# Pros and cons of "presumed consent" organ donating **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218 "2010-05-12T20:45:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/61 "2010-05-13T17:50:54Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I have a use for those photos. Once I’m dead, my family might have a use for those photos. > > My organs? Not so much. Well, that’s _your_ opinion. Other people may disagree about what should happen to themselves or their loved ones. But your opinions on the matter are why you should definitely be allowed to opt in to donate your organs. > [@Lightnin](#): > > And there is a legitimate benefit if my organs are used by other people. My photos? Again, not so much. And this is an excellent reason to encourage voluntary donation, but not really a good one for implimenting _ **in** _voluntary donation. > [@Lightnin](#): > > One thing that I’ve noticed in previous threads on this subject is that the people who are most adamant about preventing an opt-out system of organ donation are also adamant that organ donors shouldn’t get sole (or even priority) organ donation, should they need it. So basically, we’ve got people who don’t want to donate organs, but who feel that they should have just as much right to donated organs as those of us who are proactive donors. > > Personally, I find this more than a little hypocritical. The flipside of this coin is that to argue that non-donors should _not_ be granted organs is nothing more than petty vindictive spite against such people - wishing them death, basically. And it’s wishing them death for something they have technically _not yet done_, since they could in theory change their mind later and opt in at any time (prior to their death). I mean, it’s one thing to want to incentivize organ donation, and another to be literally willing to _kill people_ to do so. ETA: it just occured to me that you could say that at the point of recieving the organ, as a precondition of doing so you could require the person to immediately and permanently opt in, prior to the operation in case it fails. That, I could get behind - and think that the only reason to _refuse_ them the ‘last minute’ option is if you actually do want to use the threat of death as an incentivizer. (Which I consider immoral.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/62 "2010-05-13T17:52:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > […] the cons are that it turns the government into a grave robber. It’s really as simple as that - and let me add that the fact that it’s grave robbery doesn’t necessarily rule it out as a possibility. The government robs the dead already, with inheritance taxes. If the only “cons” of this proposal are that it is considered “robbery” by people who also consider taxation “robbery”, I don’t think there’s much left to debate. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/63 "2010-05-13T17:58:51Z")
As a libertarian myself, I find the idea behind an opt-out system to be appalling. Sure, it will save lives compared to the current system, but the ends do not justify the means, certainly not when there are other alternatives. There are plenty of reasons why one might choose not to donate, religious or cultural reasons, maybe you’re donating your body to research, maybe you have some medical reason. At least legally, I’m generally fine with the family overriding the wishes after death, but in either case, whether you consider the corpse the property of the deceased or of the family, I really don’t like the idea of having to explicitly claim your rights rather than explicitly waive them. Anyway, at least in Virginia, it’s a simple check box when getting/renewing your Driver’s License. In fact, I specifically left it blank (along with a few other questions, but that’s another discussion) when I last updated my license and the clerk required that I answer the question in order to process the form. Thus, a simple solution for states that have the DMV manage it (as I think is most, if not all, states do) is to simply require that question whenever people get or renew a license. Sure, some people will be in an intermediate state for a while, but at least you can be reasonably sure that, after the renew period has passed, the majority of people will have their wishes specifically addressed, and then you really only have to be concerned with people who don’t have ID and minors. Any concerns about paperwork in that sort of situation are pretty small as you’re just checking one box on a one-page form you fill out once every five years. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/64 "2010-05-13T17:59:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If the only “cons” of this proposal are that it is considered “robbery” by people who also consider taxation “robbery”, I don’t think there’s much left to debate. Conceding, are we? Let’s make the situation comparable. If you don’t write a will, the government will now seize everything you own\*, sell what it can, and discard the rest. Any profits it makes will be put into social programs, or maybe not. (Hey, if there’s \>50% donation lots of organs would be wasted, so including waste in the analogy is correct.) Is this robbery? Is it immoral? Is it justified? Is it a good idea? - cash, houses, other assets, and yes, your family photos. Hey, somebody might buy them - it might even be your family! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/65 "2010-05-13T18:01:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Well, that’s _your_ opinion. Other people may disagree about what should happen to themselves or their loved ones. Which is why we have the opt-out option. And, really, if you go your _entire life_ without taking the time to fill out a form that lets you make sure all your organs are shoveled into the same hole, I can’t help but think that maybe it’s not really a big issue to you. > [@](#): > > And this is an excellent reason to encourage voluntary donation, but not really a good one for implimenting _ **in** _voluntary donation. Actually, it’s pretty fucking excellent reason. I really can’t think of a better reason to do just about anything than, “It will save people’s lives.” And I believe you have agreed that an opt-out system will save more lives than an opt-in system, correct? So, you’re basically taking the position that it’s okay to let some people die needlessly in order to protect an abstract principle, which, if violated, will result in no physical or monetary harm to anyone. I’m still not seeing how that’s a defensible position. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/66 "2010-05-13T18:05:27Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Which is why we have the opt-out option. And, really, if you go your _entire life_ without taking the time to fill out a form that lets you make sure all your organs are shoveled into the same hole, I can’t help but think that maybe it’s not really a big issue to you. As noted, this is a slimy and disingenous argument. This is the kind of thing that could easily become a whole lot more important to you as you’re drawing your final breath. > [@Miller](#): > > Actually, it’s pretty fucking excellent reason. I really can’t think of a better reason to do just about anything than, “It will save people’s lives.” And I believe you have agreed that an opt-out system will save more lives than an opt-in system, correct? > > So, you’re basically taking the position that it’s okay to let some people die needlessly in order to protect an abstract principle, which, if violated, will result in no physical or monetary harm to anyone. > > I’m still not seeing how that’s a defensible position. I think we should force you to let homeless people sleep in your house and let them eat at your table. If you don’t, some of them might freeze or starve! You don’t agree? I’m not seeing how disagrement is a defensible position. ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/67 "2010-05-13T18:14:23Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Conceding, are we? Let’s make the situation comparable. If you don’t write a will, the government will now seize everything you own\*, sell what it can, and discard the rest. Any profits it makes will be put into social programs, or maybe not. (Hey, if there’s \>50% donation lots of organs would be wasted, so including waste in the analogy is correct.) > > Is this robbery? Is it immoral? Is it justified? Is it a good idea? > > - cash, houses, other assets, and yes, your family photos. Hey, somebody might buy them - it might even be your family! That is not even a tiny, tiny, eensy little bit comparable. A much better comparison would be if after you die, the government comes and takes the rubbish from your trash bin. And uses this rubbish to save someone’s life. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/68 "2010-05-13T18:16:33Z")
> [@carm](#): > > That is not even a tiny, tiny, eensy little bit comparable. > A much better comparison would be if after you die, the government comes and takes the rubbish from your trash bin. > > And uses this rubbish to save someone’s life. If you can declare somebody’s corpse trash, I can declare all your possessions trash. In either case we’re declaring a personal opinion and then holding other people to that standard. It’s **exactly** comparable. ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/69 "2010-05-13T18:18:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If you can declare somebody’s corpse trash, I can declare all your possessions trash. In either case we’re declaring a personal opinion and then holding other people to that standard. It’s **exactly** comparable. What do we do with trash? Put it in landfills, ie holes in the ground. What do we do with corpses? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/70 "2010-05-13T18:19:41Z")
> [@carm](#): > > What do we do with trash? Put it in landfills, ie holes in the ground. > > What do we do with corpses? We burn them, put then in urns on the mantelplace, and treasure them forever. But we can dump all _your_ possessions in a landfill if you like. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/71 "2010-05-13T18:21:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > As noted, this is a slimy and disingenous argument. This is the kind of thing that could easily become a whole lot more important to you as you’re drawing your final breath. Yeah, a lot of people have deathbed regrets. I’m sure there are a lot of people who think, “I wish I’d been an organ donor, so at least my death could serve some beneficial purpose.” What about those people? Shouldn’t we care about their feelings at least as much as we care about the people who’s dying thoughts are, “I want to make sure no one else touches my liver”? I don’t really see a way to rate either of those desires above the other, so it seems to me that’s a non-starter as an argument either for or against opt-out. > [@](#): > > I think we should force you to let homeless people sleep in your house and let them eat at your table. If you don’t, some of them might freeze or starve! > > You don’t agree? I’m not seeing how disagrement is a defensible position. As far as analogies go, this is a lot better than your family photograph one, but it’s still pretty weak. I pay a portion of my paycheck every month to the government to offer social services to prevent the homeless from freezing or starving to death. I’m okay with this, because while I don’t think the government should be able to come in and take anything I own for any reason, I do think it’s okay for the government to do this if they can present a sufficiently compelling cause. Not letting people freeze to death in the street is a sufficiently compelling reason to take a portion of my paycheck. Not letting people die of organ failure is, likewise, a sufficiently compelling reason to allow the government to take my organs. You have yet to show why this is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/72 "2010-05-13T18:24:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > We burn them, put then in urns on the mantelplace, and treasure them forever. > > But we can dump all _your_ possessions in a landfill if you like. But what actual difference would it make if the organs were removed before cremation? Slightly less ash? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/73 "2010-05-13T18:31:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yeah, a lot of people have deathbed regrets. I’m sure there are a lot of people who think, “I wish I’d been an organ donor, so at least my death could serve some beneficial purpose.” What about those people? Shouldn’t we care about their feelings at least as much as we care about the people who’s dying thoughts are, “I want to make sure no one else touches my liver”? I don’t really see a way to rate either of those desires above the other, so it seems to me that’s a non-starter as an argument either for or against opt-out. And the argument it’s intended to counter: “people who don’t want to donate will opt out”, is also a non-starter, and obviously false disingenous bullshit besides. Let’s cut the crap, shall we. There are people who don’t want to donate their organs but for whatever reasons do not jump through extra hoops to opt out. The purpose of opt out is to claim this group’s bodies contrary to their will. If one merely wanted to get the people who are too lazy to opt _in_, one would aggressively pursue putting opt in/opt out checkboxes on every piece of government paper imaginable, instead of a default opt-out. > [@Miller](#): > > As far as analogies go, this is a lot better than your family photograph one, but it’s still pretty weak. I pay a portion of my paycheck every month to the government to offer social services to prevent the homeless from freezing or starving to death. I’m okay with this, because while I don’t think the government should be able to come in and take anything I own for any reason, I do think it’s okay for the government to do this if they can present a sufficiently compelling cause. Not letting people freeze to death in the street is a sufficiently compelling reason to take a portion of my paycheck. Not letting people die of organ failure is, likewise, a sufficiently compelling reason to allow the government to take my organs. You have yet to show why this is not the case. I don’t have to - you’re the one who has to show it _is_ the case. And you have not done so, at least not to _my_ satisfaction. Wether the disposition of one’s organs are valuable to onesself is an _opinion_. You don’t think so - that’s nice for you. _Your opinion is not a universal standard_. And in my opinion, it shouldn’t be law. And it really shouldn’t be pushed as a law over aggressively trying to _find out_ people’s opinions. Unless you’re into actively disregarding other people’s opinions - in which case, why should I give a crap about _your_ opinion of the value of people’s organs? > [@carm](#): > > But what actual difference would it make if the organs were removed before cremation? > Slightly less ash? It might make a difference to _me_. And yeah, I know _your_ opinion. I just don’t think that your opinion is law, or _should_ be. ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/74 "2010-05-13T18:41:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It might make a difference to _me_. And yeah, I know _your_ opinion. I just don’t think that your opinion is law, or _should_ be. Trust me, it’ll make a _far_ bigger difference to the guy who dies/survives based on whether or not he can get a transplant. And, like it’s been said, most countries that have this system allow next of kin to opt out for their beloved. So in your case, it wouldn’t actually make a difference. Anyway, I can see we’re going nowhere here, so I’m gonna back out of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/75 "2010-05-13T18:42:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Let’s make the situation comparable. If you don’t write a will, the government will now seize everything you own\*, sell what it can, and discard the rest. Any profits it makes will be put into social programs, or maybe not. (Hey, if there’s \>50% donation lots of organs would be wasted, so including waste in the analogy is correct.) > > Is this robbery? Is it immoral? Is it justified? Is it a good idea? If there was some immutable biological reason that your assets, like your organs, automatically became useless and worthless after you died and nobody was allowed to profit from them, then yes, I would consider it perfectly moral and justified and a fine idea for the government to save what it could by seizing all of what you left and distributing the usable parts as it saw fit. The only reason it’s immoral and unjustified and not a good idea under current conditions is that your assets, unlike your organs, are things that can be owned and profited from. Therefore, your “natural heirs” have a reasonable claim to a higher priority when it comes to determining who gets your stuff after you die, even if you didn’t explicitly specify that you **wanted** them to get your stuff. That’s not a valid analogy in the case of organ collection, because the law doesn’t regard you as the owner of your body parts or entitled to transfer ownership in them to your heirs. Nor are your heirs allowed to profit by selling your body parts the way that they can profit by selling your assets. So there’s really no reason that your heirs are any more naturally entitled to dispose of your body parts than the government is, if you have left no explicit indications about how you want them disposed of. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/76 "2010-05-13T18:51:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > …It might make a difference to _me_. And yeah, I know _your_ opinion. I just don’t think that your opinion is law, or _should_ be. The law? You clearly don’t care what the law is, because the law IS that your corpse is NOT property. You do not own it. Your family does NOT own it after you die. These are facts. Your mext of kin has limited rights to bury your corpse, and note I say limited. If there is an autopsy, your family does not have the right to recover any organs that the coroner removes, for example. Your family does not have the right to sell your organs to the highest bidder. You do not have the right to sell a spare kidney to a rich guy while you are still alive. Property rights are determined by state law. Unless there is something in a state’s constitution that specifically protects the dead (and I’m not aware of any), there is no legal barrier to changing the state laws to include an opt-out provision for organ donations. The reason many state laws haven’t changed are due to people like you making bullshit strawman arguments. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/77 "2010-05-13T18:54:54Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > I’d also like to see an opt-out option, with the stipulation that if you opt out, you are ineligible for any organ transplants. That is, if you aren’t willing to donate, you don’t get any donations. **Anyone who decides to opt back in isn’t eligible for donations for at least 10 years** , to prevent people from opting in and out as they need organs. (bolding mine) My worry is that someone would be left to die when they could otherwise be saved just because they accidentally checked the wrong box. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/78 "2010-05-13T18:58:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > There are people who don’t want to donate their organs but for whatever reasons do not jump through extra hoops to opt out. The purpose of opt out is to claim this group’s bodies contrary to their will. If one merely wanted to get the people who are too lazy to opt in, one would aggressively pursue putting opt in/opt out checkboxes on every piece of government paper imaginable, instead of a default opt-out. I love how according to you, the people who don’t opt out are “for whatever reasons not jump[ing] through extra hoops”, while the people who don’t opt in are simply “too lazy”. Little bias showing there. In any case, ISTM that the purpose of opt-out is to claim by default not just the organs of people who would **want** to opt out but are just too lazy to do so (oops, excuse me, I meant to say “for whatever reasons do not jump through extra hoops to do so”), but also the organs of people who just don’t care enough one way or another to have indicated a preference, as well as those who want to opt in but are just too lazy (lemme check; yes, those are the people I’m allowed to call lazy). Another advantage that I see in the opt-out system is that it reinforces the idea of organ donation as a social positive. If we as a society support organ transplants to save lives, then I think it’s consistent and reasonable for us to assume that individuals by default are willing to contribute their post-mortem garbage to assist that cause, unless they explicitly specify that for some reason they choose not to. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/79 "2010-05-13T19:11:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > And the argument it’s intended to counter: “people who don’t want to donate will opt out”, is also a non-starter, and obviously false disingenous bullshit besides. You say “disingenuous bullshit.” I say, “rational and humanitarian.” Potato, potahto, I guess. > [@](#): > > Let’s cut the crap, shall we. There are people who don’t want to donate their organs but for whatever reasons do not jump through extra hoops to opt out. The purpose of opt out is to claim this group’s bodies contrary to their will. If one merely wanted to get the people who are too lazy to opt _in_, one would aggressively pursue putting opt in/opt out checkboxes on every piece of government paper imaginable, instead of a default opt-out. Sure, let’s do that too. But you have yet to present a rational reason why, in the absence of any information to the contrary, we shouldn’t use these organs to save people’s lives. > [@](#): > > I don’t have to - you’re the one who has to show it _is_ the case. And you have not done so, at least not to _my_ satisfaction. Well, yes, if you’re the sort of person who values ideology over human lives, I suppose that I haven’t. > [@](#): > > And it really shouldn’t be pushed as a law over aggressively trying to _find out_ people’s opinions. Unless you’re into actively disregarding other people’s opinions - in which case, why should I give a crap about _your_ opinion of the value of people’s organs? And you think it’s better to let a human being die, rather than inconvenience someone _who’s already dead_. So, really, how much is your opinion worth? ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/80 "2010-05-13T19:37:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hmm, looks like when I take out the irrelevent bits, there’s no content left in this post. A pity you had to waste so many words in response to something that is free of content. One would think it would be much simpler to craft a response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218.md?page=5)