In how many years will it be that you can't opt-out? And then the next step will be since you can't opt-out, and you're dying anyway and someone else needs your organs...well, maybe they pull the plug a little early before your organs degenerate.
Organ donation is great. I always do the checkbox on my license, but you can just see that slippery slope creeping in as usual.
Who's worth more? You, or the candidate you match?
China's already demonstrated that, with regard to prisoners.
P.S. In case you think that's a stretch, I'll mention how apparent from the news and public statements it is that a sizable portion of... well, I'll say "English" governance (as opposed to U.K.), salivates over the idea and wish for a Chinese style "Great Firewall". Just for porn and ter'ists -- sure...
Maybe it is a stretch. But, "people are people" -- and we've numerous examples from numerous cultures, of people making just these kinds of decisions (historical as well as current).
It's actually a huge slippery slope. The common good is a common lure to surrender personal liberty. While the argument may be a little dystopian and represent a worst-case scenario, this represents a step toward the government saying what can and cannot be done with your body.
I always have and always will opt-in as an organ donor, as I have no further use for my body if dead and would like it to go to some use. That said, tearing apart someone's corpse for spare parts should never be anything but opt-out, especially as there are more than likely people who object on moral and/or religious grounds and are not aware of this policy change. Forgetting to check that "skip this" box should not lead to a violation of people's religious/moral beliefs.
Organ donation is great. I always do the checkbox on my license, but you can just see that slippery slope creeping in as usual.