What are pros and cons of mandatory organ donaiton?

Answer 1

I'm sort of assuming you mean "presumed consent", i.e an "opt-out system", rather than "mandatory consent" (which would mean that "the donor must donate their organs and have no choice in the matter"). Very few places have ever operated a "mandatory consent" organ donation scheme, however you might perhaps classify China's policy of using organs from executed prisoners for transplantation as "mandatory donation". (Luckily this practice is getting less and less common in China these days; organ donation at the expense of human rights could be considered morally dodgy).

Although "mandatory donation" would vastly increase the amount of organs available, introducing such a policy would be a politically unpopular move - most people like to have the right to choose whether or not to donate (and an opt-in or opt-out system still gives this choice).

The pros of "presumed consent / an opt-out system" (same thing) include: increasing the amount of organs donated, so hopefully saving more lives. It would also be seen as a more "normal" thing to do in society, which could help donation rates further. It might even allay some of the myths surrounding donation and transplants if the practice were more commonplace.

Cons of "presumed consent/ opt-out systems": There is the possibility of someone's organs being used when the donor did not wish them to be used. (This does not happen with an opt-in system). Plus, with an opt-in system it's kind of nice knowing that the donor actively wanted someone else to have their organs, rather than just forgetting to opt-out.

Presumed consent would require many more staff to help prepare donors and co-ordinate transplants - you could consider this a pro ("provides employment") or a con ("requires a huge amount of organisation before switching from one system to the other").