I consider it obsolete.
And if one is dead, then their organs are no good anymore.
Wait, you think the state doesn’t have any say in the disposition of human remains? You can grind it up and make sausage out of it? You can throw it into a hole in the back yard without paperwork or documentation? You can feed it to your pets or turn the skull into an ashtray? You can shellac it and use it for a lawn ornament? There are hundreds, possibly thousands of laws concerning what can and can not be done with a human body.
Do you have a cite that these laws have been overturned because for the past hundred thousand years it gets dealt with by family and relatives? Because if you think your next of kin own your body after your death, you’re wrong.
I’m in total agreement with this. I wish they would bring this to Canada.
:dubious: If that’s the case, then how the hell are doctors managing it, seeing as how most organs come from dead people?
You might want to look into the subject of organ donation before you further embarrass yourself.
This is a rather odd position for you to take, given your rather Stalinist politics. You spend half your time on these boards arguing that the state and its agents should be deferred to on almost every possible occasion. Why do you object to our dead bodies being state property, when you seem to believe that we’re pretty much state property for most of our lives?
Because I don’t like the idea of the state killing me in order to provide parts for someone more “important”.
Pretty sure that’s still illegal.
If the heart is beating and the lungs are drawing breath, then the person is not “dead”.
My mistake. Your problem is not political inconsistency; it’s medical and scientific ignorance.
No problem.
Yay. Wish they’d bring in opt out in Aus.
About time. Spain (my country of birth) has been “opt-out” for quite a while, and recently the Netherlands (the country where I live) has become “opt-out” as well. A good development, in my opinion.
It’s only assumed for people who can’t be bothered to opt one way or the other.
Yes, they are.
Also, what happens if you are not renewing next year. Does your current license choice of “no” remain in place, or is it automatically switched to “yes”? In other words, are you grandfathered in the old system or not?
Bullshit.
In which case, the default assumption should be “no”, because one’s body is the only property one can truly and inalienably own, and it should require more of an act of omission before you chop it up and sell it for profit.
#DeadLivesMatter
Right, Smapti?
I’ve thought for years that it should be opt-out rather than opt-in. Out of interest, can people who are opted-out still receive an organ transplant?
If you don’t care, the default is whatever I want it to be, because I do care.
What really should require more than an act of omission is allowing someone to die of liver failure when a transplant would be an effective treatment.
But feel free to explain to us all why the property rights of corpses is more important than life saving organ transplants.
I like the way you think.