The Conservatives said today that they saw no reason to change the law on organ donations after Gordon Brown signalled his support for the removal of organs from dead patients without their explicit consent.

In a move to help thousands of patients waiting for organ donations, the Prime Minister gave his backing for a policy of "presumed consent”, which means that unless people opted out of the donor register, or family members objected, hospitals would be allowed to take their organs.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Brown said: “A system of this kind seems to have the potential to close the aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant surgery in the UK and the limits imposed by our current system of consent.”

Ministers will embark shortly on a review of the existing system, with doctors and nurses expected to sign up more donors, but Mr Brown indicated his backing for the more radical Spanish-style approach.

But the move faces fierce opposition from patients' groups and the Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, said today that it was not up to the state to decide what happens to people's organs after their death.

"The Government’s responsibility is to encourage registration and ensure transplant co-ordinators and transplant nurses are in place so that when organs are made available they are used for transplants," Mr Lansley said.

“Only four years ago, Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson (the Health Secretary) voted against assumed consent in organ donations on the basis that there was no public support, they said that there were better ways of increasing donations and that the State should not determine what happens to people’s bodies after death," she said.

"Parliament concluded that to take organs without consent was wrong. It is neither right nor necessary for us to change that view”.

Sir Liam Donaldson, England’s chief medical officer, said that he would back the findings of the government’s taskforce on organ donation, but wants to go further and introduce a new system of donation because the shortage of organs is so severe.

He told The Observer: “We have one of the lowest rates (of organ donation) in Europe, far lower than Spain. We have 1,000 or more patients dying on the waiting list each year, and there is a lot of suppressed demand, with doctors not even referring patients onto the list because there is no hope for them. That is a lot of patients dying.

“I think at the moment people often don’t know whether their relative would have wanted to be a donor. Families are being approached when they are in a very distressed condition and, faced with uncertainty, their default position is to refuse consent.

“Often the quality of their dealing with clinical staff is not as good as it should be - the dialogue could be better. It does require considerable skill to handle such sensitive situations.”

But Joyce Robins, of the Patient Concern watchdog, said: “We are totally opposed to this. They call it presumed consent, but it is no consent at all. They are relying on inertia and ignorance to get the results that they want.”

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association charity, said: “We don’t think a private decision, which is a matter of individual conscience, should be taken by the state. If people want to give the gift of life, that is their right, but it must be something that is a voluntary matter.”

The Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, chairman of the All-Party Kidney Group and a member of the British Medical Association’s Medical Ethics Committee, described the Prime Minister’s support as "good news for patients, good news for potential donors and good news for their relatives“.

"I am delighted that Gordon Brown now backs this plan after the Government blocked my amendment to the 2004 Human Tissue Act, which would have introduced the scheme," he said.

The party's health spokesman, Norman Lamb, said: “Although this is an issue that will arouse strong reactions, the potential for saving lives through a system of presumed consent cannot be ignored.

“The experiences of other countries with such a system present a very powerful case for introducing it here. However, it is vital that we ensure that the ability to opt out is a genuine one. No families should be left feeling that such a step was taken against their will.”

Times Recommends

• Times Christmas appeal: Letter from the Editor
• Conferences — what a waste of money
• Schools supremo learns a painful lesson