On the other hand with the present system your next of kin can opt out for you even if they know you would have wanted to donate but never explicitly opted in.
That’s a slippery slope. Starts with mandating this and that, ends with gulags and concentration camps. For example, why wait till death before distributing the organs where they do the most good? I’m not really using my spare time - should I be forced to work building roads during those hours? I strongly believe you should be able to determine what happens to your body, including after you die. But that is if you care. Someone like me, who doesn’t, should be default opt-in. Anyone who does care and objects, should be able to opt out with minimal effort, and no starting the program until there was the (easy and convenient) opportunity to opt out.
So all civil society ends with gulags and concentration camps? Because laws mandate all kinds of things.
I don’t know about the US, but here at least the family can opt-out even though the deceased was fully opted-in.
I have a friend who used to be an transplant coordinator - she’d have to approach grieving relatives immediately after they were informed of the death (organs not having much of a shelf-life) and ask if the hospital could proceed with the wishes of the opted-in decedent. Hell of a job IMO. 
I’m finding it hard not to come to the conclusion that your real objection to changes to the current system is that it might actually increase the number of organs donated. Pushing the idea of “meat for money” even further off the table then it is now.
Why shouldn’t I/we conclude that your real objection is more mercenary than moral?
CMC
Clearly not ( though, I guess, technically a good few of them could still get there in the fullness of time, but I think odds are against this.) Maybe I should’ve been more precise - when societies start mandating what happens to parts of your body because they deem your need insufficient, it’s a slippery slope. I had hoped the balance of my post would make up for that little bit of hyperbole in the first line.
You’re already mostly dead.
I’m curious if those against opt-out would be against one of the following two scenarios:
Scenario One:
You are getting your license renewed - it is done by touch screen.
A screen pops up as part of the registration process and asks:
Do you want to be an organ donor? Yes/ No
Yes is highlighted.
Below this is a button for “Next”
If you want yes - you have to do nothing other than hit “next”.
If you select “no” - it automatically takes you to the next screen. Therefore the same amount of effort is required for either choice - one “button”.
Scenario Two:
You are getting your license - and to fill out the form a there are two kiosks. One has a sign “For people that want to be organ donors - use this kiosk”. The other has a sign that read “if you do not want to be an organ donor - use this kiosk”.
It is the same setup the DMV had before - except the two signs are added (for the sake of argument - lets say there are only two kiosks (and always were) and there is no issue with lines.) There is then a screen as in the above scenario, but this time the default matches the sign choice - and you can choose the other if you wish/change your mind.
The kiosks are next to each other (as they were before), but the kiosk for organ donation is closer to the door - the other kiosk is right next to it, but would require walking about two extra steps.
Sorry that was longer than I intended…
Not much left to do but go through his pockets looking for loose change.
Isosleepy, I appreciate your slope and realize in most cases about anything that could prove true. However, I don’t care. Saving lives is the most important priority out there. Nothing else matters.
Except the Nazis and Soviets created totalitarian dictatorships without ever passing through the stage of mandating what happened to peoples’ body parts after they died. No modern dictators have done it either as far as I know- it would be pointless to mandate something like organ donation unless you already have a nationwide system in place that can identify who needs a transplant and other factors. So it’s not a slippery slope in any way. Dictatorships exist without this feature, and some countries that are nothing like dictatorships have opt-out organ donation.
The way I see it, there are basically three categories of people out there: Those who do want to donate their organs, those who don’t want to donate their organs, and those who don’t care much about the topic. Changing from opt-in to opt-out won’t affect either of the first two groups, since if they care, they’ll go to the small effort to do the opting if necessary. So all that’s changing is what happens to the folks who don’t care. And if they don’t care, what’s the problem?
Fine, then, Marley23 - While I don’t think the wholesale cremation and anonymous dispersal of the ashes, or the unceremonious dumping of bodies into trenches, were along the wishes of the decedents of what was to become of their remains, you are correct that neither Soviet Russia nor nazi Germany mandated organ donation. I guess the word is still out on present day North Korea and China, since reports on such practices in either country are from arguably biased sources and have not been independently verified. So my assertion does not reflect the history of totalitarian dictatorships. Nevertheless, I believe that when governments dictate what can happen to your body, or parts of it, regardless of your wishes, even if it is after death, that we are well on our way to a dystopia.
And dammit if I didn’t just come within a hair of/ actually did Godwinize a thread - my own to boot.
And pretty much the polar opposite of my own feelings, which were expressed nicely by David Cross. (Note: contains unbleeped profanity.)
Absolutely not. Saving lives at all costs? No way.
Hell, I won’t even use the available technologies to not let myself die and I think that’s moral; taking parts of my body for someone else is not an option. Just because we have the technology doesn’t mean I have a moral obligation to take part in it.
Eh, different opinions. Once you’re dead, it shouldn’t matter what happens to what’s left and I think it’s beyond foolish to prevent someone else to live because if some ridiculous hang up or religious nonsense. But again, this would only mean anything if I was Queen Emperor of the Universe. Otherwise, I suppose people can just die due to others not giving a damn.
Of course they didn’t. But I don’t think you realize the problem with your comparison: you were proposing a slippery slope in which organ donation leads to a totalitarian government. You can’t justify that concern by working backward and by pretending that mass graves are similar to organ donation. That’s not a slippery slope. Once a totalitarian government is in place, yes, people may be forced to do all kinds of things - although the idea that the dictators will mandate organ donation is a little bizarre (because unless you already have the infrastructure to take advantage of it, it’s pointless). There is not a dictatorship out there that grew out of a health care system, and I don’t think there ever will be.
It doesn’t reflect the history of anything.
I think a lot of European countries already have opt-out organ donation. Please tell me which ones are particularly dystopian.
Yup, you did. And it made no sense.
Every US state has adopted at least some of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (a model law proposed to standardize such regulations across jurisdictions). The vast majority have adopted the portion that requires the next of kin to sign off on each organ to be harvested, however (although corneas are often specifically exempted).
I find it highly unlikely that any country would switch from opt-in to opt out in that way. I expect any switch to be made the way other posters have hypothesized. Starting the 1st of Jan. 20XX all applications for drivers licenses will swap from opt in to opt out and both systems will be in effect until all licenses from the opt-in system are expired.
Frankly, I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to be an organ donor.
Reasons I’ve seen given: selfishness, religion, the fear that they’ll be killed because someone rich needs their organs, and the fear that medical care will be chosen according to what best keeps their organs viable rather than what is most likely to save their life.