2 ms·

Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. But laws are often a deterrent to undesirable conduct. Even if some bad actors

Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. But laws are often a deterrent to undesirable conduct. Even if some bad actors could just ignore them, they know that there are consequences for doing this. In such delicate issue as what is acceptable to do with a human corpse, a whitelist approach (only what is in this list is allowed) is much more reasonable than a blacklist approach (everything that is not in this list is allowed). People have the right to decide personally what can or can't be done with their corpses. Respecting their last wishes is necessary for keeping a high standard of human dignity in the hospitals. This means that can't be done by default.

gambiting 4y ago
No, I just disagree with you on this super hard. Having it be the default option is far more reasonable, being opted out by default is a mad choice dictated by something I really don't understand. >>People have the right to decide personally what can or can't be done with their corpses. Of course. That's why they can opt out. >>Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. No, I'm saying that china harvesting organs from prisoners is not linked to their healthcare policy on donor donation after death. Equally what Israel was doing isn't linked to their healthcare policy either. So bringing up both of those cases in this argument is done in bad faith, because these events(or in case of China - active penal policies) are not subject to or influenced by organ donation policy, and saying that making the list opt-in by default is/or can lead to situation like in China is nonsensical at best, malicious at worst.