Consent v. Conscription - by Matt Meeker

The shortage of organ donors justifies the need to find better ways of approaching potential organ donors, however, the approach presented by Spital and Erin is far too extreme and ultimately immoral. It seems rather strange for the authors to point out that a lack of consent can be solved by simply not asking for consent. Currently consent must be achieved first from the patient and then from the family members of the deceased person. People are most often confronted with the decision to consent when they are at the DMV getting a new driver's license. This demonstrates the first problem with the system; people are not informed of the need and benefits to others of organ donations. There is a popular belief amongst non-donors who believe if they do consent that doctors will not try as hard to save them if they are in an accident. Yet it is very unlikely that this would ever happen. These decisions should not be made at the DMV. The second problem is the need for consent from the family. This should simply not be required except in the case of minors who would donate.

I will concede to Spital and Erin that these solutions will not guarantee 100% organ donation, but even if these changes do not increase organ donation it is still wrong to take organs without any consent. The authors claim that religious reasons are not absolute, however some religions require the body to be intact for movement into the next life and preventing a person from doing so is wrong. Non religious reasons aside, we do put some moral value into corpses, medical school cadavers receive special ceremonies at the end of the year, necrophilia is illegal, as is grave robbing. To some the value of a dead human may be small but to others it is not, and because of this consent should always be required to respect the body and religious beliefs of the deceased person.