4 ms·

Disallowing opt-out hurts some of the people whose organs will be donated, while those people are still alive. If they have a strong objection which doesn't qua

• Vinnl 6y ago
  > Disallowing opt-out hurts some of the people whose organs will be donated, while those people are still alive. If they have a strong objection which doesn't qualify for an exclusion, they have to spend their life feeling this lack of control and disrespect of their after-death wishes. Doesn't opt-out also hurt people while they are alive, who are now pressured to remain vigilant about having to make sure they're not missing any forms, or their forms not being processed correctly, etc., spending their life feeling a lack of control where a single misstep results in disrespecting their after-death wishes? And again, what's the problem with making the box-ticking obligatory e.g. when picking up a driver's licence, rather than making it opt-out?
  • cjbprime 6y ago
    We may have miscommunicated. I'm fine with making the box-ticking mandatory, but not the donation mandatory. In your earlier messages you asked about mandatory donation, not mandatory box-ticking. Opt-in-by-default does have the disadvantage you mentioned, but I don't think it carries much weight. Society could solve this problem just by sending a certificate/card to people who opt-out to tell both them and medical practitioners of their choice.