3 ms·

I hope it doesn't pass, it's a move in a very wrong direction. > The state isn't invading your corporeal sovereignty Basically, that IS what's happening. The

by ar-jan 10y ago

I hope it doesn't pass, it's a move in a very wrong direction. > The state isn't invading your corporeal sovereignty Basically, that IS what's happening. The obvious sane solution would be to force people to make a choice, for example, when you request a new ID card you must register your preference. But now the default choice is already made for you. And that's of course exactly what they're aiming for, just as software vendors do with opt-out schemes.

jhg7877 10y ago
It's a classic dark pattern. I think many of the people supporting opt-out know that people would say no if confronted with the question so they support what I would call an an underhand and sinister approach. See the OP's response below "I would fear that for many people being confronted with this choice when you are renewing your driver's licence means defaulting for the 'safe' option of non-donor."
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  On the one hand we have this underhanded, sinister manipulation. On the other hand, we have lives to save. Personally, I side with the supervillain on this one. Hurt feelings (including religious delusions) are nothing compared to the good you can make with a person's organs. That said, I still (reluctantly) support the possibility to opt out. Forcing people to give up their body after their death is likely to have consequences I don't want to deal with.