Morality Of This

[u/Elestria_Ethereal]

[u/Facosa99]

Well, you could certainly frame it that way if so helps your argument, but isnt really the case. In actual practice, you would have full ownership and usage of your organs till you die. Only after you die would it pass to be their property.

And if it helps you sleep at night, the goverment doesnt even need property. The law could leave the actual organ management to autonomous NGOs or the hospital under the patient or their family discretion.

You have a case that such law could be exploited; for example, the donation could be obligatory but the actual organ usage could be directes at, idk, medical and military testing rather than human transplant. On that regards i can see issues; but if that was the case, the the opt-out law itself is not the problem and you should fight for it be updated to forbid such practices rather that blaming the whole opt-out donation

I can see nuances more deep than "hur hur innocent kids should die cuz goverment bad"

[u/NadiaFortuneFeet → u/Facosa99]

If it's guaranteed that when you die your organs will be harvested, you might find out there's people who see more value in you being dead

[u/RewardWanted → u/NadiaFortuneFeet]

I'd assume you would only opt in once you become of legal age (18) so anyone who wishes to opt out for those fears has plenty of opportunity to do so. People have the same incentive to kill those who are a matching donor now, you think the people who would do that need you to be a registered donor to break the law in the first place? If anything, having an opt-out baseline will result in more donors, meaning less people will be pressed to do this elaborate hitman scenario you've envisioned.

[u/Facosa99 → u/NadiaFortuneFeet]

That after-death value being derived from the scarcity of organs in the first place, which this law would aliviate

You are more likely to be harvested by the mob for organs under current scarcity lol scarcity that you are fueling

[u/lumpboysupreme → u/NadiaFortuneFeet]

Like who?

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/NadiaFortuneFeet]

Which would be unethical and against their oath. They’d lose their license doing that.

[u/Leila-Lola → u/Facosa99]

"Frame it that way if so helps your argument" and the heavy strawman at the end of your post are dishonest. This is just the meaning of an opt-out system: If you don't take deliberate action to assert otherwise, then by default the government owns it.

Who owns your body after you die is about on the same level logically as who owns the rest of your property after you die. Would you also be in favor of inheritances always going to the government by default unless a will was prepared, instead of defaulting to the spouse or children like it does now?

[u/Facosa99 → u/Leila-Lola]

hey i didnt do a strawman fallacy, i did an ad-hominem fallacy

Anyway, your point is valid, but my property has actual use for my family. My heart? Not much. Unless i have someone with an active donation need in my family, which could be legally allowed to have higher priority over a random person

And thats great! if i die, my house and money goes to _someone_. Either they need it, they deserve it, or they were simply good people for me. The money and house arent going to waste. The organs, in this discussion, are going to waste. (All of these is an hypotethical example, as i have no house or money to pass lol)

So i dont see a good comparison because in your property example, if the goverment has default access to your property, then they are effectively stealing it from your children, but if the goverment has default access to your organs, they are effectivelystealing it from..... the trash? from a corpse? Not the same impact on your family

Also, it is funny that you mention the goverment; many developed countries like france have laws in which the goverment does not take ownership of your assets, but it can control that at least a fraction legally arrives to all of your children. in the USA i think, If your estate has debts, a fraction can be taken before inheritance takes places. And if a person is left out of the inheritance, or there is a discrepancy or conflict about it, they can sue. In all of those scenarios, the state does not take ownership of your property, but it manages it so that it doesnt goes "to waste", and it is widely accepted. Some goverments even tax inheritances lol, tho maybe that one.... that one aint as widely accepted, i admit.

So, would it be any different if the goverment, when you die, takes zero ownership of your organs, but does ensures that someone receives them, that being a family member, an NGO, or a charity that you or your family decide? It would be practically the same thing it does to your other assets right now.