The original post sounded to me as if you'd prefer if there were no rules that give relatives the right to decide what happens to the bodies of deceased loved ones that haven't expressed a particular last will in that regard. I agree that, when someone has set up a (legal) last will then relatives have no say in that. But I think relatives should still have more decision power over the fate of a relative's dead body than, say, a pharma company.
"this" refers to the opinion that relatives should have no decision power over the fate of another one's body. Maybe I have misinterpreted you though and that was not what you were trying to say.
"skepticism" refers to some of the bad reputation of the pharma industry in the public eye and some people's disdain from donating their bodies or organs out of distrust.
"Skepticism" is distrust of the pharma industry who sees humanity merely as a source of money to extract.
"flagrant disregard" seems a bit much. I never suggested that such rules should be flouted nor that they are. I was specifically saying I don't understand it. Sure I have relatives who won't eat meat on religious grounds and know why they think so but the worship of an inert piece of meat makes zero sense to me. As far as my dead friends and relatives go: the memories, good and bad, are how they live on for me; but the flesh, meh. Dispose of properly on hygienic grounds is all that matters as far as I'm concerned. It's not the person.
It's especially unfair if the person donated their body: if you believe that they have some right to its fate that donation should be their business and not that of the survivors.
I don’t understand what “this” refers to, or which skepticism.