graph from an unverified source showing that organ donorship increases with 'opt-out' systems. However, even if the information in that graph is correct this is about the morality and legality of 'presumed-consent' rather than how many organs can be acquired. You should be aware that many people such as myself will opt-out of organ donorship if Brown's plan becomes law. Organ donorship should be by gift and consent!
Which is why people can opt out if they DON'T want to donate...
I don't think you understand my argument.'Presumed-consent' (oxymoron) is not a valid consent. Ask any first year law student and they will tell you that there is a great precedent in English Law that your consent for an agreement cannot be gained by silence on your part. Being given the option of saying no is still not consent. The government serves the people, not the other way around. Organ donorship should only be carried out with consent of the individual concerned.
[These arguments can be dealt with together]
YES! I'm sure many people would be more than happy to donate their organs once they're dead to help others live, but getting around to signing up for it is a hassle, something you always put off at a later date, so many people end up not being an organ donor, not because they don't want to, because they never made their wishes know. And allowing thousands because of this is ridiculous.
For a lot of people it's not a matter of pressing importance, and gets shunted to the back of the mind, thus people who are in desperate need of a transplant go without.
But why is it the "norm" for people not to be organ donors? Surely this is wrong.
No it is not wrong. It is only wrong if you think it is an obligation upon a person to give up his/her organs on death. We are a free country where our consent is required before interfering with our body. If people require organs then it is up to the government to inform people, and if they still don't want to donate/can't be bothered then they shouldn't be taken without consent.
It is during arguments such as these that we can see the damage that is being done by Labour's authoritarian policies on peoples psyche. The task force gave recommendations that would avoid having to deal with 'presumed-consent' and still Brown wants to press ahead.
You could say, with the opt out scheme that it IS affirmative assumption if you look at it as "Yes, I want my body to be untouched when I die" or "Yes, I want people to die from lack of organs when I could have saved their lives".
That is a backflip summersault in logic. That is still not consent because the decision would be taken if you remain silent. Noone wants people to die, but organ donorship must be through consent.
They are still assuming the actions of everyone with an opt-in system.
How so? You mean they are assuming that people will say no? In which case ask them and they will have a clear yes/no answer.