Don’t want em, wouldn’t take em. If I’m in bad enough shape that I need to borrow a frakking organ, just bring me one of my pistols, two rounds or ammo for it, a pack of cigarettes,a lighter, a bottle of bourbon, and leave the room. There will be a loud bang shortly, and you may want to call for a cleaning crew.
It is illegal to sell human organs, but organ transplant companies reap billions of dollars per year ($100,000 to $300,000 per body) transferring harvested organs from donors to recipients by charging “processing fees”. I would like to help someone when I no longer need my organs, but I will be damned if the middlemen are going to get rich off of my altruism.
Therefore, organ harvesting middlemen must pay processing fees to my estate, for the benefit of my heirs. I have been processing this body for 55 years, and if they want to profit off of my investment, they are going to have to cut my estate in on the deal.
If the body brokers will forgo their fees, so will I. Otherwise, no kidney for you. Does this make me a bad person? How about the body brokers? Are they bad people too?
Nothing improves a debate quite so much as silly posturing.
It seems to me that making organ donation opt-out, instead of opt-in, would mean more organ availability… which would seem to make the middlemen less necessary.
Lots of people make money off of death.
Everyone arguing for consent is saying that their corpse is their properteye ignoring the fact that they can’t be in possession of themselves for obvious reasons. What kind of implications does corpse possession and attachment to an estate do to this discussion?
poisonous off-topic alert: Additionally… what do the people saying their body is their property (and the state can keep their hands off of it) have to say about abortion? 
If you’re talking to me, I’m solidly pro-choice. Also pro gay marriage, pro gun, pro smaller government, pro lower taxes etc.
Then you have no objection if I do, on behalf of my heirs?
An “opt-out” system strikes me as similar to a law saying that the government can confiscate the estate of anyone who dies intestate.
Apart from that, what others have said - one of my most important freedoms is to tell the government “Fuck you, the answer is No. My reasons are none of your business. I don’t have to justify myself to you - the No is final and without appeal.”
Rather little, as far as I can tell. The various organs have some kind of value, albeit not monetary. That value is axiomatically part of the estate, to be disposed of in accordance with the wishes of the owner.
Regards,
Shodan
No one is saying you can’t say no. The argument under discussion is simply assuming that the answer is yes unless you speak up.
This is a power grab by the government, then, and therefore unacceptable. If a citizen does not express a preference, the default is for the government to take no action - not to step in and seize his corpse before it is cold.
You mischaracterized conservative thinking above - now you are displaying the flip side. “Whatever is not forbidden is mandatory.” No thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
I do not want my organs donated after death, but I would donate part of my liver as a living donor, and I’m already registered with the bone marrow registry. Do people like me fit your definition of a hypocrit who should be SOL if we have an organ fail too?
This is signature worthy 
I’m in favor of an opt-out system, or, failing that, of at least treating the current opt-in system as really opt-in, not “opt-in unless the family objects”, because there are too many bad reasons to object in the emotion of the situation.
I’m opposed to the idea that only organ donors can be organ recipients (or that they will be first in line, which might well amount to the same thing). Should only people who donate blood should be able to get transfusions? Only people who are in the bone marrow registry be eligible to receive bone marrow donations? Medical procedures should be based on medical rationale, not on some kind of social karma calculation.
I do think that it might be reasonable to give some bonus to waitlisted donation recipients who were registered to be donors, or, say, who have 10 family members or friends who agree to sign up to be donors in exchange as a method of boosting donor numbers, but I think that turning it into a self-righteous “you can’t get an organ if you weren’t willing to give yours” doesn’t really help.
Ah, hyperbole, how we’ve missed you. Is opting out that onerous?
So would you have a problem with donors getting preferential access to donated organs over non-donors?
You appear to genuinely not understand what you’re talking about. It wouldn’t be mandatory. It would merely flip the current assumption that you want your organs to rot.
Hyperbole and overstating things aren’t a serviceable replacement for actually understanding what you’re talking about.
In principle I am in favour of an opt-out system; the only issue I can see arising (at least the only issue that I think matters) is making damn sure an opt-out can not be “accidentally” missed. It probably should be registered in some fashion.
If you insist on having an opt-in system, then like iamthewalrus(:3= suggests, it should be a true opt-in and revocable only by the person whose organs are being donated (which obviously means it is irrevocable upon death or mental incapacity of the patient). If my next-of-kin can not overrule my decision to give all my worldly goods to Martha’s Home for Incontinent Kitties after my death, then they should not be able to overrule my decision to donate my organs.
PS - Yes, I know bequests can be overruled under certain circumstances to ensure dependents are looked after; I am referring to the case where there are no mandated exceptions to my freedom to bequeath my estate however I want.
If you feel entitled to a heart or pancreas (or whatever) transplant when you’re not willing to provide the same chance to someone else, then yes, I consider that hypocritical.
I don’t understand why people don’t sign up as organ donors, but I do realize there are people that just don’t want to do it. Knowing I could save someone else’s life, at absolutely no cost to me or my family, seems like a no-brainer decision to me. If I put an old couch on the curb for the garbage man to take to the dump and someone came up to me and told me one of the cushions from that couch could save another human I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to donate the cushion. Especially since I know, for a fact, that cushion would save another human.
Saying it is “the state” or “the government” taking your organs is just silly. The government is doing no such thing. A doctor, a private citizen, is attempting to save another private citizen’s life. The government doesn’t want your organs nor are they going to take them.
By denying someone else your organs you are, in effect, condemning another human to death.
As I said, there are those that don’t want to donate. I don’t understand it, but I can at least acknowledge that. But the balance here has to go to the living. The default should be that you are a donor unless you opt-out.
I also agree that anyone that opts-out should be removed from the eligible recipient’s list. If it is somehow offensive for you to donate, then you should be equally offended if someone else is asked to donate.
This doesn’t make sense. Without the gov’t, the hospital would presumably default to grabbing the organs to help other patients, the gov’t, in the form of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act prohibits them from doing so. An opt-out plan would lessen the influence of the gov’t on the fate of the organs, not increase it.