Your comment gave me pause because it reminded me that it is opt-in not opt-out. It is an election cycle, I wonder if we could convince one of the candidates to switch us to opt-out rather than opt-in for organ donation.
> Your comment gave me pause because it reminded me that it is opt-in not opt-out. It is an election cycle, I wonder if we could convince one of the candidates to switch us to opt-out rather than opt-in for organ donation.
While I am personally an organ donor, I don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of my organs post mortem.
Ahh you can't leave us hanging with just that. Can you elaborate more?
I think emotionally I agree with you, but rationally I just cannot explain it.
The second part seems to mean that only certain types of nonprofits can accept organs. From there they may or may not be able to profit off of the sale of the organ but instead the services to transport and maintain it. Then at a certain point, you've turned penises into lip filler, and then you can sell the lip filler (at a huge profit).
I have no problems with my organs being used to help others, either as direct spare parts for others, or for medical research.
But I'd take issue with (well, I'd be dead, so I could no longer take issue, but you catch my drift) my organs being used for just about any other type of research, since that could include research into better ways of killing one another, which I would consider a "bad thing".
If you don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of your organs (I'd argue it's the recipient that ultimately ends up owning them, but whatever), then you can opt out.
It’s worth noting though that the process of saying yes and sorting that all out was in fact incredibly healing and cathartic for me. I wouldn’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing for grieving families to be involved in.
(the Google searches it took me to find that article surely put me on some watch lists...)
How it works is a form to do some other thing (for example, get a driving license) has a checkbox to donate and one to not donate, and the form is rejected as incomplete if you don't choose one or the other.
This of course means you don't have to apply a default to those people, because they've made an explicit choice already.
Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread.
It could be opt-in or opt-out for everyone else. You don't have to solve the problem perfectly to make it better than it is today.
For younger, parents can choose. If somebody wants to argue about teens, they can decide themselves / be not-decided by their choice until reaching adulthood.
That said I don't agree with forcing people to something they don't want to and I know that there are at least a couple of religions out there that forbid cutting up the body after death.
The 'forced choice' option (in one of the other comments) is a really good one, IMHO
It is hard to argue both that not donating one's organs would be a strongly held religious belief, and that someone would not care about it enough to communicate that desire by just opting out.