> 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