To respond to a few comments:
The most informative discussion on the web about organ donation in the US is on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation#United_States
Harvesting and distribution of organs is very highly regulated, and is done in a blind (no identity) fashion, so favoritism based upon fame or wealth is functionally impossible. The Wall Street Journal article cited above has been roundly critiqued by many highly qualified people, and with most criticizing its lack of factual accuracy and objectivity. (Also, please remember that the WSJ shares ownership with FOX News. Your opinion of the objectivity of the WSJ likely corresponds with your opinion of the objectivity of FOX News -- form your own opinion on that.)
The question about allocation of medical resources is valid. However, are you suggesting that someone who has coverage for this through their private health plan, or otherwise, should not be able to have it done? That makes no sense. What truly makes most sense is that we figure out ways to both treat "sick kids" and do organ transplants. In fact, many transplants go to children.
Banjoboy, I love that Monty Python skit.
To those who choose to not to be a donor, that is your right. I do will not pretend to understand your reasoning, but I for one will not express on this site my judgment of you on that basis. Others may. You might not care.
Come on people, give it up, be a donor.