It shows how reliable "government owned media" can be even in democracies.

Except they're also "constitutional monarchy" so there is that.

Perhaps there's some other story that's capturing the attention of the health-focused reporters at the BBC and there wasn't during Wales' rollout? Hmm?

For sure, but people should be given the information to exercise bodily autonomy. The BBC is a public service broadcaster paid for by TV licence fees, so should aim to inform the UK population about significant issues which impact them. Sure, COVID-19 and its fallout should be reported on, but it should not (and does not need to) cause the absence of this from the homepage.

It seems like the kind of thing that should just have a small informative pamphlet mailed to everyone in the country. It's a relatively cheap, straightforward way to inform everyone.

I agree, and it's happened before. Very recently, the Prime Minister sent a letter to every household in the UK on the COVID-19 lockdown measures. [1] This would be less intensive, as it would go to all households in England, not the whole UK.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pm-letter-to-nati...

Since England is nearly 85% of the UK, it really doesn’t make that much of a difference.

It's not coming as surprise though. Is it? If I recall correctly it was announced a while ago but only just coming into effect now.

LOL ... guess what percentage of the population are aware of this!

Surprise!

People don't need to be aware of a law which has good intentions, and does not affect them while they're alive. This is a law with good intentions because it is going to save lives, and increase the quality of life of people. The few who care about this for religious reasons or liberty reasons are in the wrong IMO, but they surely know, as they care about this issue. They'll be able to opt-out.

Regarding bodily autonomy, I feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here: if organ donation saves other lives at your own moral discomfort (because presumably you wouldn't be forced to donate organs until after death), what difference is there between this requirement and the requirement to vaccinate, wear masks, etc.? By this I mean if somebody claims bodily autonomy to oppose mandatory organ donation, should they also be able to claim it for those other "despite the public good" reasons?

Accepting your premise that all of these things are equivilent, when you change mask rules or required vaccinations, etc, you need to let everyone know. So if they don't agree, they can protest, or leave, or attempt to arrange the circumstances of their death to prevent the removal of their organs (it's haddly a donation if it's forced).

I'm trying not to argue for or against opt-in vs opt-out or no choice, that's a fine discussion to have, but this thread was more about notice.

There was extensive publication as the law was being discussed in parliament, and when it was passed.

It's more important to tell people when the green and white papers are being read and when the bill is being discussed, and then when the law is made, and there was a lot of publicity then.

If you opt out vaccination or wearing masks, you increase the risk of the entire population to get infected, since we are talking about viral diseases. This is a dishonest comparison, as situations where an organ is needed can have a myriad of reasons. It could be gene related ("predestined"), it could be self inflicted (e.g. smoking), it could be from an infection (including COVID-19), it could be from an accident (who's fault?).

The comparison is also moot because there is no opt-out of a law which forces you to wear a mask, or forces you to get vaccinated. There is an opt-out regarding organ donation. A comparison would be, that you'd be forced to wear masks everywhere, and that you'd by default get vaccinated, but you are free to decline (opt-out). Well, vaccinations in The Netherlands already work like this. Your kid gets asked to get a vaccination, and you are free to decline it. You don't have to ask the government for it though. That's opt-out as well.

Uncomfortable news has a way of doing that.

In this case, the poor communication should result in more lives being saved.

Are you kidding me? People should have the right to make an informed choice, however they feel about it.

What possible incentive could there be to hoard your organs after death?

Several:

First, there are documented studies showing that known organ donors have a slightly lower survival rate in hospitals than non-donors do. Draw what conclusions from that you will, but some people choose not to be a donor for precisely that reason.

And second, if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation, that's not particularly compatible with organ donation.

> Draw what conclusions from that you will

An obvious complication here is that in an opt-in system, people who have more directly faced the possibility of death (extreme sports participants, people with chronic conditions, etc) may be more likely to be donors.

To get numbers with fewer confounding factors, you would need to look at an opt-out system and compare the default opt-in population with a reasonably comparative slice of people who are not automatically donors but have neither intentionally opted out, such as, in the case of the new NHS policy, 'people who have lived in England for less than 12 months before their death'.

> And second, if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation

If you're planning for cryogenic suspension after death (actually planning for it, not just idly thinking about it), filling out an opt-out form is just a minor footnote compared to the piles of other paperwork needed to set up a legal trust to preserve your body.

Also, just on a human level, people don't want to be chopped up and parcelled out as used parts for other people. I don't feel that way, but I understand how people can feel that way and we should respect their wishes.

...in which case it's easy to opt out, for the people who do feel that way.

But they can't if they don't know it's opt-out, which is why thread OP argues that BBC should announce this.

I don’t agree that their irrational preferences trump others’ right to live, but let’s assume they do. In that case, they should automatically forfeit the right to receive transplants. Not just be put at the back of the queue, but be banned altogether.

>if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation, that's not particularly compatible with organ donation.

I believe they only freeze the head with the brain intact, when one opts for cryonics.

Full-body cryogenic preservation is available, albeit much more expensive.

Interesting. I understand the argument may be that you are you, but personally if I were to go through the hassle of cryonics and wake up on the other side, I'd hope to be met with the best body available for the given time.

What a loss it would be to come back and be the only one without gills!

i am sorry but your old brain is not compatible with our current bodies. unfortunately those old style bodies have fallen out of fashion and we no longer have people trained in their creation. if only you had decided to freeze your whole body, or at least the torso, as we can replace arms and legs with prosthetics.

"Hoard"? They're mine to give away, not the state's. For the record, I already opted-in, but this needs to be a choice.

They're not yours when you're dead. It's no different from your estate. If you don't leave a will, the state decides what to do with what you leave behind.

The first two sentences here are pretty contradictory. If they're not yours then why would you be allowed to direct what happens with them? The will doesn't execute until after you die.

The state doesn't choose what to do with my estate, it follows specific rules that are what most people would want. In Denmark, that means that your spouse or children gets the money.

They might be needed in the after life :-). Jokes aside I think individuals should have a right to do what they want with their organs. Even posthumously...

Opt-out allows for such. It just assumes most people want to donate. That's a different opt-out than spam. Most people are not interested in spam.

You can't decide what to do post-humously, for obvious reasons. You can specify before you die though, that's the reason there's an opt-out.

It is not just organs, it is also things like your skin, eyes, etc. I think a lot of people would object to having their face carved out and then have it attached to another person.

I opted in for everything that can be removed while still having a body that is me that people can say goodbye to.

"sanitary fees" at funeral homes are added since they now have to store a leaky mess in their fridge. Some families might not be able to pay for extra costs, even if you're just getting cremated.

It's not about hoarding organs. If you are an exact match for some wealthy person on a transplant waitlist you might legitimately fear for your safety.

Organs are worth a lot of money. The wrong incentives may mean you end up pronounced dead when you could’ve lived because someone is collecting a fat check for your organs.

Not in the UK.

Wait until you find out later that there is a black market going on in the UK.

How can you be sure? There are even human trafficking rings in first world countries.

Your organs could go to a violent criminal who uses their new lease on life to threaten others': https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/anthony-stokes-heart-trans...

And the guy you hold the door open for tomorrow could be just after murdering someone... bit of a stretch there

I think you can make an argument that people should have the 'right' (is there such a thing as a right held by a nonliving person?) to make an informed choice about their organs but this is certainly an ambiguous situation as to whether or not that right should be given. I personally believe that it would be entirely acceptable if it were not a choice and your organs must be donated (as usable) on death.

> I think you can make an argument that people should have the 'right' (is there such a thing as a right held by a nonliving person?) to make an informed choice about their organs but this is certainly an ambiguous situation as to whether or not that right should be given. I personally believe that it would be entirely acceptable if it were not a choice and your organs must be donated (as usable) on death.

So if families don't want the bodies of their loved ones turned over to the state, tough luck? Why does the state have a greater right to my kin than I?

What percentage of people refuse to receive a transplant because they disagree with transplantation? It's a tiny number of people. Acceptance of organ transplantation is almost universal outside of religious communities such as jehova's witnesses.

I'm not sure the point you're making. Are you saying that if you would accept an organ transplant you must also be willing to donate your organs upon death? What percentage of people refuse free money?

A hypothetical scenario, where I am interested in hearing your opinion:

A citizen recently returned from Liberia is diagnosed with Ebola and dies in the hospital. The family requests a christian burial, but the health protection agency decides against it, as the risk of disease transmission would be significant. Instead the body is treated as a biohazard and cremated, as a precaution to prevent additional deaths.

In this scenario, is it unreasonable that the state have greater right to the body than the next of kin? Should the family have been allowed to proceed with a christian burial, regardless of the potential deaths it might cause?

I think you agree that there are at least some scenarios were the state should be able to seize the rights over a body.

You might draw the line at saving people from Ebola, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for others to also include saving people from organ failure in that category.

Yes, if you swallowed 1kg of Polonium, perhaps special procedures are also warranted.

What does this have to do at all with the topic at hand?

I don't know about "rights", but people absolutely can exert their will from beyond the grave: think of wills, estates, etc. That's a good thing - It's not the state's business to redistribute your family's assets as it sees fit.

If a person didn't make a choice, their family should have the final say... They certainly have more of a right to the deceased's remains than the state.

To me, the central issue is about choice: Who gets to make choices about my body? Choice matters. The whole point of life is to make choices.

If I don't want my kid to be vaccinated, I must let the government know. By default, they will assume I want to get my kid vaccinated. Its the same for organ donors. It is assumed that, if you are in need, you'd want other people to donate their organs if they were passed away. It is important to act quick on such, instead of waiting for an OK from family. Those who oppose it, have to opt-out of it. Still a choice. It appears your central issue isn't about choice; it is about the default you don't agree with.

> you'd want other people to donate their organs.

Indeed, "donate". It is immoral and unethical to kill a person with a beating heart and seize organs if that person forgot one of the 1000 various opt-outs of modern society.

No one here wants to forbid opt-in.

The discussion is about whether it should be opt-out or opt-in. Killing a person for their organs is illegal, because killing a person is illegal. Euthanasia follows a very strict protocol.

The comment was not talking about euthanasia at all, but putting up smoke screens is easier than reacting to the concerns of people.

Smoke screen?

> Euthanasia follows a very strict protocol.

Was directly preceded by:

> Killing a person for their organs is illegal, because killing a person is illegal.

Which was a response to:

> It is immoral and unethical to kill a person with a beating heart

They do have the right to make an informed choice. If you have strong opinions about organ donation you tell your family and tell your doctors.

They do!

But, following the GP's logic, just imagine how many lives could be saved if they didn't.

Did it ever make the front-page of a paper that you could opt-in? Why was that not a scandal?

It's widely known that the NHS needs organ doners. That itself is not the issue for me, the new status quo of the state having the right to harvest my organs is.

How are targeted ads and Facebook notifications _opt in_, but this isn't??

> It's widely known that the NHS needs organ doners

Give it a day or two, and it too will be widely know that you can opt-out, we're discussing this on the HN front-page afterall, clearly this is no secret.

Give it a generation and no one will care either.

Yes, just like China's prison programs, save a lot of lives...