> Draw what conclusions from that you will

An obvious complication here is that in an opt-in system, people who have more directly faced the possibility of death (extreme sports participants, people with chronic conditions, etc) may be more likely to be donors.

To get numbers with fewer confounding factors, you would need to look at an opt-out system and compare the default opt-in population with a reasonably comparative slice of people who are not automatically donors but have neither intentionally opted out, such as, in the case of the new NHS policy, 'people who have lived in England for less than 12 months before their death'.

> And second, if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation

If you're planning for cryogenic suspension after death (actually planning for it, not just idly thinking about it), filling out an opt-out form is just a minor footnote compared to the piles of other paperwork needed to set up a legal trust to preserve your body.

Also, just on a human level, people don't want to be chopped up and parcelled out as used parts for other people. I don't feel that way, but I understand how people can feel that way and we should respect their wishes.

>if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation, that's not particularly compatible with organ donation.

I believe they only freeze the head with the brain intact, when one opts for cryonics.

They're not yours when you're dead. It's no different from your estate. If you don't leave a will, the state decides what to do with what you leave behind.

Opt-out allows for such. It just assumes most people want to donate. That's a different opt-out than spam. Most people are not interested in spam.

You can't decide what to do post-humously, for obvious reasons. You can specify before you die though, that's the reason there's an opt-out.

Not in the UK.

And the guy you hold the door open for tomorrow could be just after murdering someone... bit of a stretch there

What percentage of people refuse to receive a transplant because they disagree with transplantation? It's a tiny number of people. Acceptance of organ transplantation is almost universal outside of religious communities such as jehova's witnesses.

A hypothetical scenario, where I am interested in hearing your opinion:

A citizen recently returned from Liberia is diagnosed with Ebola and dies in the hospital. The family requests a christian burial, but the health protection agency decides against it, as the risk of disease transmission would be significant. Instead the body is treated as a biohazard and cremated, as a precaution to prevent additional deaths.

In this scenario, is it unreasonable that the state have greater right to the body than the next of kin? Should the family have been allowed to proceed with a christian burial, regardless of the potential deaths it might cause?

I think you agree that there are at least some scenarios were the state should be able to seize the rights over a body.

You might draw the line at saving people from Ebola, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for others to also include saving people from organ failure in that category.

If I don't want my kid to be vaccinated, I must let the government know. By default, they will assume I want to get my kid vaccinated. Its the same for organ donors. It is assumed that, if you are in need, you'd want other people to donate their organs if they were passed away. It is important to act quick on such, instead of waiting for an OK from family. Those who oppose it, have to opt-out of it. Still a choice. It appears your central issue isn't about choice; it is about the default you don't agree with.

> It's widely known that the NHS needs organ doners

Give it a day or two, and it too will be widely know that you can opt-out, we're discussing this on the HN front-page afterall, clearly this is no secret.

Give it a generation and no one will care either.