Originally Posted by strange_wings
Which should be the one reason they should ask. A person could have a medical condition that makes their organs unusable and would just waste the time of medical staff trying to collect them (before they can test and if they can't get medical info transfered to them soon enough).
I'm sure pretty much everyone here knows I work in the operating room. We are a small hospital, and we don't do transplant surgery. However, I have done quite a few organ procurement procedures over the years with OPAM (Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan) now known as The Gift Of Life Agency of Michigan. There is always extensive
testing done before any type of harvesting procedure is undertaken. The organs need to be free of disease, free from damage caused by medications, tested to assure that they are sufficiently perfused (good blood supply) and also the organs need to be matched to the recipient before they are harvested. There is an extremely small window of time between when a heart/lung, liver, pancreas, or kidney is harvested, and still be viable to be transplanted into the recipient. All of the testing must be done prior to the removal, to be certain that all of the transplant parameters are met.
By making the consent presumed, it bypasses the need to find family or next of kin, to authorize the consent to be tested. This can result in getting the testing done right away, and increase the viability of potential transplant organs. I, personally, am in favor of presumed consent. I think it makes great sense from the medical standpoint.