It’s not punishing dead people. It’s punishing people who benefit from organ donations but choose to not contribute their own organs i.e. those who receive orga

It’s not punishing dead people. It’s punishing people who benefit from organ donations but choose to not contribute their own organs i.e. those who receive organ donations from those who chose to donate their organs without themselves choosing to donate their own organs. The default-to-being—an-organ-donor/presumed consent approach has proven benefits when it comes to outcomes in medical situations that require organ donors [0][1][2]. The thing that I personally dislike about defaults like these is that it allows people to move through their life ignorant of the good that they are able to do for others and the good that others are able to do for them. In the case of an organ donation question on a driving license, I would personally like there to only be two options that are both not default: opt-in to being an organ donor and being able to receive organ donations, and opt-out to not being an organ donor and then be unable to receive donations. An answer to this question would be required (opt-in or opt-out), and not making a selection would the equivalent of submitting an incomplete driver’s license application such that the application would be rejected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect#Default_setting_as_a_policy_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect#Default_setting... [1] https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increase-organ-donation https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increa... [2] https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/files/Defaults_and_Donation_Decisions_-_Transplantation.pdf https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/f...