• QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 days 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
      16
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days 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
        15
        ·
        10 days 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
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days 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.