Re:Organ donation in England has moved to an opt-out system
by i_cannot_hack on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @07:47PM
(#23253376)
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.
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.