I've heard a proposal for a alternative to opt-in and opt-out which is 'forced choice'

How it works is a form to do some other thing (for example, get a driving license) has a checkbox to donate and one to not donate, and the form is rejected as incomplete if you don't choose one or the other.

This of course means you don't have to apply a default to those people, because they've made an explicit choice already.

Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread.

> Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread.

It could be opt-in or opt-out for everyone else. You don't have to solve the problem perfectly to make it better than it is today.

An idea - this binary choice can be attached to combination of reaching adulthood (18 or similar) and combination of obtaining state ID / passport.

For younger, parents can choose. If somebody wants to argue about teens, they can decide themselves / be not-decided by their choice until reaching adulthood.

While not strictly relevant, your comment reminded me of this article about how hard it apparently is to get the skull of a deceased relative in the US: “You Can’t Keep Your Parents’ Skulls” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/why-you-...

(the Google searches it took me to find that article surely put me on some watch lists...)

This was fascinating and something I've never given even a passing thought to. I had long imagined most skeletons were plastic replicas and not the real deal. Thanks for sharing it!

I'm all for opt-out for a very simple reason.... doctors don't have to bother families in the midst of grief.

If you don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of your organs (I'd argue it's the recipient that ultimately ends up owning them, but whatever), then you can opt out.

It’s odd here in AU. It is opt-in, but I still (as the de facto partner) had to give final authorisation to go ahead with it. I don’t quite get it, and wish it was more respectful of the deceased.

It’s worth noting though that the process of saying yes and sorting that all out was in fact incredibly healing and cathartic for me. I wouldn’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing for grieving families to be involved in.

So who do they belong to? The earth that they’re eventually going back to?

I think emotionally I agree with you, but rationally I just cannot explain it.

Ostensibly they should belong to the estate of the deceased. As it is now, in the US (as I understand it) organs and body tissue is in this weird limbo of not being considered property. The original case law around this seems to exist to: 1) make it hard to go after doctors who do things you don't like with your discarded tissue (either destroying it, or giving it to the state for evidence), and 2) prevent trafficking in humans and their organs.

The second part seems to mean that only certain types of nonprofits can accept organs. From there they may or may not be able to profit off of the sale of the organ but instead the services to transport and maintain it. Then at a certain point, you've turned penises into lip filler, and then you can sell the lip filler (at a huge profit).

I replied elsewhere in the thread, but in a tldr kind of way: I think next of kin should get the organs (or the estate, as another commenter mentioned). In the case where there is no next of kin and the deceased did not express their wishes (in a will or similar), then, and only then, should the state gain custody of the body and dispose of it as the state sees fit.

I'd disagree with "as the state sees fit".

I have no problems with my organs being used to help others, either as direct spare parts for others, or for medical research.

But I'd take issue with (well, I'd be dead, so I could no longer take issue, but you catch my drift) my organs being used for just about any other type of research, since that could include research into better ways of killing one another, which I would consider a "bad thing".

Just extending that line of reasoning, what about your organs powering someone who goes on to do such research?

The Netherlands is switching to opt-out, it is a thing of huge controversy here.

Interesting it wasn't in the UK which has just done that

>While I am personally an organ donor, I don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of my organs post mortem.

Ahh you can't leave us hanging with just that. Can you elaborate more?

That's fair—while I think the state should be the owner of last resort (as in the case where no next of kin are available and the deceased did not leave a will or similar documentation of their wishes), I think the ownership of a deceased person's organs should transfer to their next of kin (if and only if the deceased did not express any wishes about their body post mortem), to be disposed of (in the legal sense) as they see fit.