Why is this downvoted? I think it's a valid concern.

How do you know that in some small village somewhere the local government isn't so corrupt as to make sure the organ donation process gets 'speeded up' to serve the need of some wealthy/influential organ recipient in waiting?

I didn't downvote, but I've got to say I don't think it is a valid concern.

If you honestly have so little faith in local government that you believe they would change the care options of a patient to "speed up" organ donation, what makes you think they wouldn't disregard the patients preferences on organ donation and just remove the relavent item after death and before handing the body over to the family?

Aren't you effectively saying that it's pointless to lock your house, because if a thief is immoral enough to enter and steal your TV, they'd be immoral enough to break the lock as well?

nope I'm saying that one is as easy or indeed easier than another. Once you assume an immoral authority has control over patient care it's frankly easier and less risky for them just to remove organs without patient consent after death, than deliberately give poor care to hasten the patient's demise.

a) My patient might be dead by the time the donor dies, less profit for me.

b) "deliberately poor care" or "generous amounts of painkillers"? The alternative phrasing is exactly how assisted suicide works in societies where it is not legal.

And here some story reported in 2012, in Germany (English article, though): http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/organ-transplant...

Did you read the article? Patients were pushed to the top of the list, no donor was given subpar treatment, that would be murder.

If you don't want a thief to steal your TV, marking the 'Don't Rob Me' box on your Driver's License is not a useful protection.

I don't think it's a valid concern, because they're effectively calling doctors murderers working on behalf of a nearby wealthy person.

If the system has broken down to where doctors will kill patients for the nearby wealthy person, why not just kill you outright to steal your organs?

It's also not how donated organ allocation happens in the US. A hospital can't just grab an organ from a local donor and use it.

And, if someone thinks the system is so corrupt that those processes aren't followed, I'm not sure what laws etc. will make a difference.

There is a paper trail, at least in developed countries with a formal waiting list. So a corrupt authority harvesting organs without consent cannot just use it without informing the registry about where the organ came from.

These corrupt doctors are willing to kill people and/or steal their organs, but they insist on notifying the registry before they put the stolen organs in the recipient? Sounds absurd, man.

Objectively, this depends a lot on where you live, and subjectively, on how you perceive your government and society. Regardless, you can opt-out.

You argument makes sense if a state made organ donation mandatory, but I don't think any country has such a law.

If we've moved from opt-in to opt-out, what do you think is the next logical step in that path if not mandatory donation? And if the argument is that we should move to opt-out because "greater good", then what's the argument against mandatory donations?

This is slippery slope fallacy. The argument against mandatory donations is exactly that - it's makes donations mandatory, while opt-out gives you choice and just changes the default.

If you seriously fear for your life as a registered donor, it should be not too much work to check one box.

If there is mandatory donation, or even if there is opt-out, wouldn't that increase the supply to meet the demand, thereby reducing any incentive for profit on the sale of organs and eliminating any motive for corruption?

If the end justifies the means, then I think it's irrelevant whether the change causes demand to be met so long as more people get the organs they need. On the other hand, if you don't believe that the end justifies the means, then it's completely irrelevant because you have to respect people's choices over their bodies (even posthumously) even if you think they are misguided or 'selfish'.

Only if the supply actually increased enough to actually meet demand. It is far from clear that it would.

Why does there have to be a next step?

Both opt-in and opt-out offer you the same degree of choice; neither is a step towards mandatory organ donation.