There should be NO debate on this subject. Has our government nothing else better to do than forever interfering with people private lifes? If someone doesn't want to leave their organs to benefit someone else when they die, then fair enough! I personally have left my body for medical research, but ONLY if they cremate the remains themselfs. I don't believe in paying for cremations, that should be done by the nation...free of charge. It cost nothing to come into this world, so why should we pay to go out? Haven't we been ripped off enough through life?

When I perish, I would be delighted if my organs ( those which are suitable ) could be used for the many people requiring transplants. Relatives of the deceased have enough to worry about without the thought of having to consent to organ removal. Make it opt-out now.

I'm getting concerned by all these people who are happy to donate their body parts also being happy to donate mine. Please, do what you want with your body - but don't presume to tell me what I must do with mine. I think its appalling that people should even think about an "opt out" scheme. By all ,means make it easier to register e.g. via the regular electoral roll updates etc

I'm all for a donor system you have to opt out of. I have no issues with my body being harvested for parts (as long as I'm dead of course) to save or improve the quality of life for another person. I shudder to thing at how many viable body parts are lost because the poor person who has died is not a registered donor. I vore yes to an all in unless opted out system.

I do think that there should be some restrictions however. Any waiting lists should be unified across private and NHS waiting lists rather than the private sector getting first shout on parts as happens at the moment.

Furthermore, I would opt to donate my body parts freely solely to the NHS. If a private establishment wanted the body parts then they can pay for the parts and a portion of the money can be passed on to the next of kin. Any help for funeral expenses would be a great help during such a hard time.

I am happy for my organs to be used after my death. My concern is that in order to use someone's organs you have to still have a beating heart to supply blood to the organ and the life support machine is only turned off after the removal That is fine if I am brain dead on a ventilator. What if a young person has a car accident and there is a conflict of interest between saving the young person's life or using their organs. The doctor's will looking at the person as a potential donor at the same time as trying to save their life this is worrying.

I fully support this. It's a very brave ut a very good idea. You've got my vote on this one!

I cannot believe that there is no option on the governments website, for a discussion on any other matter than this one. I totally have sympathy toward anyone that requires organ transplants, but.. The gangster like pricing of petrol and the desperate lie that high prices at the pump are for our (and the planets ) own benefit are simply pathetic. Where Gordon, can i use my democratic right to protest at the price of fuel? on a blockade? selective garages? public transport? at the ballot box? oops I forgot, the ballot box is not an option with you is it gordon? I stayed up until dawn broke in May 1997 - celebrating at long last a labour government. after 18 years of thatcherite minnions i saw a vision of a new britain. alas, it was a dream. I am embarrassed to be called a labour supporter. Do the decent thing Gordon, the Job is too big for you. Resign Resign Resign.

I agree with Jamed - we need to give the PM a decent run before we judge him!

I think that's a very poor comment. And there are loads of discussions on this site. GB has been good - but I don't think he's hit his stride yet. Give him 6 months - he'll of been in office for a year then. Then we can judge him.

Surely there are more important issues the Labour party has to deal with. Is this Browns way to try and divert attention from our impending financial crisis. Do you know that Labour have dropped over 12 points behind in the polls. A recent poll last week showed Labour falling in the polls. Surely it would be better to arrange a system based around the GP. Every person has a consultation with their GP to discuss which organs they would like to donate and for what use.

It's very important if your child is dying, your dying, or your wife is dying, I doubt we have anything more important then life when we are dying because people cannot be bothered to fill in a card. Of course New Labour always has something more important to do like force sick and the disabled to work when we have no jobs, have more important things like running around India one of the biggest buyers of weapons giving millions to wards education or the hospitals, while they then buy more guns to kill. funny old world.

I work for the NHS and think is a great idea, opt out if you dont like it, this is an important issue, well done New Labour.

Time to do something positive and in the interests of the wider community. I am all infavour of opting out. Politicians seem to often to more interested in remaining in office than doing any thing in the interest of the wider community. Do not let this organ donation decision drag on & on.

Great Idea. If you don't like it, -just opt out -how simple. My sister-in-law has recieved a kidney -it's not the life saved its, (so far) the subsequent 16 years of life lived to the full.

1. As a Labour party member, I am delighted to find that at last we are actually being consulted on something - and I hope people of influence within the party are actually reading all these comments here. 2. I tend to agree that "opt-out" smells too much of Government telling the people what to do. Much better to have a campaign to make opt-in work more efficiently and to market it better. An opt-in leaflet and form could be sent for example with each car road fund renewal; or could there be a space on the annual electoral registration form to tick the box - and be sent more details on donor card-opt in etc.; and obviously, p.r. / marketing through doctors surgeries. 3.Naturally everyone applauds the need to save more lives, but I wonder if this should have higher priority than doing something positive (and non-controversial) to help save some of the 40,000 lives that are lost every year by elederly people suffering from inadequate winter warmth (source Times 12/1/08 and Help the Aged) - like for example stop the waste of giving the £200 winter fuel allowance to higher rate tax payers who dont really need it, and use it to swell the pot for those who do - or allow people to opt-out of receiving it provided government guarantees to increase the pot. Some will say this is back to means testing - well I say if it saves 10,000 lives,so what?

I completely agree that a new opt-out system should be introduced as soon as possible. The release of more organs for transplant would save or improve thousands of lives, also reducing the burden of ongoing treatment on the NHS. The opt-out preserves the option of those who object.

I had heard during an afternoon programme about transplanting organs on BBC4 last week that those from 55's and over are generally not used owing to there being limited benefit to the recipient. Are they still taken from the body under presumed consent and if so what happens to them?

For heaven's sake let's do something for those in this country who need donated organs as soon as possible. There should be an 'opt out' choice. I have a neighbour who couldn't walk 10 yards until his life was given back to him with a double transplant. He now walks over a mile to town - and back - and is working again. Everytime I look at him I see the living importance of organ donors. When I'm dead what use are my innards to me - but they could mean life to someone else.

A good idea, it's the only way to get more donors, but of course all precautions must be taken to prevent passing on complaints. Jim

I'd prefer each case to be decided by consultation with the next of kin at the time of death to avoid transplant teams pressurising life support teams. I certainly don't want my children being opted in by any government decree and they might not bother to opt out.

The issue was raised nationally in 1988 on a BBC television programme, That's Life hosted by Esther Rantzen. Twenty years later that is 20,000 people that have died because those at the top and indeed bottom could not be bothered to resolve this issue. When is the new deadline to finally stop these totally unnecessary deaths?

The PM has a good idea, get on with it

I have to agree it is a good idea because I know what happens to prefectly good organs during P.M.s If any of my organs are of any use to someone after I'm brain dead they can have them

I think the best way would be for everyone to have a meeting with there GP. Rather than a opt system, which in my opinion is too much like fascism. This way you can decide which organs to give if any at all and how you want them use. You get to see the information entered and get a signed print out to hand to your relatives.

It is disingenuous to say the PM should stick to running the country and leave important moral issues to...? As a leader he should be engaging with the opinion makers and building a consensus. As a doctor I welcome his initiative and hope the public will support the NHS be proactive about making transplant surgery a real option for the majority of patients who need it.

Whilst I am a support of organ donation this is nothing to do with Gordon Brown and the labour governemt. Perhaps this government should concentrate on the social breakdown in this country and the poor state of our hospitals etc..

I have read some of the comments and I think that those who optout should have a transplant because some peoople have no choice because the accumalation of drugs [prescriptive] that they are taking are dangerous to other people also if one of thesse people don't opt out then for the person reciving the transplant it could be catastrophic consequences that is why I think we should keep the current system

Personally..i dont understand what ur on bout.. bt i dont really like Margaret Celia. so why dont u do one. xx

So far organ-donation is concerned,there is hardly any room for dissent. There are other important areas such as NHS, juvenile offenders, increasing gun-culture, knives and other instuments of serious harm plus safety and security of the vulnerable under-aged that requires a sound policy. These could attract the voters as well and Labour could muster support of the people.

It's amazing reading some of the comments on this issue, but it also highlights why Labour is going to be defeated at the next general election. Organ donation has nothing to do with politics and Gordon Brown should keep to running the country. I've seen this government over 10 years slowly but surely alienate itself from large sectors of voters. Labour are down in the polls but continue to create big problems for themselves. Do you realise that people's opinion on this is 50/50....this isn't an election winner. While the stats show that 90% of people are in favour of donating organs 50% are against the governments opt our scheme.

For once I totally agree with the Government. The opt-in scheme for organ donation is well overdue, anything that makes it easier for people to donate is a good move in my opinion.

Organs are needed to save lives.Anything that makes more organs available must be good for as all.

this long over due whilst i have in some ways wised that as a party could have a real socalist goverment we have done many great things in the last ten years this would be a truly real step forward ,and a lasting fitting leagacy for this goverment,act now and lets get on with it.it also takes away the problems of relatives having to make difficult decsions at the most difficult time in their lives. so go one get a move on save lives,and give people a future.

"doing good is man's happiness" .....Organ donation is one of the best initiatives that has come up from the Prime Minister's domain in the new year! This idea will help so many loosing their lives unnecessarily due to the shortage of organs avaialbe, giving life extension to the needy, a very meritorious deed. These consent forms should be made available as a country wide campaign via GPs, Hospitals, and to householders ~ straightaway to give momentum to the cause, and to build up the donor facilitation whether it be eyes, kidneys, heart-transplants, and alike. I salute the PM for his most noble thoughts! Shiranee Ranasinghe CLP Ilford South

"doing good is man's happiness" is that the same as a do gooder, a person that has no idea but as long as he can pat himself on the back is happy.

Are you trying to be smart John ? I am sure if someone wishes to donate an organ this person will have some idea of what it involves and isn't thinking of giving themselves a pat on the back. I have been a voluntary donor for many years, I think you should think twice before you come out with snide remarks.

I am so delighted that Gordon Brown has taken this position, and I hope he follows through his words with legislation. As someone involved in my local children's hospice, I see how great the need for organ donation is, just amongst children, and anything that can be done to increase the number of available donor organs is to be warmly welcomed. This is why I'm a Labour Party member!

I have been an organ donor since the card was introduced. At last a rational common sense suggestion... long overdue. Bring it in as soon as possible, every day wasted means more lives lost.

I am with you Alan. Amazing to see how people can see something positive and helping others as a religious problem or a rights issue. With the option to opt out Christians can go show their strange approach to life but the rest of us can take a step forward. Bring the policy forward - its not a party issue.

It isn't a matter of whether the state owns your body or not! It does not otherwise you would not have the choice to opt out. There is however a massive shortage not because people do not want to donate but they haven't thought about it. People are dying and it is becoming essential that they do for humanitarian reasons and also because if you avoid making decisions someone else makes them for you. It is a very serious situation and the government wants you to choose. Personally I think organ donation is a good idea. After all why would we not want to save a life if we can?

I personally am not in favour of opt out. It would undermine my confidence in an emergency situation,how could I be sure which patients best interest took precedence? I am also concerned about this degree of state control over our bodies, would there be a future argument for obligatory screening for compatibility for live kidney or marrow transplants etc etc. Maybe now that the need has been highlighted more eductaion could be done to encourage more of us to opt in and keep donations within the realm of human charity.

I somehow doubt that those who treat injured patients also decide who the kidney goes to. I suspect therefore that your fears of paramedics shouting "dibs" are ill-founded.

I was diagnosedwith liver cancer at Christmas 2006. I was lucky I had a transplant on February 28. I am now a very healthy 59 year old whose wife still has a husband, whose two children have a father and can now actively support the donor cause by raising money for the QE hospital birmingham, the centre of excellance in the uk for transplants.I will never know my donor,or their next of kin but if I did what could I say. They saved my life. If people do not want to be a donor under the new proposal THEY do not have to, they simply sign and OPT out. As they are more fired up they will opt out but it takes greater action to opt in because most people do not think about untill they are asked. I implore everyone, support the move to have everyone as a potential donor and for those who do not want their organs used they can opt out. Remember "you came into the world with nothing and you can't take anything out."

I Welcome this debate and think it is long overdue. My body is no good to me when i'm dead and i would be very upset if my organs could be used to help others and they were not. I welcome an opt out option, lets continue to save lives.

Absolutely no way, its my personal choice as to what happens to my body after I die, I may well wish to donate certain parts but no way am I being controlled and told what to do. Democracy and choice come to mind, how dare you try and run my life for me, you already control what goes into foods, water,etc; you tell the nhs they cannot treat fat people yet its you the government who allow these manaufacturers to give us this processed food enabling people to get fatter,its all about control, and in my humble opinion this is just another method you are trying to use.

I didn't realise that the government had introduced force feeding. And there's me been going along for years eating and drinking what I liked.........and sometimes not eating and drinking what I liked.

Henry, Kabira is correct. Britians diet is the direct result of failure to control what goes into food. Genetic engineering now means that even a carrot now contains more sugar than it did 15 years ago. People in this country didn't want engineered food but the government has forced it on us.

Richard, I disagree. The government has not forced engineered food on us and I find it quite offensive that you are denying people the right of responsibility for their behaviour. Britain's diet is the direct result of what people buy and then put into their mouths. Regarding the subject matter, I think it's an excellent idea. You still have freedom as you can refuse to take part in it. The only ones with a right to complain must therefore be those who are illiterate, lazy, and devoid of any friends or family who can help them to opt out.

No! freedom is the right not to have to justify your self through a nationalized data base. If the plan was to set up a data base so those that would like to donate it makes it easy for them and hospitals could quickly get the info that those were the wishes then that is fine.

I have read through all the views and I was surprised to find some of them on a Labour party website. This is a genuinely good idea. Only the lazy and ignorant would mock or disregard this idea. Although I suppose you should be thanked, your narrow minded and somewhat conservative views have lead to a debate that has increased the media interest on organ donation

I agree with Sarah, any method that can improve the supply of organs can only be a good thing, though temporary, given the advances in the science of stem cell development

I'm very much against "opt-out" & think it should continue as is. Whilst I respect those who wish to donate and appreciate the distress of those waiting for organs, the bequeathing of same should remain the choice of the donor and not be left to the distressed family about to lose a loved one, who have enough to contend with at such a time trying to deal with their potential loss whilst clinging to hopes of survival, without being reminded of the probable outcome by medics potentially harrassing and pressurising them into donating bits. And what if there's a difference of opinion between 2 siblings, for example, regarding a parent's organs? This could result in them being irrecoverably torn apart in grief instead of being united. And what about the potential for abuse by unscrupulous doctors because,sadly, it has been proved that there are some? Therefore, the onus should remain with the donor - the freedom of choice is their basic human right. But bit by bit our freedom is being taken away by our own Government and if we don't make a stand, what will they make compulsory next?

dianne. do you not realize that the family is still given the last say under the current opt in system, even if the person was carrying a doner card.

Opt in, opt out - either way we have a choice. Far better to give the choice to people to opt out. The vast majority of people want to give their organs after their death but do not carry a donor card. Being facetious, if you opt out - should you be given a transplant if you come to need one?

I thought it would only be Telegraph and Mail readers who would say 'I'm opted in now, but I'll opt out if this becomes law.' To me this translates to 'I'm happy to inflict death and suffering to make a political point.' We're not normally terribly sympathetic to this kind of mindset. We usually call it terrorism, and I'm a bit distressed to find it in the Labour Party. Personally, I think that opting out should be accompanied, in the interests of logical, aesthetic and moral consistency, by a declaration that 'In the event of organ failure, I do not wish to be considered for a transplant.' It won't happen, though, because on the whole governments are more humane than that. Interestingly, on This Week last night, Michael Portillo, while trying to argue against presumed consent, confirmed the case for with perfect eloquence. 'Would you object to your organs being used after your death?' 'No.' Do you carry a donor card?' 'No.' 'Why not?' 'Inertia.' Thank you, Michael - QED. When John Reid bottled out of this in 2003 he pledged a renewed effort to recruit donors, since when virtually no increase has been observable, even among the relatively articulate - Diane Abbott doesn't carry a card, either. Much has been made of the 1000 or so needless deaths annually. Of at least as much significance is the constant loss of liberty imposed, for example, by requiring dialysis three times a week, and the constant feeling of being ill. To say nothing of the cost of dialysis, compared with the immuno-suppressants required post-transplant. I'm particularly mystified by the reference to Christian groups. I thought the mainstream view was that the body was a discardable vehicle for the soul. That's the assumption the Inquisition proceeded on, at least. But then I'm no theologian.

Why should I opt out of people using my body parts, why should the state have the right to control what is done with my body when I die. For someone to offer their body parts for others is a noble charitable thing. Having the state harvest body parts turns that completely around, making people that opt out, feel that they are in some way inferior that they wish their body to stay intact when they die. I fully expect the pro opt out brigade to attack my comments to try and bludgeon their views, so I will let my message stand and not comment further.

generations of my family have given their hearts and souls to the union and the party. They didn't opt out. I think we should follow the lead given by several other countries and have opt out. When I am gone they can have any body parts they think might be fit to use!!

Opt out has got to be the way to go. But I agree that some way has got to be found to make opting out as easy as possible. Perhaps it could be linked with the annual signing up to the electoral register - add a box to tick if you don't want any of your organs used.

My mums kidneys failed and she was put on the waiting list,being of indian descent and the blood group was not so common it was harder for the kidney match.It was an agonising waiting causing suffering,pain and stress to her and strain to all of us.Long waiting times are a extra burden on the NHS as medication and dialysis treatments are not cheap to operate,finally after 8 years a kidney came available and after successfull transplant my mum continued to resume her life,although not as strong and active as she use to be her quality of life was returned, costs reduce dramatically saving the health service much needed resources if she had a kidney available immediately,so i welcome any new changes in making it speedier to obtain a kidney.Please make changes to the law Gordon Brown and not make this iniative just another gimmick because this is long overdue.

Amarjit

There are many families that share your same story but the organ donated to your mother was an act of kindness. The current system relies on charity and it should remain this way.

Our bodies do not belong to the state and to change the law breaches many civil liberties. To assume consent is currently illegal for good reason. Less than 10 years ago hospitals were sued for removing organs from dead children.

As my post below points out 20,000 elderly people die every year because they can't heat there homes.

Gordon is using this issue to divert attention from more pressing issues that this government is failing on

If Gordon even attempts to change this law Christian groups are prepared to take this to the court of human rights.

Surely the Christian thing to do is to donate your organs?

There are those that believe the body should remain intact. This christian belief goes back centuries. Personally I would donate an organ, for example I would donate a kidney now for someone close that needed it. But I will be opting out if this legislation comes in. Death is as important as life to me and what happens to my body is very important. The idea that with no opt out means assumed consent is wrong by all accounts. What happens if your family isn't around to make the decision, what happens if the data has been incorrectly entered? There are so many problems with this idea. The last time a donor card came through my door was in the 1980s, if they really want to increase the amount of people carrying a donor card then make more of an effort. Why don't they simply send everyone a card. A person not wishing to donate simply doesn't carry one.

As an octgenerian I agree wit opt out - not as one who simply expects to benefit but one who abhors the waste of burying or burning parts that would be life giving to others or further research to the same end. We must overcome the inertia of the huge number who are too busy to act positively or do not wish to trouble themselves with the idea of their own mortality.

As I said before this isn't an issue for government. We shouldn't be debating this at all, very out of bounds is is verging on state dictatorship. Brown should concentrate on the key issues that keep failing this government. There is a pressing economic agenda that must be addressed otherwise I'm affraid we won't have an NHS at all. There is also the issue of povery which has got a lot worse under labour.

This is a necessary change too long overdue. I have carried a donor letter and card around with me for over 50 years. I am probably not much good now, but I have never really understood why people almost venerate the integrity of a dead body. I do not expect every body to agree with me. So by all means let those who wish to opt out.

I agree with opting out, with reservations. There must be adequate publicity about the scheme and sufficient information about opting out. I think it is always a major challenge to reach everyone in the population about such important issues.

I have always thought that it is a waste to not use body parts of the dead. Although it must be done tastefully i.e respecting regilious values, there are many people who need doners and it make sense to use the bodies.

Once we are dead, are body parts are no longer necessary. If someone feels strongly enough about their post mortal body, then they can make it clear that they do not wish for it to be used in an organ donation programm, while they are still alive. If this decision is left to the famillies of the deceased, then they will usually decline the request of the medical services, due to high levels of emotion. This is the system which has been in practice for many years, ans has caused a deficit in the number of organs for donation. A new, opt-out system is the answer, so long as 'opting out' is strongly discouraged.

Presumed consent is not consent. Each patient should have a consultation with their G P before a decision is made on which organs can be used for transplant purposes. This is informed consent and fair.

Why stop at organ donation? Make voting an opt-out system as well?

A lot of people do. And then think they have a right to complain. Not in my book.

This doesn't make sense

I shall write it slowly. A lot of people do opt out of voting. I say, 'If you can't be bothered to vote, then you have no right to moan.

Where do you draw the boundary of the states power? If today we say that the state has control of peoples bodies once they are dead, where is the next step? The state, whatever that is, has not right to peoples bodies without their authorisation. Yes they can opt out as has been said. However, this debate is not really about the loss of lives due to lack of an organ, this is indeed sad and i'm sure in the situation I would appreciate someone who was willing. I still do not feel that the state has the right to make this kind of ruling which invades on an individuals identity and body.

Sorry, Joel, but you are talking nonsense. The state won't own our body parts. Organs would be used within minutes of your death to save someone else's life. Who could possibly object to this?

Whether you agree with Brown or not the idea that unless you opt out your body parts are owned by the state is morally wrong. As I said earlier there will almost certainly be mistakes and scandals. There is also the big question of organs going to medical research. Those bodies without an optout would be heavily harvested by surgeons, which could prove very upsetting for relatives. This really isn't an issue for Politicians, trying to inrease his popularity using this will only backfire. A donated organ is a gift of compassion and not something that can be taken for granted. Gordon has more important issues to address. As Sarah rightly pointed out 25,000 people died of cold last year and it's these types of issues that should be being addressed by Brown. To think in 2008 old people are so poor that they die of cold, this is an absolute disgrace and Labour should be very ashamed. If this is the best Labour can come up with after 10 years in power then maybe it is time for a change.

Richard is clearly correct, his views are logical, democratic and ooze common sense. What concerns me is that Blair tried very hard to take away our democracy, every time he went Brussels another part of our democracy vanished and giving away 7000 billion of our money was a right kick in the teeth. Now Brown is making a smokes screen with this so-called organ debate. here's scenario, there's young 20/30 year old on life support they have 50/50 chance of survival, do the Doctor's-who see death every day- lose their compassion. Would they advise relatives, rightly/wrongly to switch of life support machines just so they can get their hands on organs. Will it be the case where no-one is put on life support making it more likely they will die. What is the point in trying to keep alive people who may have been abusing their bodies for years in preference to young healthy people who may only need a few weeks on life support. Logically no-one can deny Richard's comments make sense, there are far more important issue's to be dealt with. This country desperately needs a change of Government, it's long over due .We have to stop turning a blind eye, to what's going on and take a stand for democracy, if not for ourselves then for our children.