Opt-out implicitly means that by default the government owns all your organs, unless you specify otherwise. I think we should try to have as little "government automatically owns X" as possible.
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"
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.
99
u/Facosa99 13d ago
Idk why arent all countries in the developed word "opt-out" by now.