organs

Unless the donor explicitly authorized the removal of the organs before the onset of clinical death it's unethical.

Once you appreciate that ESCs contain enough potentiality to form organs, the research kind of unfolds itself.

Without a signed card, doctors can still harvest your organs if either you or your next of kin agrees.

They are kidnapped and taken into a back room, and their organs are 'parted out' to save 10 people.

It's kind of hard to argue that stem cells are more sacred than organs harvested from still breathing body.

So what people think happens, that when you die organs are harvested, is not what happens.

IMO, if you want to opt-out of donation, doing so should opt-out of the receipt of donated organs as well.

The successes in engineered organs are coming from adult stem cells so far, which don't come with an ethical debate.

It's in the doctor's hands to take the decision to harvest your organs without any consultation (given the factors previously mentioned).

Then you don't have the problem of the immune system rejecting these foreign organs?

I'm certainly capable of making up a slippery slope argument where people are being off'd for their organs.

So in the usual case, the decision to harvest organs must be made before the brain fails, sometimes long before the brain fails.

Poor people selling their organs really doesn't qualify as "freedom" except in the most meaningless, pedantic sense.

The treating doctor does not get to know the donor status of the patient and has nothing to do with extracting the organs once the patient is either dead or "dead enough".

I expressed similar concerns of yours to her, "organ donor might mean that the doctors don't try and save me as hard because hey, good organs!" and she was emphatic that the doctors wouldn't do this.

If there's no electrical activity in my brain, I see no harm (literally "no harm" in the Hippocratic sense) in removing my organs before I'm taken off life support.

Organs are harvested without any kind of pain relief.