---

　Although I am not an expert on organ transplantation, I can clealy say what "politics"should do.
　Four plans of the revision of the law can be separated A from B, C and D based on "brain death equal death of people", separated A, B and D from C based on tightening of determination of brain death, and separated AD from BC based on with or without decisions of the invloved persons under age. However, what politics should do is not such things as the scientific theory and view of life and death.
　There are fundamental problems that cannot be seen due to presentation of an emotionally-charged argument of "whether we should help children that can ba alive" by forcing us to choose whether brain death should be regarded as human death, and whether organ transplantation should be conducted.
　First, the most important "issue of sharing" has not been discussed. What politics should do is to provide all people with such things as enough medical care and alternative medical care instead of transplantion, decrease the number of traffic accidents and improve the emergency medical system. It is wrong to propose the either-or problem under the condition of not having taken enough measures against people who need organ transplantation and "brain-dead persons". What has not been discussed "hiatus of 12 years" is issues of distribution through medical care, welfare, care, income and so on.
　Second, why shouldn't politicians discuss live organ transplant at the same time? It is necessary to reexamine the way of our society where only organ donors become the victims and suffer from both physical and mental burdens. Have they ever considered the reality in which persons in a vulnerable position within a family can suffer from anguish and burdens under the name of "love" and "initiative"?
　"Organ transplantation" is approved only by an individual's organ donation and organ donation cannot be "shared". However, it should be a politics' job to develop the society where "problems that cannot be shared" can be "shared" utmost.