Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?

[Umbran]

Organ donation should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in scheme...

Er. I am not confident that is without significant ethical complications.

Moreover, I am not comfortable with the precedent of the government declaring domain on me or mine after my passing.

 

[Morrus]

Yep, I'm with Dannyalcatraz on this one: they're my organs to give, not yours to take.

I'm the opposite. I feel that the life of the living outweighs the property rights of a dead person.

 

[Kramodlog]

If you do not want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. It will solve many health problems due to lack of available organs. Health is a social issue and everyone would get the opportunity to contribute to the solution.

 

[delericho]

If you do not want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. It will solve many health problems due to lack of available organs. Health is a social issue and everyone would get the opportunity to contribute to the solution.

The exact same argument works in reverse: if you do want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone already has the opportunity to contribute to the solution.

 

[Morrus]

The exact same argument works in reverse: if you do want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone already has the opportunity to contribute to the solution.

Except peoples' lives will then depend on other peoples' laziness. And I personally feel that life outweighs all other considerations that a dead person might have.

 

[Umbran]

I'm the opposite. I feel that the life of the living outweighs the property rights of a dead person.

Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent. Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?

If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?

The issue at hand, I suspect, isn't the property rights of the dead, but those of the *living*. Your wife, for example. After you die, she's the one with the property rights, not you.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent. Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?

If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?

I haven't drafted a statute or anything. I would hope that any such law would be more comprehensive, and longer by at least three orders of magnitude, than my brief sentence of opinion on a messageboard!

 

[Umbran]

I haven't drafted a statute or anything. I would hope that any such law would be more comprehensive, and longer by at least three orders of magnitude, than my brief sentence of opinion on a messageboard!

I don't know about English law, but US law has this dicey issue with precedent. If a law to do a thing is passed, and found to be valid (say, Constitutional), then it becomes much easier to use the same logic to enact other laws, or win court cases. So, while I actually don't give a hoot what happens to my body, I am *not* comfortable with the idea of involuntary abridgment of property rights.

How about simply making registering a choice about your body mandatory when you reach the age of majority? You get to say Yea or Nay, but it isn't left to laziness.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent. Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?

If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?

The issue at hand, I suspect, isn't the property rights of the dead, but those of the *living*. Your wife, for example. After you die, she's the one with the property rights, not you.

Yep, all of this.

I don't know about English law, but US law has this dicey issue with precedent.

Precedent is certainly important in UK law. We don't have a written constitution, so there are even fewer limits on what laws government can and can't pass, though - no concept of something being found unconstitutional!

That said...

So, while I actually don't give a hoot what happens to my body, I am *not* comfortable with the idea of involuntary abridgment of property rights.

It's perhaps worth noting that both the US constitution and the UK's Human Rights Act explicitly protect property rights, and although these can be overruled in some cases this can only be done following due process (which probably delays things enough that organ donation becomes a non-issue). Of course, there's the question of whether a recently-deceased person is 'property', and whether an exception could be made...

(And, equally, it's worth noting that the current UK government is planning to repeal the Human Rights Act, so some of that may change. Oh, and the Welsh Assembly is considering moving to an opt-out scheme, which if implemented (and not challenged) would likely be followed by Scotland (and, I suspect, England) in fairly short order.)

How about simply making registering a choice about your body mandatory when you reach the age of majority? You get to say Yea or Nay, but it isn't left to laziness.

That's probably a good idea, though I'm not entirely sure how workable it is. Certainly, strongly (or more strongly) encouraging people to make a decision whenever applying for a passport/driving license/voter registration would be a good thing.

 

[Janx]

I'm the opposite. I feel that the life of the living outweighs the property rights of a dead person.

I think here in the US, some of the law is aligned with the law that says it is illegal to sell organs.

One premise being, if there is a market value for you being dead, then some people will find a way to expedite that. At the tinfoil hat end of the spectrum, that'd be a reason to not check the organ donor box on your driver's license so you don't turn up in a database that some rich guy has access to so he can decide, "looks like Morrus has just the right size liver for me, let's do an early withdrawal."

In any event, here in the US, the option to be a donor is right there when you get an ID/drivers license.

Another detail to the OT. It is unlawful to posess human remains (barring proper paperwork). So regular joe schmoe is getting the body of their dead relative anyway. Thus there is no intrinsic right to the body by virtue of the law saying you can't have the body in your posession.