My body is my property when I’m alive. When I die, the rest of my property doesn’t default to the state - it remains in the custodianship of my estate until such time as it is dispensed of under the terms of my will. What makes my body a unique piece of property that I cease to have any rights over it when I die?
I’ve known people who had to be restrained when their loved ones’ remains were taken away “to be cut up” even though said loved one was a registered donor; grieving folks are not necessarily rational, nor any more respectful of the deceased one than they were while alive.
I think that both opt-in and opt-out systems should be made as easy and integrated as possible (for example, I think it’s a very good idea to have it be an option in your driver’s license or state-issued ID, rather than a separate process), but I also think that if the deceased knew he lived in an opt-out location and the opt-out system wasn’t onerous, his family can go take a hike.
Bingo. Look, I’m sorry, but people are lazy. I’m lazy. I’m not about to spend time to opt in for organ donation, something that will never effect me (at least until I’m dead, at which point there’s no point). So why not make it so that this laziness benefits society, rather than harming society? If you feel strongly about organ donation, then you can go through the effort - those who wouldn’t go through the effort obviously don’t care about what happens to their bodies afterwards.
Okay. Why shouldn’t it be?
Creepy… And entirely unrealistic in every sense.
Religion: protecting the unborn and the dead at the expense of everyone in-between.
Its science fiction for a reason, that scenario is unrealistic
To those of you against the idea of opt-out:
It may just be that I disagree with you, but I’m not seeing much reasoning in your posts. You say what should and shouldn’t be, but not really a good reason why. Almost any “right” or “wrong” argument can be reduced to “it just is”, but we haven’t reduced that far yet. Some of the disagreements seem to be based on matters of principle, and what the state does or doesn’t have a right to do or own. But we decide on these rights, really, and saying it’s not the case isn’t the same as saying why it shouldn’t be so. I wonder if there’s an element of mistrust of government here.
Actually, when I see people argue against such things I find it hard to believe they actually appreciate the fact that many people can and do die because they don’t get organs, and that it’s not like donating to a charity where your contribution is just a drop in the ocean. Because of compatibility issues, time etc., your organs could mean the difference between several people living and dying. It’s not like they go to some big central government organ bank.
As I said, I can understand being a little squeamish about the whole thing, but I think I could die a lot happier knowing my organs could go to good use.
If you don’t want to donate organs I hope you’re getting right behind stem cell research. Maybe soon we’ll be able to grow fresh, 100% compatible organs and just go back to dumping the second-hand parts in a hole.
Did I read that right? You do believe organ donation is a good idea, insomuch as that opt-out should be implemented, yet you can’t be assed to actually be an organ donor yourself? What?
I don’t really understand why people have such a desperate attachment to their bodies after they die. It’s not yours anymore, and you are being incredibly selfish to insist that it just be buried in a hole.
Make the opt-out system everywhere in the civilized world.
This Mayo Clinic polls says 61% of people would be willing to donate their organs when they die, but only 51% are organ donors. If you project that to 10% of the adult population, that’s not an insignificant number of people. This ABC story makes the U.S. donation picture look better than I had generally thought: it says the U.S. has the highest rate of actual transplants and the fourth-highest proportion of registered donors. An opt-out system wouldn’t be enough to get rid of the large waiting list for organs by itself, although it would obviously help.
If we’re stretching the analogy to the US: what about people who can’t drive? I don’t like an opt-out process simply because there is no system on earth that makes it impossible for people to slip through the cracks. And people who slip through the cracks will be presumed to want to donate… not cool.
I would vote for an “opt out” system, and I think it’s an issue where the majority should rule. Maybe such a change should even be subject to some sort of supermajority; I wouldn’t argue against that.
The basic argument here is whether the benefit to others (which is really significant) outweighs the cost to the bereaved (which is substantially less significant). As a utilitarian argument, it’s pretty easy. But for someone who believes in individual rights (as I do), it’s not that simple a decision, but still I land on what I suspect is the liberal side, the utilitarian side.
I’m not a utilitarian. For one thing, it runs rougshod over what I think should be rights. More importantly, it’s impossible to apply because there’s no way to balance harm to one versus good to another. But I do confess I use a somewhat utlilitarian acid test for many issues of public policy. If it doesn’t end up doing more good than harm on balance, it’s probably not a good thing. But utilitarianism doesn’t work for me as a fundamental principle.
Couldn’t other forms of government-issued ID take care of that?
Well, yeah. As I said earlier, if you don’t care enough about the issue to make your preferences known, why should be leave your organs to rot or be cremated after you die?
Technically, no, it’s not your property.
Property is defined by laws. That makes it what we call a “legal fiction”: something that exists because laws make it so. According to US laws, you don’t own your body, since you can’t sell it. It’s not your property.
So, the answer here is “the law”. It’s different, by law. Ethically, you may disagree, and you’d have a point, but you’re trying to make a legal argument here and it doesn’t quite hold water as you’ve expressed it. Perhaps it could be reformulated to still work, but as it is, no soap.
Apologies, but I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.
Many people would not consider “the civilized world” to be a place in which, by default, one’s body is seized by the state upon death and chopped up into bits to serve the public weal.
Who are those people? And if you know any of them, why is describing organ donation in cartoony, ghoulish terms a staple of their arguing strategy? 
Spain and Austria have opt-out systems and I think Wales is in the process of creating one. Those seem like civilized countries to me.
It’s not “to serve the public weal”, it’s to save individual lives. And “seized by the state” is probably not the best way to put it. The body will already be in a hospital and organs can be removed there. There are no g-men in dark cars just waiting to drag your corpse off to cut you up.
Stop being lazy and opt out.
Stop being lazy and opt out.
Stop being lazy and opt out.
Stop being lazy and opt out.
Nothing else to see here, move on.
What about people who were never informed about the policy in the first place? Due to having no television, or uninformed parents, or whatever.
They’ll be informed about it when they apply for a driver’s license or state ID. If they don’t have a license or state ID, they’ll be deemed to have opted out. Happy?