I do not believe ends justifies the means. And as always, eventually, while the option might be technically available, just like the TSA opt out, you will be basically shamed into compliance.
In the organ donation case, who do you think would "shame you into compliance"? How would anyone else even know? I don't know the organ donation status of anyone else in the world, even my family and close friends, and even those who have died.
I admit to being a white male US citizen who politely requests it using the words "I'd like to opt out" (rather than some vaguer objection) and then waits patiently, not someone who gets angry at the officers. The ground rules aren't the fault of the workers, only any individual bad behavior.
And for a fun alternate strategy: instead of opting out, if you just say "I can't raise my arms above my head," you can skip all of it. You don't even have to explain why because they're not supposed to ask. You'll go through the metal detector and get a hand swab and you're done. Most of the time, I get through to the other side before my bags.
And anti-government in general seems to be stance that often comes with "I don't like it", but without a solution and the only thing I've seen so far is people coming up with a "let's do nothing" alternative. That's not a real alternative at all because it doesn't solve anything. Either bring something else that also works, or accept that the best we can do so far is come up with imperfect solutions.
What is this? In the past five years, I've probably flown 15 times and every time, I've opted out just fine. Just stand there waiting to one side until someone comes to pat you down. The pat down is consistent across airports, and you can usually count on the TSA agent to be courteous and professional. I can't stand the agency or their dictum that they're keeping the skies safe, but individual agents seem to be decent folk.
Never had any feeling of shame from other passengers or TSA agents. Maybe I'm lucky or privileged or something.
But if you don't want to get scanned, tell the agent you want to opt out. You don't have to be a haughty prick about it. Just say, "I want to opt out, please." And when they say, "okay, stand over there," nod and say, "thank you."
How? TSA security checks happen in public. Opting out of this involves ticking a box on a form and it remains private (I assume).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252408
The next step is shaming those who opt-out. Which will then cement the ownership of the state over your organs.
Edit: and more:
Or hell, at that point, I'd happily make it opt-in.
It's fine to use donor status as a tie-breaker if multiple recipients are in contention.
EDIT: Plus the other reply about children.
In addition to that, there was this:
> Will you automatically take my organs if I don't opt out? No. Your family would always be involved before donation takes place, so it is really important that you choose whether you want to be a donor and discuss what you want to happen with your family, so your decision is clear and they can have peace of mind knowing that your decision is being honoured.[1]
1. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...
I'll save the thread for the first time some politician uses the you're not an organ donor ammunition against another. Which will happen. Which didn't happen before.
It's a subtle but profound change, and the legislators clearly knew and sought that.
> Your family would always be involved before donation takes place
That's nice, what will happen if:
a) you don't have close family
b) they can't be contacted fast enough
Because in an opt-in system it's possible to not be an organ donor through oversight, laziness, lack of awareness, or carelessness. In an opt-out system, you have to actively want to not be an organ donor and take steps to ensure that.
I agree that making people who opt-out completely ineligible to receive donations is not right - you should always save a life if it's possible. I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line.
None of that fits the definition of "shaming" though, which is what the original poster was concerned about.
They turned something you could do for your fellow citizens, 100% of your own volition, and consciously in 100% of the cases, into an obligation. Which, again, makes your organs, unless you opt-out, property of the state.
I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line.
I don't see a problem putting people who pay more taxes in front of the line. They contribute more to the NHS, including making transplants possible. You can even argue than keeping the wealthier alive is more beneficial to the whole system, as, if they die, they'll stop contributing.
This is a terrible idea, of course. How much, in any kind, organs or money, you contribute to the system, shouldn't dictate the attention you get. But it's freaking scary how many in this thread are suggesting exactly that.
Ideally a default opt-in system would increase supply sufficiently that no one in need will go without.
1. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation...