> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.