Organ donor rates vary across countries (1) but the supplyrarely meets demand for organs. Many factors are citedto explain lack of adequate organ donor numbers despiteconsiderable investment of time, resources and public-ity. These factors can be attributed to objections concern-ing recovery of organs based upon religious, socio-culturaland/orenvironmentalconstraints.Thislistisnotexhaustiveand most likely there is a multifactorial basis to donor re-fusal. Paradoxically the same objections rarely materializefor those same individuals when circumstances demandthe receipt of a life saving or life enhancing organ trans-plant. The hypocrisy of this situation can be attributed tothe elephant in the room regarding organ donation—publicapathy and disinterest.It is, therefore, with great interest I read the preliminaryreport from Lavee et al. (2) in this journal outlining en-couraging early results since implementation of a new Or-gan Transplantation Law in Israel. Although there are manyfacets to the legislation passed that supported increasein organ donor rates (concurrently with aggressive publicawareness campaigning), the introduction of priority scor-ing as a unique clause within the Organ TransplantationLaw is the most fascinating (see Figure 1). This intuitivelyappears a fair, logical and objective strategy to allocateorgans justly. Many ethical questions arise from such anovel system for noncommitters such as coercion, disad-vantages for those with no first-degree relatives, religiousconstraints or high-risk behavior (3,4). However, the impor-tance of priority allocation is that it instinctively feels right.An individual simply cannot be simultaneously