The easy way to fix the issues of consent would be when you register with a GP.
Box suggesting opt in or out.
This way everyone is informed and can make their own choice.
That would be a very good idea. At least to people who think that informed consent matters.
Until the need for consent was removed, the UK's system was to encourage consent and to make it extremely easy to consent. Which is why most potential donors were already registered
by choice and most of the remaining either can't be donors or wouldn't choose to register for organ donation for philosophical or religious reasons. The only way to make any significant increase in the number of potential donors in the UK is to force
everyone to be a donor.
But forcing people to consent with out knowing the policies is pretty bad and leads to further changes in the future.
Which is probably the point. The government isn't entirely ignorant, so they will know that changing the system to declare that everything other than active resistance is consent will have little or no effect on transplant numbers in the UK. Since they know full well that the change can't serve the publically stated purpose, there must be another purpose for the change. It's purpose is either to gain votes or to be a step towards further changes based on the principle that anything other than active resistance is consent and that the state owns your body. Or both. We'll see which direction they're heading by seeing what spin is put on what happens next. It's likely that improvements in knowledge and technology and infrastructure will continue to bring slight increases to the number of transplants done. If the purpose of removing the need for consent was purely to gain votes, any such increase will be spun as a result of the removal of the need for consent. If the purpose is to build on the precedent set by the removal of the need for consent, any such increase will be attributed to improvements in knowledge, technology and infrastructure and further changes building on the precedent set by the removal of the need for consent will be proposed and promoted as a good thing using the tried and tested tool of manipulation - spin it as something necessary to save lives, especially children's lives. Think of the children! Vote Prop 13 or you hate children! Do that for a bit and it becomes self-sustaining as people either genuinely believe it or express it especially fervently anyway as virtue signalling so they are not targetted themselves. It won't be long before anyone who claims consent matters will be denounced as an evil person who causes people's deaths and should be refused medical treatment. As has happened in this thread.
This provided further problems let’s say you have 10 % chance of living would you get proper care or will the doctor see you as a donor and not try and do everything he can to save your life? And this has happened in the past.
It has, but probably wouldn't happen here in the near future.
I believe we should throw as much money into stem cell regeneration for human organs. Yes, in the short run it will be very expensive, however it would save more people and be cost efficient in the future.
It's also an inherently better solution to grow replacement organs from the patient's own body. There's a persistant portrayal of transplants as a one-time thing that's a permanent fix without any problems. A little while to recover from the operation and that's it, job done, permanent fix and nothing else required. That's not true. They'll be on anti-rejection drugs for life and that's a problem because the whole point of anti-rejection drugs is to adversely affect the immune system. That's what they're for - to try to stop the person's immune system attacking the transplanted tissue.
But transplants from other people are required at the moment and would probably still have a useful purpose if it became possible to grow spare parts from a person's own cells. I'm strongly in favour of transplants. That's why I became a registered organ donor as soon as I could, many years ago. But I'm also strongly opposed to the idea that anything other than active resistance is consent. That's a horrible idea and all the people proudly proclaiming it's a great idea should be ashamed of themselves.
The corruption angle is more likely if anything though.