Patients should have their organs removed after death for transplantation unless they have previously registered their objections, according to a Bill to be put before MPs this week.
The controversial idea is designed to tackle a soaring waiting list for transplants: a shortage of organs means that up to one in 10 patients awaiting an operation dies before one becomes available.
Labour MP Tom Watson is proposing that Britons be forced to 'opt out' of donation by signing a national register if they do not want their organs used posthumously to save a life. If they die without signing, doctors could assume they agreed to donation.
Although close relatives would still be consulted about removal of organs, allowing a final veto to those with strong objections, Watson says the Bill would create a presumption that donation was 'morally right'.
'You are taking away that "Do I, don't I, would my loved one have wanted it" element,' said Watson, MP for West Bromwich West. 'It is a sure-fire way of increasing the number of organ donations in Britain. It is going to increase preservation of life.' Children would be excluded from the Bill, he said.
More than 6,800 desperately ill people were still waiting for a transplant by last December. Yet only 15 per cent of people carry a donor card - the only way of showing willingness to donate - despite overwhelming public support for donation.
However, donor families' groups argue the change would pressurise relatives into agreeing to distressing operations.
'We are 1,001 per cent against this,' said Dr John Evans of the British Organ Donor Society, whose 20-year-old son became a donor after dying in a road accident in the summer of 1983.
'It has no real consideration for the next of kin of the dead person. The public would not like the law being changed to achieve an end that may be contrary to the family's wishes.'
Although Watson's 10-minute rule Bill is sponsored by former Conservative Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke and Liberal Democrat health spokesman Evan Harris, it is unlikely to become law, as the Government - fearing a backlash - will not support it.
However, it will focus debate on the plight of transplant patients as the Department of Health undertakes a review aimed at doubling the number of kidney transplants and increasing heart and liver swaps by 2005.
The British Medical Association, which is backing Watson, warned that the gap between supply and demand for organs was widening.
'Organ transplantation has saved thousands of lives and has put an end to the tremendous burden of kidney dialysis,' said Dr Michael Wilkes, chair of the BMA's ethics committee. 'We believe that the introduction of a system of presumed consent for organ donation, with safeguards, will increase the number of donors available, so the BMA fully supports Tom Watson's efforts.'
Belgium already uses the 'presumed consent' scheme and the Scottish Parliament is studying it.
Only a small number of those who die every year are suitable to donate and reductions in road deaths and killer diseases like such as meningitis have reduced supply.
'Most people never make it to the transplant list - they die before that or they don't meet the criteria for transplant,' said Nigel Hughes of the British Liver Trust. 'We feel presumed consent is at least one step in the argument.'
The National Kidney Federation, which supports presumed consent, said wider changes, including more transplant surgeons and intensive care beds, were needed.
A Department of Health spokesman said the Watson Bill was 'unnecessary' as it is already reviewing transplants.
