Because our society believes in body autonomy, to the point that it won't use your body's organs to save other human beings, without your express consent.
Your body is your property, and it takes a damn good reason for someone else to access your property, contrary to your will.
No longer true here in NL:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/new-dutch-law-orga...
I personally find it abhorrent. I used to be an organ donor before they made it opt-out in argentina: after that in protest I took myself out.
Even following the anti authoritarian reasoning, which I'm kind of fond, I find it silly to worry about this, with all the stuff the state decides over your life.
> I find that doctors still "request" the permissions to the family because no one wants to deal with unnecessary legal trouble.
Until they don't need to. In argentina for example, the legal requirement of getting consent from family members was lifted with the introduction of the opt-out. Funny thing about the opt-out, its an online registration!
I've seen opt-out described as a "libertarian paternalism" proposal to say that you have the liberty to choose anything but that there is an opinionated default. I find such reasoning to always lead to a death by a thousand cuts: if every single policy was implemented opt-out, you would definitely be able to manipulate the population into something.
> with all the stuff the state decides over your life.
I worry about any of them. And I don't find it comforting at all to argue that because individual liberties are breached many times, whats does one more stripe do to the tiger.
You can't go to a cemetery and dig up corpses because "they didn't opt-out of grave-robbery". I would say that the body naturally falls under the concept of private property, which is why it is heinous to desecrate bodies and their belongings when people die.
What's crazy to me is that this problem looks so easy to resolve: if you want organ donors, pay for them. A form of reverse insurance: that will get you people in.
Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy.
> Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy.
Nobel prizes have been awarded on one solution to this problem alone!
> Your body is your property, and it takes a damn good reason for someone else to access your property, contrary to your will.
The way I see it, we're a guest on the planet, and after we are done for, there's a few things we leave behind: our direct ancestors (family), our indirect ancestors (mankind) and our planet as a whole (Earth with its inhabitants) many of whom are important for the planet's ecosystem. We should ensure that after we are done for, these living organisms survive and lead a happy and healthy life.
Now, I'm of the opinion that our justice system is relevant for society. It allows Earth's inhabitants to lead a happy and healthy life. This is particularly true for crimes such as murder/killing which have a deep impact on society. So if this heavy crime can be solved using the help of a deceased one, I'm all for that. Even if it involves force or naysayers.
There is a great danger in the state being able to use dna this way: it is against privacy, and privacy is a tool against attacks on liberty. It is also a tool for crime.
You can't live free without crime. Once the state has this information, it can only be used against you, not in your favor.
I understand there is risk, all things have potential extremes, but the idea that data on me can only be used against me is false on it's face.