The state will harvest your organs upon your death without the consent of you or your family. But scrolling down a webpage is not considered enough “consent” for accepting cookies. What a joke.
I do have a problem with being tracked wherever I go and my data being sold on to people that have less than pure uses for it. The two things are not the same.
Them’s just the facts.
Some people might be a bit more concerned, knowing those facts.
And the supposed dead (with beating hearts) are actually put into and kept in hypothermia for a variety of reasons. Then to test whether they are “really dead,” part of the procedure is to raise them up to normal temperature before running other tests.
It’s complicated.
I'm curious though. If you have to only just be dead to have your organs harvested, how do doctors get there quickly enough for them to still be useful?
They are killed (controversial word there...) in order to take the donation.
On a practical level, most donation comes from head injury patients, motorcycles in particular are known for providing a lot of such patients.
Hypoxia (drowning) also works (sometimes) if it's long enough to kill the brain, but not the rest of the body.
There aren't as many candidates for donation as you might think. There is a lot of research on how to donate from a someone with cardiac death - doing that would significantly increase the donor pool, while also removing a lot of the objections.
That's your choice and you can donate it if you want. Oh wait, you can't even donate it since you no longer have the option. By default, your organs now belong to the state so your organs aren't even yours to give away.
> Seems like a no brainer to me.
But not to me and many other people.
> I do have a problem with being tracked wherever I go and my data being sold on to people that have less than pure uses for it.
But many people have no problem with it. So since they don't have a problem we should all be tracked right? Seems like a no brianer?
I see what you did there.
From the sound of it, I'm not sure what more they could have done. Are there many people in England who disagree with all major religions on this point?
Like, if organ donation is the default, at the very best, it's extra work for people who want not to donate their organs after death.
OTOH if organ donation is not the default, dramatically fewer organs are available to people in need, and many of them will die.
How are we supposed to weigh these competing harms?
If you want to leave the country, you may renounce your citizenship upon becoming an adult.
> If you want to leave the country, you may renounce your citizenship upon becoming an adult.
You are being very generous, and indeed this is one of the last remaining freedoms we have that people in the eastern block did not.
Where to go though if all countries compete in becoming the most oppressive one?
Uh, no, you can't opt out of being governed altogether. This is why libertarianism is a thing — the state is a categorically different kind of entity due to the monopoly on violence. Tax compliance is ultimately enforced at gunpoint, just like every other law, and that's why it really fucking matters to get the laws right. Haven't we been over this?
> Your family will still be approached and your faith, beliefs and culture will continue to be respected.
And that, I hope you agree, is a much more controversial situation.
Issues range from considering it straight out murder (after all the heart it beating, and the person is breathing), to mistakes in accurately detecting brain death, or fear of Dr's removing care in hopes of gaining donation.
Actually, it's quite encouraged in many cases. See 'motor voter' laws that automatically register citizens to vote when they get an ID, for example.
If we're willing to say "opt-out is wrong when buying a product", how can we say "opt-out is right when it comes to your own body"?