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.