Medical ethics revisited

I had a comment on my recent entry about an organ donor group. It was from a member of the organization (I'm not sure how they found me, but it kind of gives me the creeps that they did), and yes, I knew the name, I just chose not to publicize it. I rarely delete comments, but I chose to delete this one, because they were promoting the organization on my journal, and I just don't care for that. I don't endorse the group, and I won't promote it. Here's the comment, with the naughty bits removed:

The organization you refer to is [deleted]. Our web site is [deleted]. You stated that members "will only donate organs to other members of the organization." This is incorrect. Members ask that their organs be offered first to other members, but they make them available to non-members if no member is a suitable match. This is to avoid wasting life-saving organs.

[Deleted] is an attempt to save lives by increasing the number of organ donors. [Deleted] offers a very good trade -- you agree to donate your organs after you're dead, and in exchange you'll increase your chances of getting a transplant should you ever need one to live.

This incentive-based approach is necessary because the current organ donation system, which relies completely on altruism, is failing to reduce the organ shortage. The shortage grows worse every year, and more than half of the people on the transplant waiting list die waiting.

About 50% of the organs transplanted in the United States are given to people who have not agreed to donate their own organs. This is a great way to guarantee a shortage of transplantable organs.

Giving organs first to registered organ donors produces more organ donors. This is the best way to help people who are in dire need of organ transplants. It's also completely fair. People who are unwilling to share the gift of live (when there's nothing else they can do with their organs) have no moral claim to organs that registered organ donors need.

[Deleted] is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization staffed by unpaid volunteers. Membership is free and open to all at [deleted] or by calling [deleted]. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition. Members include doctors, nurses, bioethicists, lawyers, law professors, teachers, parents, and others.

It would seem at first look that there are some valid points, but one sentence in particular really bothers me: "People who are unwilling to share the gift of live [sic] (when there's nothing else they can do with their organs) have no moral claim [italics mine] to organs that registered organ donors need."

No moral claim? I wonder who in the organization has decided what constitutes a "moral claim?" And to give first preference to someone merely because they belong to an organization smacks of exclusion to me. There is a proposal out there for an implied consent approach, which I believe is used in other countries. Essentially, you are a donor unless you expressly say that you do NOT want to be one. Our system is the opposite, and I would completely support the implied consent option. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to be an organ donor, and maybe, just maybe, you could save a life.

I also won't endorse any web site or organization with which I don't agree, and I'll delete any comments that try to include such information. If you want to find out more about this organization, you can do a search for organ donor organizations (so to speak), or words to that effect. I'm sure you'll find them...but you won't find them here.