I believe it was on Part 2 [link|http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/AS_IT_HAPPENS/20070309.shtml|here] (RA links).

It seems like a bad solution to the problem to me. In addition to the moral issues outlined by others in the thread, just the fact that it's so easy to coerce a captive population under the guise of "volunteering" gives me the willies.

Although I've indicated my willingness to be a donor on my driver's license, I've never been completely comfortable with the idea. There are always going to be more people who could benefit from replacement organs than an affordable appropriate supply. While it's easy to argue that it's better to use parts that will just rot in the ground than not, I worry about the costs, the procedures to decide who gets the parts, and the fact that it probably makes much more sense for us to spend the money differently. The work and money that made it possible for a heart transplant for [link|http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7750|69 year old man] could have probably had more of an impact on treatments for people younger than 20.

Yes, it's not an either-or proposition, and money not spent on the 69 year old wouldn't be spent on, say, anti-malarial research, but it still bothers me. We, as humans, need to get over our mania for extending life at any cost, IMHO. Quality is much more important than longevity.

Cheers,
Scott.