For the substantial benefits and zero harm that organ and body donation brings, I

think that everyone should do it. But there is an important distinction between
persuading and convincing someone to do something and forcing them to do it. I
would argue that it is impossible for a good action to be compelled – all acts of
charity, which includes organ and body donation – should be voluntary and made
with consent.

Admittedly, if organ and body donation was compulsory, or if there was an “opt-
out” option, this would save many more lives. And since there is no rational
objection to make this donation, why should it not be made compulsory? Should
the law not be based on reason? Well, it should, but a great harm would be
incurred if organ and body donation were made compulsory. This harm would be
the erosion of our civil liberties.

Ultimately, we have a right to self-ownership – our bodies belong to us privately;

they are not the property of the State. Even if we cannot recognise this right once
we are dead (since consciousness will cease), we are still entitled to decide what
happens to our bodies when we are alive. In the same way, when we are alive we
decide what will happen to our money and assets when we die (with the
exception of Inheritance Tax).

Sure, it may be more beneficial if all of the inheritance money went to charitable
causes, but that decision should be made by the individual who owns the money.
Once again, you should not (nor do I think you can) force someone to act morally.
Personal choice, which is at the core of any free society, should not be violated.

Another civil liberty under attack from compulsory organ and body donation
would be freedom of religion. In an ideal secular society, all religious beliefs and
practices, so long as they do not involve direct harm to others, should be
tolerated. Most religions, denominations and sects actually encourage organ
donation for the welfare that it can bring to others. Most tend to agree as well
that the decision must come down to individual choice. But for particular religious
groups (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) or people with certain views on the
‘afterlife’, organ or body donation does not sit well. Some people just believe that
they will need their body after they are dead. Now, this religious or personal
viewpoint may not deserve respect or approval, but it should be tolerated
nonetheless.

Other people (although probably not many) may choose not to donate their body
so that it can be cryopreserved (preserved using low temperatures). They hope
that technology will be advanced enough in the future that they can be brought
back to life. This act of choosing not to donate your body may have a rational
basis to it. If the information in the brain can survive brain death, then it is
theoretically possible to re-animate the cryopreserved person back to how they
were when they died.

People may also make the personal choice not to donate their body to medical
science in order to fulfil the social custom of burial. Burial is seen by many to be a
vital component of any funeral and it can provide comfort to the deceased's
family and friends. The astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson also made a poetic
argument in favour of giving your body to the Earth. In this discussion with
Richard Dawkins, responding to a question from the audience about his views on
death, he said: "I would request that my body, in death, be buried, not cremated,
so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that
flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna
throughout my life."

In conclusion, there are many ethical and sensible reasons to donate your organs
and body, so it should be encouraged. However, in recognition of our civil
liberties, it should not be made compulsory. Even though the world’s major
religions describe consciousness existing after death (in the afterlife or through
reincarnation), they thankfully support organ donation as an act of charity.

Unfortunately, because of religious burial rituals, not all religions are happy with
the idea of a full body donation. For example, Jewish law prohibits desecration of
the human body and in Hinduism there is mandatory cremation upon death (for
which you obviously need the body). Despite this, there is still debate on this issue
within religious communities and among religious authorities, which can be read
about here. Hopefully reason and considerations of welfare will win the debate.
And on a final note: the idea that doctors will be less likely to save your life if
you're a registered organ donor, so that they can harvest your organs, seems to
be a myth.

Organ donation should not be compulsory for those who are above 21 years old

• No, people have freedom of religion .There are many religions that are
against organ transplants. They say it is a mutilation of the body and can actually
damage a person's soul. Some religions actually ask their adherents NOT TO
ACCEPT organ transplants, but we don't make them. This would be an intolerant
and altogether harmful thing to do.

• Over use of organs. 6205 people a year die because they need organs, but
there are around 5.7m people who die a day. So there will be well over 5.6m
organs a year and that brings up many issues such as were are you going to store
them? It is a complete waste and a really stupid idea.

• It opens a floodgate to other things. If organ donation were to be made

compulsory after death, it may cause people to murder others by hit-and-run
incidents just so they die such that the organs could be given to a family member
that needs the organ. Not only so, more illegal organ trafficking can come about:
the poorer people will be disadvantaged as there can be salespeople that make
them agree to selling all their bodily organs for a huge sum of money and they
may agree to it if things are looking really bad for them and their family.

• It could spread disease and a person's personality. No, organ donations

should not be compulsory, as it has been heard that organ transplant can change
a person's personality and soul. Also these organs possibly could have taken in
too much bacteria and cause disease in the other person who is in need for this
specific organ, therefore putting the recipient in the same state as before or
possibly even worse.

• Freedom of choice. We are under no obligation to help another. Even

though it would be the right thing, many people would rebel against mandatory
organ giving. It may be because of religion or the fact you don't want your organs
removed from your body.

Organ donation is a choice, and shouldn't be compulsory. The people would rebel
as the Government is MAKING us do something even if it's against a religion.

Will there be exemption clauses? What if you have rabies? If its compulsory then
it doesn't seem to exclude these people. We are given a freedom of choice, take
that away and you won't have a happy nation.

• Freedom hard won .This is not a question that can be decided by a majority
vote. It is not an issue that can be decided by politicians. It has nothing to do with
ethics let alone what is seen as right or altruistic. If we really possess anything in
this world it is our own bodies and it is an affront to be asked to opt out of a
scheme that will allow the medical profession to harvest our bits when we die.

• Occuring population boom .If so many people donated there organs that
nearly everyone who needed an organ transplant would get one there would be a
massive population boom. So many people would be getting the organs they
needed that the population would grow greatly and with a large population boom.
Aside from freedom and rights.

• It would be completely unethical. Enforcing compulsory organ donation

would be like assuming that the government has total rights to your body, and
that you have no control over what happens to your body after you die. This is
completely wrong and extremely unethical. No matter what a person's beliefs are,
their wishes about what happens to their body should be respected. Compulsory
organ donation is just wrong.

Example:

Professor Anthony Warrens, Dean for education at Barts and the London School
of Medicine and a consultant renal physician at the Royal London Hospital. What
did he think?
“My own view is probably not. I prefer it to be an active decision to opt-in, and
what we want to do is to make people as aware as possible of the opportunity… I
think it goes against the grain to make assumptions about something as
important as that, so I’m not in favour of it.”