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