WITH the recent highlighting of the issue surrounding organ donation, it would be highly controversial to assume consent when an individual dies, unless there were specific instructions to the contrary.

Without properly exploring all the elements in the debate, there should be no legal justification in the proposal.

From the start there obviously are no legal obligations to abide with donation, whatever the personal views held.

For many people, organ donation would not sit comfortably with the ethics and the real spirit of their faith.

It is seen as an intervention in the sanctity of the body that transcends divine and the bounds of acceptable medicine.

For the same reasons they reject genetic engineering, IVF and even blood donation.

On the other hand, the modern age has created a huge grey area' of understanding with subjects that were inconceivable at one time and today cannot be held adequately in debate within religion.

The route of assumed consent' would be an infringement of oneself and an abuse of trust.

Organ donations have to be received utilising a thorough campaign of advertisement, rather than a back door' method as proposed.

Organ transplant is not a permanent solution, even in successful cases anti-rejection drugs are necessary to suppress the immune system, with particular side-effects.

Once successful, it has a limited life with the host before it is defeated.

MR N MOMONIAT (address supplied).