Organ donor forms now to go with licence renewals

Belles said :

Your loved one is not worth a 60k loan?

Not saying their not worth it, just saying that it may be hard for some people to get it/cover it. If I needed to have that amount of money to save my loved ones life I would do anything I could.

And I do agree it is the supply that definitely needs to go up. From general conversations about it people don’t think about it so don’t complete the form. People need reminders to be aware.

Belles said :

In regards to buying and selling organs, ifpeople in Australia are having trouble covering the cost of living then only the rich will get transplants and organs and the people not as well off will continue to struggle or not get anything.

Your loved one is not worth a 60k loan?

Perhaps we could start a benevolent charity, purchasing organs for those deemed worthy. Perhaps we could contract with someone, an employer for instance, upfront payment in exchange for a term of work. No different to the ADF ;-).

As it stands, it’s hardly better now. The rich are the ones that can afford the overseas trip. We have so little available organs right now, it’s the supply that desperately needs to go up.

On the original topic: I am origanlly from NSW and when I first got my licence there was actually a tick box on the licence application form asking if you wished to donate organs and what organs you were happy to donate. The it would say on your licence if you were a donor or not.

I think that it is a good idea because it is there and it is not a separate form to complete and people don’t forget about it. Truthfully I actually like the idea of making it mandatory and being able to opt out if you choose.

I also think that family members should not be able to renege on a decision that is made by the person who has passed. If I decide to donate my organs and whatever else it is my choice and I don’t really think somebody else should be able to change that in my opinion. Myself and my partner know each others wishes (which are the same, to donate) and i will not go against his decisions. After seeing a program on SBS we actually decided to donate our whole bodies to whomever can use it whether it be for research or not, after all it is much cheaper (no funeral costs) and I don’t need it when I am dead.

I think the fact that I could help somebody have a better quality of life is good, and while some less than desirable people may receive the organs we can hope that enough good people will receive them as well.

In regards to buying and selling organs, ifpeople in Australia are having trouble covering the cost of living then only the rich will get transplants and organs and the people not as well off will continue to struggle or not get anything.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

The government is elected by all people to act in the best interests of all people, not just one person. The best interests of those receiving donated organs outweigh those of the dead person. Therefore, the government should legislate to take the person’s organs. It’s not that much different from the government telling you what you can and can’t do with a corpse for public health reasons.

Hey, it’s utilitarianist, but it’s a philosophical justification. The flip side – “how can the government not intervene to save the lives of many just so that it can respect the wishes of a dead person who arguably has no interests” – is no less thorny.

Disclaimer – I’m not a donor.

Yes the utilitarian argument, and I think it’s safe to say that was the direction the poster to whom I posed the question was heading. I think instead of getting into a debate over ‘act versus rule’ utilitarianism and whether the above represents the best for all people.

Please note that my Grandfather died waiting for a kidney transplant so I am no stranger to the pain that this issue causes.

Please also note that this is no way a comprehensive case that I am putting. I’m merely throwing out the bare bones structure. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government is very long but I suggest anyone who is interested go and read it, I’m just throwing out a very sloppy Cliffs Notes of a Cliffs Notes.

I will put forward an alternative theory of man and Government, one that has permeated through all of the great liberal thinkers since the enlightenment.

A fundamental rights based liberal concept, and one that I believe in, is that we are sovereign over our own bodies. You are sovereign over your body, as I am sovereign over mine. From this we derive many of the rights that we hold dear. The right not to be aggressed against, to be free from slavery, to be secure in your person. Our ability to own property stems from our ownership of ourselves.

To fast track to the role of Government, liberal thought on the role of Government(which has dominated political theory but not so much political practise in the last few hundred years) puts forward the idea that Governments are created with the consent of the Governed, and are charged with the role of protecting the rights of these people. We freely (through a social contract as some suggest) consent to be under the bounds of the Government in order to gain the protection of our natural rights. This consent is not absolute however and the Government cannot do whatever it likes. We can only grant to the Government, power that we already have and we do not have the power to claim by force that which is anothers, a part of another persons body. To suggest that we do is to bring down all that we have built our society upon.

Now of course many utilitarians would happily say yes, what is right is that which brings about ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. I find that this belief can lead to great horror, and has done so. To play the utilitarians game however I would suggest that one can put forward the idea that the ultimate protection of the individual will ultimately bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarian philosophy JS Mill is a good example of a utilitarian who blended this with a great deal of emphasis on natural rights and individual liberty.

One could always say, but we are talking about someone who is dead. Does it still count when they are dead? I would say yes, just as we allow a dead person to direct and transfer his property upon death through his will (it does not become free game as soon as someone dies), so does ones body maintain its protection. We have no justification for claiming the body of a dead person as our property, and thus neither does the Government. Do we want to live in a society that has so little respect for the dead? I absolutely think that donating organs is a good and honourable thing to do. But I would absolutely abhor a situation where we have decided that it is not a matter for the individual to decide.

Thanks gun street girl. No insult intended – just clueless about the whole thing.

Look, if you want to breed conspiracy theories instead of heeding fact, go right ahead. I’m not interested in duking it out with you.

“highly ethical” and “clinically checked” – you mean, by professional colleagues of the ones that tolerated the Butcher of Bega? Dr Jayant Patel? The Tasmanian hospital sexual assaults perpetrated on patients under anaesthetic, by surgeons?

gun street girl: Thanks for your time in putting the post together. It provides an insight into the real world as opposed the the crap that TV suggests.

The ideas of “overzealous surgeons”, hasty declaration of brain death by stupid doctors, and a non-transparent clinical pathway (ie bodies going places they weren’t meant to) is a mite insulting, really. In practise, brain death testing and the whole organ donation process is highly clinical and ethically checked down the line.

Brain death, simply put, is the absence of function of both the front of the brain (which controls “higher” centres including personality, memory and movement) as well as the back of the brain, which is the more primitive bit which controls essential functions such as breathing. If you wipe out the back of your brain, you lose the ability to live without external support. If you wipe out the front, you lost the ability to be you, if that makes sense. Brain death testing includes things such as turning off life support (“apnoea testing”), and allowing the carbon dioxide levels in the blood to rise. In a functional brain, this rise in CO2 would cause an autonomic reflex to kick in, turning on the drive to breathe. Without that function, your body just doesn’t breathe on its own. In short, the patient is dead, only kept alive with drugs and machines. Other tests, such as being able to (gently) poke someone in the eye without them flinching, introducing atropine to the system without the heart reacting, abnormal eye movements and pupillary response, and an absence of a cough and gag reflex, all point toward the back of the brain being non-viable (this is not an exhaustive list).

Reversible causes of unconsciousness (eg sepsis, drug overdose) also must be ruled out. The brain is scanned, and EEGs are also obtained, neurologists are often consulted in this process. Frontal damage is illustrated by unconsciousness, no higher responses to any sort of stimuli, no purposeful or spontaneous movement, and the like. Please note: brain death is not the same as a persistent vegetative state, nor is it a “coma”. The transplant and donation teams would not be called to consider those sorts of patients.

The family and friends of patients who donate their organs are dealt with in an incredibly professional and ethical manner by the organ transplant teams and liaison nurses. There is no hidden agenda. I know it is far more salacious to believe that the medical community is lying to the public and protecting some sort of grand conspiracy, but I’m afraid it’s far a more clinical, controlled and moral process than the tabloids would have you believe.

Or worse if there was money involved, a Simpsonsesque “I demand this man be allowed to die with dignity”

Can you tell us more about the process for certifying brain death, gun street girl? I must admit to feeling a twinge of doubt that some overzealous surgeon and a relative with a grudge might decide to reenact the ‘bring out yer dead’ scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with me on the cart.

*shrugs*
I trust medical science when certifying brain death. You choose to base your judgments on a piece on ACA. Each to their own.

Wasn’t there a piece on ACA a few years ago – a man who was about to have his organs removed and then they decided not to because he was ‘borderline’? Hardly – he was mobile and quite capable of giving a spoken interview two years later, so no way was he even close to brain dead! The facts in that item weren’t contradicted as far as I know. I’m not convinced the medicos can be trusted on certifying brain death … and don’t think that donating organs means your vitals will necessarily go to help live humans. There’s a charming spot on the outskirts of a major city somewhere, where corpses are left out and about in the woods and their decay measured for forensic science. A worthy cause, but how many families know that’s what they have signed their dead loved ones up for? Yes, they’re dead – but there’s a very strong cultural (and perhaps even instinctive) tendency to revere the corpse. Who is to say that isn’t for some good reason?

Of course it doesn’t make them who they are.

I think that in burying someone close it is important to many people that the deceased person look as peaceful and serene as possible. This is the last time they will ever see them, and that last glimpse will have to last them the rest of their lives.

Now I don’t know how much butchering goes on in an autopsy, but I feel an instinctive revulsion at the thought. It is undoubtedly necessary in the relevant circumstances, but still another ordeal to be endured by a grieving relative.

What a load of rubbish! A person’s body doesn’t make them who they are.

Perhaps, but emotion isn’t objective.

I think that in burying someone close it is important to many people that the deceased person look as peaceful and serene as possible. This is the last time they will ever see them, and that last glimpse will have to last them the rest of their lives.

Now I don’t know how much butchering goes on in an autopsy, but I feel an instinctive revulsion at the thought. It is undoubtedly necessary in the relevant circumstances, but still another ordeal to be endured by a grieving relative.

What a load of rubbish! A person’s body doesn’t make them who they are.

AG Canberra said :

Can anyone confirm the theory I heard a few months ago that one of the reasons donor rates are low is that only certian hospitals are equipped to remove organs for transplant – and in Canbera that is TCH. If you are unlucky enough to die at Calvary then there is no option to donate…..

Is this correct?

No. I think there is some confusion in this thread regarding what it means, medically, to donate. If you are found dead cold on the side of the road, or die in a hospital bed, your organs quickly become non-viable, because they have had no blood supply for a significant amount of time. Essentially, it’s brain death we’re talking about – so many of the donors come from young people who’ve been in accidents and suffered massive head injuries, or patients who have had bleeds in the brain, which has led to brain death (which is different to a “coma” as seen on TV, and is determined by very strict medical parameters and tests). Before the organs are collected by a surgical team, the potential donor is kept physiologically alive by artificial means (ie life support systems). It’s counter-intuitive for laypeople to understand how somebody can be dead (ie lacking any brain function essential to life), but still kept “alive” on a machine. There is a lot of confusion regarding brain death, and many families refuse to believe that a miracle won’t happen and hold onto the hope that their relative might wake up – therefore, many decline donation. It’s an incredibly fraught and emotional side of medicine – I would encourage lots of discussion while you’re alive, so that your family understand what you would want if you were in that situation.

My sister has been told she will need organ transplants, but after speaking with her doctors and asking what kind of improvement it would give her life, she has declined to accept a transplant, and would rather it be given to a person who can lead a full life.

She has always said she would’nt want a transplant and in the long/short run its her choice, and we have accepted one day she wont be here.

I became a doner this year after picking up the paperwork from medicare.

Ive been meaning to become a donor, I just havn’t got around to it and here’s hoping that it wont be an issue for a fair while.

Seriously though, I do wonder how many people there are like me that are willing to donate their organs, but simply cant be bothered organising it.

I think there is a lot of merit in investigating an opt out system – no reason should be required or anything, if you dont want to, enough said.

I’m a donor, have registered and told my family so they are clear about my thoughts.

If I or anyone I care about ever need donor organs I hope they would be available. If I go early I would like to help others.

If you would consider using donor organs (if you need them) then I reckon registering as an organ donor would be a fair thing to do.

FredJ said :

Interesting how we’ve gone from people donating when dead to people donating when alive.
I’m amazed that people will donate a kidney, and the people who do it out of love are amazing selfless wonderful people. To move to a situation where people donate a kidney to raise the deposit on a house, or whatever, is a completely different thing and not a place I think Australia should be heading.

I have paid over 60k for something from the US. I would have gone locally, but they don’t have any form of range. it was exasperating that i could not buy it here, I am not saying what it was, except it was of human origin.

if the same item was available for purchase here, I would have bought it here.

the banks for this item are depleted, cannot get it here at all.

I don’t think it is right to underestimate the huge amount of grief surrounding the death of a loved one, particularly when a parent is burying a child for instance.

I think that in burying someone close it is important to many people that the deceased person look as peaceful and serene as possible. This is the last time they will ever see them, and that last glimpse will have to last them the rest of their lives.

Now I don’t know how much butchering goes on in an autopsy, but I feel an instinctive revulsion at the thought. It is undoubtedly necessary in the relevant circumstances, but still another ordeal to be endured by a grieving relative.

As with organ donation, I am sure it is done in as sensitive manner as possible, but still you are letting them cut up your loved one like a bit of meat for the greater good.

So rather than railing against people who don’t or can’t bring themselves to do it, I think we should recognise and honour the incredible courage and sacrifice shown by those who are willing, at this darkest and most difficult of times, to give this ultimate gift to others who are also desperate and hurting.

If we were both dying but I knew that I had an organ that could save you, I wouldn’t hesitate. It would make me feel good and give me some peace. But if I was walking around with a card in my pocket giving doctors carte blanche to harvest my vitals and I was in a traffic accident, I would be afraid that they mightn’t have as much to gain by my life as my death if someone like Kerry Packer was in need of a spare part.

So I think if you can demystify it a bit – even give people some control over who they would like the organs to go to – and really honour the donor families and what they have achieved it might make a difference and encourage more people to contribute in this fashion.

I also actually think the opt-out scheme is a good idea, because it would get people really thinking about the issue. I am pretty sure that only those who had a real objection would be bothered opting out.

Yeah, that kind of thing should be left in the Philippines where it belongs…

Interesting how we’ve gone from people donating when dead to people donating when alive.
I’m amazed that people will donate a kidney, and the people who do it out of love are amazing selfless wonderful people. To move to a situation where people donate a kidney to raise the deposit on a house, or whatever, is a completely different thing and not a place I think Australia should be heading.

caf said :

In regards to allowing payment for tissue donations, there are two main arguments against it. The first is that it creates an incentive for people to lie about conditions or risk factors that would preclude them from donating, which would significantly increase the chance of infected tissues being transplanted. The second is that monetising people’s bodies in this way invariably will tip the burden of tissue donation unfairly on the poorest members of society – the spectacle of 19 year old street kids selling a kidney for food being something I am entirely uncomfortable with. I do not want to live in a society where the poor are treated as body-tissue-factories for the rich.

in regards to the 2 main arguments, I do agree with the issues that you raise, however, as we currently screen all donor transplant patients, anyone that has particularly dangerous or life threatening conditions will be screened out, the min age could be set to 21, and if someone came through that was obviously under nourished, the centre would have the right to send them away, or being a charity like the red cross, have a support worker on hand.

Righteous religious loonies have a habit of setting off righteous religious bombs, whichever righteous loonie religion they follow. I have no idea which religions are against organ/blood donations but I know that some are. They are usually also opposed to receiving them – their choice. It’s not something we should be forcing people to do. We don’t need everyone’s organs – just a lot more.

I don’t agree with paying for organs. That could lead to some horrendous new crimes! Also, I morally object to the way that life is being reduced to a dollar value.

peterh said :

there is an act in place called the Tissues Act. It prevents the sale or purchase of any bodily fluids or tissues in Australia. (oh I know what you are going to say, but those bodily fluids don’t count)

All instances must be classified as donations. (no money whatsoever changing hands)

Indeed, I was just interested as to what the true impetus behind the existence of that Act is. I take it that it stems from a moral objection to people selling their bodies or bodily fluids. Bah.

I think ‘those bodily fluids’ should be for sale as well. You certainly get paid in the USA.

In regards to allowing payment for tissue donations, there are two main arguments against it. The first is that it creates an incentive for people to lie about conditions or risk factors that would preclude them from donating, which would significantly increase the chance of infected tissues being transplanted. The second is that monetising people’s bodies in this way invariably will tip the burden of tissue donation unfairly on the poorest members of society – the spectacle of 19 year old street kids selling a kidney for food being something I am entirely uncomfortable with. I do not want to live in a society where the poor are treated as body-tissue-factories for the rich.

If someone seriously believes that their body must remain intact to enter heaven/nirvana/whatever then fine.

sshhhh, just don’t tell them. when they’re dead, they won’t know…

remember: soylent green, people, is PEOPLE!

i actually can’t see what the problem is legislating that every dead person’s organs are up for grabs. what are the righteous religious right loonies going to do – not die? and if that makes or breaks a government, the community they serve has far deeper problems and deserves what they get. but pollies have no balls, do they?

always makes me think of the meaning of life – organ donor skit.

jakez said :

peterh said :

in regards to my organs, I am taking them with me. I don’t believe that i will need them, but then again, I want to have the option if I do.

Yes, a response that is close to my heart…wait.

I remember a Doctor came out in favour of legalised organ sales a month or two ago. Pretty brave to come out and say that in public, it’s not a popular position (or at least a politically correct one).

The Australian Liberal Students’ Federation recently passed some policy supporting the legalisation of organ sales subject to certain conditions. It was written up in some paper but I can’t remember which one.

In any case I obviously have no moral objection to people being paid for their blood/semen donations etc, and know that this happens in the USA. Does it not happen here because of some sort of moral issue or is it more a cost/benefit analysis coming out in the negative?

there is an act in place called the Tissues Act. It prevents the sale or purchase of any bodily fluids or tissues in Australia. (oh I know what you are going to say, but those bodily fluids don’t count)

All instances must be classified as donations. (no money whatsoever changing hands)

jakez said :

peterh said :

I remember a Doctor came out in favour of legalised organ sales a month or two ago. Pretty brave to come out and say that in public, it’s not a popular position (or at least a politically correct one)

Oh yes, that was Dr. Gavin Carney, he is a renal doctor here in Canberra, he is a top bloke.

^ Me too…

And yes I am a registered organ donor.

It should be an opt-out scheme – in other words unless you ‘can be a*sed’ filling out the arduous paperwork involved, you are by default a donor. And those who are not willing to donate, do not get the privilege of benefitting from the scheme should anything go wrong with their body – the second part of the opt-out.

I think you will find THAT scheme will result in an almost 100% donation rate!

I don’t understand. When people say “take all my body/parts with me”, where do they think they are taking them to? Your body either gets buried or cremated, you don’t “take it” anywhere. Regardless of whatever god delusion you are suffering, your body as a physical entity never goes anywhere after you’re dead.

I completely agree. I just seems rediculous to me to deny someone a chance at living when your organs dont have a purpose remaining with you after you pass.

Thanks Kramer. I’ll check. I’m a motorbike rider myself and while I’d love to argue with your, at face value, anti-moto comments, the facts speak for themselves. I am at far greater risk of spilling blood, as you so eloquently put it ;-D. Not that I think this should stop people who live their lives wrapped in cotton wool and watching reality boredom on TV from donating.

FredJ – check with Red Cross regarding the current mad cow status (they have made a few changes), also you might be able to donate platlets.

Why moto riders? Because they are far more likely to spill their own blood. So it works like a bank, make some deposits because one day you are going to want to make a withdrawal. I give blood because I know it helps others, but also I do silly things on mountain bikes, and one day I might need some of that blood back.

I don’t understand. When people say “take all my body/parts with me”, where do they think they are taking them to? Your body either gets buried or cremated, you don’t “take it” anywhere. Regardless of whatever god delusion you are suffering, your body as a physical entity never goes anywhere after you’re dead.

Can anyone confirm the theory I heard a few months ago that one of the reasons donor rates are low is that only certian hospitals are equipped to remove organs for transplant – and in Canbera that is TCH. If you are unlucky enough to die at Calvary then there is no option to donate…..

Is this correct?

And what about a truly capitalist idea – cash to donate. If you agree to donate and anything is taken then $xx dollars are provided to your estate. Doesn’t matter whether you donate corneas or the whole heart lung package – everyone gets the same payment. We can do it for newborns – why not the recently departed?

Why can’t we do what China does and harvest from people convicted of serious crimes, like murder, rape and watching Australia Idol or Big Brother?

Kramer said :

I reckon a organ donor form in the same envelope is still too hard for some people (especially those doing stupid things that render them a potential donor). It needs to be a box to tick on your licence renewal form.

Also they should include a form to register as a blood donor for all motorbike riders.

Why only motorbike riders? I’d love to donate blood but being resident in the UK during mad-cow disease I’m not allowed to. I can however donate organs?!
Corneas don’t contain blood vessels, so maybe that’s got something to do with it. Or maybe by the time you need a transplant the tiny odds of contracting some extremely rare disease from the donated organ is considered a non-issue.

peterh said :

if the government wants to increase donors for blood, semen, organs etc. They should repeal the tissues act. allow charitable institutions to offer a fee for these items, as they do in the states. there are negatives of course, organ theft, etc, but they may find that there are people who would be willing to part with their blood for a cost, and leaving organs for use by the community for a lump sum (sorry, just thought how that sounds)payable to the descendants or a nominated charity if none available.

this would ensure that the motivation would have results. there are many people who give blood, I am one, but the fact is that the majority don’t. and we need more donors than a handful of people.

in regards to my organs, I am taking them with me. I don’t believe that i will need them, but then again, I want to have the option if I do.

Yes, a response that is close to my heart…wait.

I remember a Doctor came out in favour of legalised organ sales a month or two ago. Pretty brave to come out and say that in public, it’s not a popular position (or at least a politically correct one).

The Australian Liberal Students’ Federation recently passed some policy supporting the legalisation of organ sales subject to certain conditions. It was written up in some paper but I can’t remember which one.

In any case I obviously have no moral objection to people being paid for their blood/semen donations etc, and know that this happens in the USA. Does it not happen here because of some sort of moral issue or is it more a cost/benefit analysis coming out in the negative?

if the government wants to increase donors for blood, semen, organs etc. They should repeal the tissues act. allow charitable institutions to offer a fee for these items, as they do in the states. there are negatives of course, organ theft, etc, but they may find that there are people who would be willing to part with their blood for a cost, and leaving organs for use by the community for a lump sum (sorry, just thought how that sounds)payable to the descendants or a nominated charity if none available.

this would ensure that the motivation would have results. there are many people who give blood, I am one, but the fact is that the majority don’t. and we need more donors than a handful of people.

in regards to my organs, I am taking them with me. I don’t believe that i will need them, but then again, I want to have the option if I do.

Religion is a complex and irrational thing. If someone seriously believes that their body must remain intact to enter heaven/nirvana/whatever then fine. They should not be subjected to torment or anguish to satisfy a demand for organs that can be met from people willing to donate but who haven’t got around to registering. An opt-out scheme is interesting…

I think this is a good idea.

I reckon a organ donor form in the same envelope is still too hard for some people (especially those doing stupid things that render them a potential donor). It needs to be a box to tick on your licence renewal form.

Also they should include a form to register as a blood donor for all motorbike riders.

I’m 100% sure that the ACT did have, at one time, a section of the driver’s license which you signed to agree to become an organ donor.

This seems to have been quietly dropped a bit later. I am going back 20 – 25 years at a guess.

I’m taking mine with me – just in case I need them on the other side.

The government is elected by all people to act in the best interests of all people, not just one person. The best interests of those receiving donated organs outweigh those of the dead person. Therefore, the government should legislate to take the person’s organs. It’s not that much different from the government telling you what you can and can’t do with a corpse for public health reasons.

Hey, it’s utilitarianist, but it’s a philosophical justification. The flip side – “how can the government not intervene to save the lives of many just so that it can respect the wishes of a dead person who arguably has no interests” – is no less thorny.

Disclaimer – I’m not a donor.

>> Give me your philosophical justification for the Government having the right to a part of a persons body.

The donor is dead, they have no use for any part of their body anymore. Regardless of your beliefs, once you’re gone….your body simply rots in the ground or is turned into a pile of ash. When there’s a chance that some part of that body can give someone else life or a greatly improved standard of living, then I think it’s quite wrong to be so selfish as to not allow that to happen.

justbands said :

>> outside of people with religious objections, I don’t understand why so few Australians are

I don’t understand those with religious objections either…I think we make too many excuses for religous groups on issues like this. I say “I don’t care what your god thinks, we need your liver” is a better way to deal with them. Organ donation should be mandatory.

Give me your philosophical justification for the Government having the right to a part of a persons body.

Mr Waffle said :

I went to the website a while ago, but it said I had to do a bunch of stuff. I’m too lazy to do that sort of thing. This is a good idea, ’cause I’ll actually be willing to fill out paperwork when getting my licence…

See! Too hard.

>> outside of people with religious objections, I don’t understand why so few Australians are

I don’t understand those with religious objections either…I think we make too many excuses for religous groups on issues like this. I say “I don’t care what your god thinks, we need your liver” is a better way to deal with them. Organ donation should be mandatory.

Last I heard, the donation rate was low not because there weren’t enough donors, but because having the ‘donor’ box ticked can be overridden once you’re dead by interfering relatives (and this was happening in some large percentage of cases).
The ability of family to override our wishes needs to be addressed.
While it remains, efforts like this one are futile.

I’m not saying it won’t work.

Just that there are some risks and a lot will depend on how it’s handled.

I went to the website a while ago, but it said I had to do a bunch of stuff. I’m too lazy to do that sort of thing. This is a good idea, ’cause I’ll actually be willing to fill out paperwork when getting my licence…

I too am a registered donor. I’ve been following Senator Humphries campaign recently for Australia to adopt an ‘opt out’ scheme, which I am fundamentally opposed to. In doing some research I believe I came across some prose that indicated that Australians did want to be organ donors but the problem was with actually signing up.

Anything that can simplify the process is probably a good idea in my opinion. I’ll also be interested to see what happens with this ‘campaign’, whether it increases donor registrations or decreases them as johnboy has hypothesised.

They’ve done this in the UK for a while now. Personally I’m a registered donor and, outside of people with religious objections, I don’t understand why so few Australians are. They’re no good to you once you’re dead and the thought that they can save or massively improve the quality else’s life makes the thought of dying a bit better.