[df3]

Many will benefit from this change, but France should not force anyone to opt into what is a very personal and emotional decision. The government should not tell you what to do with your body even after death.

The online opt-out registry and opt-out form options will give people a chance to express their wishes to avoid donation. However, there will be a sizable portion of the population who do not fill these out due to ignorance, especially in the less advantaged fringes of society. What is the government going to do to make sure everyone knows about the change and the ability to opt-out?

[eloff]

In this case I respectfully disagree. If it's opt-in, many, many fewer people opt-in. The data on this is a striking and huge difference between opt-in and opt-out countries. All countries should change to opt-out because it would save a lot of lives - and that's exactly the kind of trade off between personal freedom and the greater good that governments are in the best position to make. That's why we have seat-belt laws and helmet laws and government vaccination programs, etc.

The tragedy in this is actually how long countries are taking to wake up to the data and take action. In Canada (BC anyway) it's still opt-in.

[d4adb33f]

You do not need your body after you are dead. This is good for society.

If anything the opt out should be further restricted. You may opt out, but you'd need a valid reason. Any held superstition should not be grounds.

[afastow]

> If anything the opt out should be further restricted. You may opt out, but you'd need a valid reason. Any held superstition should not be grounds.

This is insane and a reason why some people would be against "opt-in by default" is fear of it expanding into something draconian like you are describing.

You don't respect religious beliefs(which you were clearly referring to derisively as "superstition"). Fine. But please don't advocate for your contempt to be codified into laws that discriminate against people different than you.

I'm all for making organ donation opt-in by default since I believe that accurately reflects most people's actual preference. But I'm not for tricking or forcing anyone into it. The default should be made clear and people should be able to easily opt-out for any reason they see fit or even no reason at all.

[d4adb33f]

> This is insane

Is it? Is it really more insane than believing you need your organs after you are dead?

> But please don't advocate for your contempt to be codified into laws

Why not? People do it all the time :) At least my agenda benefits society by any objective measure.

> discriminate against people different than you.

How does it discriminate when it's the same for everybody?

> The default should be made clear and people should be able to easily opt-out for any reason they see fit or even no reason at all.

Isn't this the case in France?

I don't really care that much if people opt out, but I do think it should be harder to opt-out. Akin to conscientious objection in the face of a mandatory draft. Not that I wouldn't mind that the opt-out would be available only on very selective criteria.

[loup-vaillant]

This is a thorny issue.

On the one hand, we're weighting supernatural beliefs against real life-saving treatments. On the other hand, the backlash we can get from some religious people is just as real. God will never smite me, but his followers might.

More generally, I'd say this is not the right way to combat religion. There are reasons why we still have religions, some of them worth copying (helping your neighbour and such), some of them worth combating (such as fear and poverty). Going directly against he will of religious people is only going to get ugly.

[d4adb33f]

Appeasement does not (always|ever) lead to progress.

In civilized countries secular law trumps religious law.

[loup-vaillant]

As they should. I'd just rather convince people out of religion and avoid antagonising them, if possible.

[d4adb33f]

> if possible.

Aye, there's the rub.

[jobigoud]

> Any held superstition should not be grounds

Well, I feel that by the time a government can take decisions that are oblivious to any sort of superstition, religion included, the society will have matured so much than donating your organs after you die will be so obvious to be a non-issue.

[WayneBro]

> You do not need your body after you are dead.

How do you know? Have you ever been dead? Do you know any people who have died?

> This is good for society.

You don't know that either, unless you know the future. In this particular case, you can't rely on the past either.

[d4adb33f]

>> You do not need your body after you are dead.

> How do you know? Have you ever been dead? Do you know any people who have died?

As soon as anybody comes back from the dead to object, I'll reconsider my opinion. Until then I have no cause to believe that I or anybody else will need their body after we are dead. The living, however, most certainly do.

>> This is good for society.

> You don't know that either, unless you know the future. In this particular case, you can't rely on the past either.

Of course I know it's good for society: less people die due to donor organs. That's not up for debate. This will not change in the future either, until we can grow our own spare parts.

[Nexxxeh]

The government already has a say in what happens to one's corpse after death. There are rules and regulations, and procedures to deal with the corpse in the lack of other instructions or interventions.

If someone keels over and dies on the streets in Paris, the body doesn't just get left there to rot.

If there are arrangements in place, or if the next of kin get involved then those determine what happens to the corpse. Otherwise, it's the "default" option. I assume that's cremation, but I've not checked.

It takes a sensible default for organ donation too, and it takes explicit action to change the default. In the lack of explicit instructions otherwise from the deceased, they do the sensible default with regards to organ donation.