I dont really understand the problem that the critics of this plan have. The main problem appears to be that it will be automatic - but if anyone really is opposed (or their relatives are) then they can opt out. If the process of opting out is made simple and rigorous, those who have a strong view on this point can opt out. Most people probably havent thought about donating their organs, so they dont take the positive step required to donate, but they probably wouldnt be opposed. (75% in favour of organ donation vs 19% on organ donor register).

Those who say this represents a seizure of "private" property dont seem to have understood that anyone who feels strongly about this can opt out. The more serious reservations about organ harvesting from patients who are not yet "dead" can be met with rigorous medical ethics. Presumed consent will not be a panacea since relatives tend to refuse permission, so the extra transplant coordinators etc are also necessary.

Ken, Oxford, UK

Is this just a little too close fascism? However well-meaning there are some things that democratic governments simply cannot do. Surely this measure is one of them.

Surely there are lines in the sand beyond which it is not ethical for any government to go. Things it cannot do without permanent damage to its right to be seen as democratic. Trying to change the presumed meaning of the word 'consent' is surely one of those lines in the sand.

Mike Riordan, Heanor, Derbyshire

I don't share Evan Harris's enthusiasm. Taking body parts without explicit consent seems utterly illiberal, undemocratic and unethical. It smacks of totalitarianism and is quite at odds with the values his party should be standing for.

No doubt the idea of extending the state's control over us as we make the transition from citizenship to corpseship is profoundly attractive to nuLabour's high priesthood, however.

Gordon Alexander, Frome, UK

I'm sure that most people would consent to organ donation if presented with the situation but to assume the right of ownership in the absence of such consent borders on theft?
Does this mean that the Government can take anything from us in the absence of consent?
It concerns me that if the medical profession are presented with a situation whereby a patient has had a long life and there is a pressing need for organ donation the decision as to live or die may be compromised by the presumed consent rule. The temptation to let the patient die to become a donor suddenly becomes a reality.
Yes I am concerned and I believe that this subject is best left as it is at present.
Where does presumed consent end?

Ken, Hastings, Sussex, England

I fully support this

Joe, Castleisland, Ireland

I think it is a good idea to take organs unless the person's religion or family opposes. There are a lot of people who die waiting for donors. Why just put good organs in the ground? One doesn't need them after death.

K.Alexander, Dallas, TX, USA

Should any government have the power to conscript the dead or compel citizens to take steps to be let alone?

Or is it just a diversion to sex-up the word 'donation'? Perhaps peerages would increase the supply without anyone having to make a declaration.

Compulsion is a slippery slope. How secure is the knowledge that someone has opted out and how will they be treated by health professionals who can access that knowledge when a likely candidate patient is admitted to a hospital?

Jay Brodie, Pinner, Middlesex

As a Heart transplant recipient at the age of 22 (now 35), I think it would first be important to recognise our status as having an 'invisible disability', before government starts championing this very serious operation. We have to take powerful anti-rejection drugs for the rest of our lives that lower our immune system and make catching infection dangerously easy (so public transport becomes an unwise venture). In most cases our stamina is lower, making the search for and sustaining of, suitable full-time work impossible. For younger recipients getting a mortgage is extremely difficult and there is very little financial support involved in the aftercare. The suffering of flashbacks and sleep disturbances is also common; yet we have to fight tooth and nail for Disability Living Allowance. This procedure is far from being a walk in the park, it is basically the replacing of an immediate problem with a set of long term ones; ones that the media and the government never seem to mention.

Andrew Fleming, Liverpool, UK