On the contrary, it seems like they'll keep you on life support after brain death to ensure your organs are still fresh.
> that decision should be made by my family and not the vultures at the hospital.
I mean, sure. In most places it's your next of kin that decide. You do know that the hospital doesn't get paid for organs donated, right? I have no idea what incentives you think they have to kill you.
Believe it or not, money is not the only motivator of people. Wanting to help someone you have a stronger relationship with (because one patient can communicate, the other cannot) could be incentive enough for some people. And doctors are, in the end, just people.
I am not suggesting that most doctors would do this, or even a sizable percentage, but it would be reassuring that measures would be in place to ensure what the GP is talking about cannot happen. I suspect everyone realises this, and there are actually systems in place to protect organ donors against harvesting whilst still alive.
Edit: this comment suggests the GP's fears are not so far fetched https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33300503 EEP!
Otherwise you’d be doing two surgeries back to back, using two different skill sets and at two different locations.
At least if it's aboveboard and in the US. Getting Steve Jobs an off the books pancreas would obviously have been exceedingly profitable. And I cannot speak to what happens in other countries.
But in general, the biggest cost is from the hospital stay for the recipient (the actual majority of it), followed by the surgery transplanting the organ itself. And, usually, the next cost will be transporting the organ, not acquiring it.
Thus, organ harvesters prefer patients who are physically alive but brain dead. Organ donor status basically gives them permission to harvest your still-beating heart.
The 'ticking clock' scenario you outlined makes no sense and now you're just spreading scare mongering.