You could say the same abount your house and assets - you’re dead, you don’t need them anymore, so the state can take them.
If it’s presumed your assets go to your family (or whatever), then it makes sense to say your body likewise is at their disposal.
In that case the government should just be able to seize bodies upon death. Why bother having an opt-out program and give people the chance to take something that doesn’t belong to them?
That’s true. If you’re not around to own your body any more, you’re also not around to care about the fact you opted out.
This thread has made me think seriously about starting to carry a donor card (I don’t have one, but I think I will get one), but I still don’t think it’s the right thing to do to impose an opt-out system - even though the tangible benefits of such a system are unarguable.
Here’s a question
If an opt-out system dramatically increased the supply of organs, beyond that required by the populace of the UK, would the NHS start selling them elsewhere?
First off, let me begin by saying that I agree with Marley23 and Mangetout’s positions. I am an organ donor, and my family knows that’s my desire. And I don’t think there would be any complications from them, if it comes to that. I simply prefer that the gov’t not assume that it has the right to decide what to do with my body. Unless I specifically tell it to fuck off.
The other thing is that I don’t believe that this program will have the sort of increase in organ and tissue availability that people are assuming. AIUI the biggest single hurdle to organ donation is not the permission of the person involved, but the family’s position. There are plenty of apocryphal stories of people in hospitals with valid organ donation cards having that overridden by family for reasons that seem or sound trivial, and usually all come down to the family never having considered various end-of-life questions at all.
As Broomstick points out, for organ donation to be a possibility it has to begin while the patient is still on life support. For most families, if the issue has never been discussed before, having the doctors come, telling them that the care for their loved one is hopeless, but can they take the parts that still work for others feels like the ghouls are coming to take apart their loved one. And it’s a huge emotional barrier to organ donation. And even with the program that the OP is mentioning - if the family can still red-light organ donation, I don’t think that it’s going to have much effect.
Except for those people who have the fewest protections anyways - those who have no family. Or whose family can’t be contacted in time.
Which is something I could see start to happen with accident victims if this sort of program becomes the norm. I can even see how caring and dedicated medical professionals could justify it to themselves: “I/we can’t help this guy, but if we can’t reach his family until after the donations have occurred we might be able to save other people. So… let’s just lose his wallet for a little while.”
I’m not an organ donor and if the plan is adopted I’ll opt out.
I was born with what I have and I’ll go the same way.
End of.
well, on that criteria, i spose we could grab yer teeth… 
The Spanish system is not adequately described. I am an organ donor; I registered as one on my 18th birthday (one of my classmates was on dyalisis since we were 5). There is no card to carry, just a checkmark in my “National Healthcare System” file (Seguridad Social). My family gets no say on it, because I already made it known that I want to donate. And at the same time, if I hadn’t registered, my family would then be asked to donate. This was prompted by the idea that someone might have intended to donate but never gotten around to doing it.
So you basically get two chances to donate.
Most articles I can find on this topic refer to live donors selling organs, but I suspect that organ sale is illegal in the UK. This could change, of course.
Pretty much my opinion. I’m just not comfortable with the notion that the default position is that the government gets control of my remains.
The rub is that I’m all for organ donation. I’m currently a registered donor. But I’d support it less under an opt-out system since staying in gives tacit approval to the notion that the government should automatically assume control.
It does affect me as a living citizen. It tells me that my government, which should be under my control, (you know, all that “of the people, by the people, and for the people” stuff) thinks it owns me instead. It tells me that my representatives have decided that they have the right to make the most intimate and personal decisions for me. I know that by the time they actually do anything I’ll be past caring, but it’s the attitude that leads to that decision that bothers me. A lot.
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your decision, but I’d argue that the disposition of your body parts after you’re dead is just about the least “intimate and personal” decision you’ll ever make. After all- you are the one person who will *never *be affected by that decision.
Frankly, I’m all for an opt-out option. When I’m dead, I don’t care what the hell you do with my remains, but would prefer that they be used to help others, if possible.
Being in a democracy doesn’t put the government in your personal control. The representatives have to represent the whole of Britain, not just your wishes. So if they come to a decision you disagree with, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re riding roughshod over your rights: they’re probably just representing the majority of voters.
Democracy is as much about accepting the will of the majority as it is about controlling the government - and that goes for citizens, as well as politicians.
Are you familiar with the phrase “the tyranny of the majority?”
If you can find any you’re welcome to 'em mate 
Personally, I’d prefer the opt-out system over the opt-in.
As an aside, is there a legal document that one can obtain to supersede a spouse/next of kin’s ability to override your organ donation wishes? While I’m reasonably sure my parents would respect my wishes, I’d rather it be stated flat out, end of story as a just in case.
If it’s opt-out, it’s seizure of property from the next of kin. Is there even compensation? What’s the going rate for a heart or a lung nowadays?
Regardless, I’m opposed to automatic seizure of property on principle; if I let them take my organs, what’s to stop them from making an “opt-out” seizure policy on my bank accounts? Sure, the bank accounts have value to my next of kin, but then again, so might my organs. It’s not up to the government to decide that my organs are valueless to my family. If the government don’t know, let them ask, like they do now.
Now, I would be in favor of haveing some sort of official, “No, really I am a donor” card, maybe signed by next of kin and notarized or something, so that a person could really opt in so hard that the doctors wouldn’t have to waste time checking with family. But that’s as far as I’m inclined to go.
You registering to opt-out? Your family objecting?
A good few people seem to be going down the “They could just take our organs!” route, seemingly forgetting that if you feel strongly enough about it you can just say “No, you may not have them”.
I’m in a different country, so I think I’m okay.
And a few good people don’t seem to realize that not everybody will know about this change in the program. Some of us don’t even read the newspaper, you know.
And regardless, I think making a person have to do any sort of extra work to avoid their already-fully-owned property siezed is somewhat dirty pool. If you want your organs donated, you can do the extra work and opt in. Your choice.
That’s the key. I feel that a lot of people are indifferent. An opt out system captures those organs, whereas they are lost in an opt in system.