• QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why not? Why do you need the ability to deprive someone of a live saving procedure after you literally died?

      • piccolo@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I dont know. Probably because it risks being abused. The US already has private prisons filled to the brim with trivial felons forced to work in sweat shops… im sure theyll love to sell their organs too after dying from heat stroke.

        • QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I see, that’s a valid concern. I wonder whether we could try to prevent such abuse by automatically excluding more prone groups like prisoners. It really seems crazy to me how many organs, which could literally save someone’s life, are going to waste.

          • piccolo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think opt out would be sufficient. Right now, its a compilcated to opt in and not many people thinks about it. In my state, the only time you see it, is a small checkbox when you get a drivers license.

            But being opt out everyone is included unless they choose not to, for whatever reason. Which is think is more than fair. Its their body, they should have the right to do whatever they wish, regardless if they arent using it anymore. The amount of people opting out would be a minority, so it shouldn’t really be a concern.

      • piccolo@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, the current system is opt in. You have to choose to be a donor. Opt out means you have to choose not to be.