New Opt Out Organ Donation System comes into effect today

I'm surprised ova are included tbh. I'd have thought that was an ethical minefield. How certain are we that they're included?

I would have thought my corpse would 'belong' to me and my family
I think it legally belongs to whoever will dispose of it. So the crematorium or local council if no family around or willing to dispose.

But it's a hella long time since I did this in law school.

It's a long standing legal fact there is no property in a corpse. It doesn't "belong" to anyone

It raises questions for me, then! I have no idea about legalities of property and bodies.

I would have thought my corpse would 'belong' to me and my family. Even if 'me' is just my wishes as recorded.

But there are instances where the state will or does or needs to override individual consent?

(I want to put a 'content warning' here, as I don't want to upset anyone by discussing coronavirus and death):

For example at the moment, with a highly infectious disease, issues of consent must be involved? People's wishes are being over-ridden, I imagine, in terms of funerals, etc. So in this case, the state has some power (I presume) to step in and make decisions about what happens to people's bodies in the interests of the rest of society.

Can the family overrule a DNR? That would seem like it should work in a similar way as having chosen to donate organs, legally speaking (or chosen not to).

can be identified ....

But at the same time if the individual's wishes weren't known then I think "don't do anything to the body" is the most ethical path, as it's the least invasive. "Proceed on the assumption that the body and all it contains is up for grabs once the person is no longer able to say no" fills me with visceral horror.

Well, I suppose it raises questions - does one's body belong to

It doesn't raise any questions at all. It's a long standing legal fact there is no property in a corpse. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.

Hence my solution of just ignoring relatives in the cases where a deceased an clearly be identified as having opted-in to the organ donor scheme. Much easier than drafting new laws. Especially given the recent omnishambles the current crop of genuises in Westminster have overseen.

I'd vote for oneself, with possibly the family as a backup if the individual's wishes weren't known. The state? No, absolutely not, so many ways that could go horribly wrong.

Well, I suppose it raises questions - does one's body belong to:

oneself, while living, dying and dead, or
one's family, or
the state, or
a combination of all of the above?

Who can give consent to what happens to our bodies, living or dead? I tend to think of it as something that is entirely up to the individual, but it doesn't seem to be quite that straightforward.

It's worth noting that family members can revoke consent under the new legislation.

As they have always been able to.

Part of the "problem" has always been relatives ignoring the deceased request (after all, how much more clear can you make it when you carry a donor card ?) and refusing permission to remove organs when it comes to the crunch.

A much simpler system would have been to simply ignore them, rather than make a seismic shift in the notion of consent (which will be leveraged further in years to come).

I'm sure there have been legal cases where a widow wasn't allowed to use her husband's sperm because he hadn't given adequate consent

There was the (horrible) case where Diane Blood's husband had sperm extracted from him. The sperm had been removed before he died, but without his written consent while he was in a coma.

I'd been thinking that some of the information on mn had been making me feel more gender-critical but this thread makes me wonder if I'm in really bad company and need to rethink

I'm not "gender critical". I couldn't care less whether the forms for this use "sex" or "gender".

This isn't a "gender critical" issue. I object and do not consent, as I have for over 40 years, for any part of me to be used for reproductive assistance or reproductive research. My objection has nothing to do with a "gender critical" viewpoint.

If there is cast iron guarantee that will never happen I am happy to not opt out.

I'm sure there have been legal cases where a widow wasn't allowed to use her husband's sperm because he hadn't given adequate consent, so I don't think a woman's eggs could be legally used for reproductive purposes without her consent.

It's true, Stuck, we probably don't all agree on 100% of every topic, therefore clearly TWAW. Of course.

I should have realised that I was wrong to think TWAre’tW, when I discovered that all the women on FWR weren’t vegan like me. Dammit! How could I have been so wrong? 😭

Someone on here once recommended a film I didn't like, and that's how I knew that humans could change sex after all. Logic!

It's true, Stuck, we probably don't all agree on 100% of every topic, therefore clearly TWAW. Of course.

Oh FFS. Yes they are brain dead. I'd been thinking that some of the information on mn had been making me feel more gender-critical but this thread makes me wonder if I'm in really bad company and need to rethink.

Seriously?! I wasn’t aware that women had to be experts on absolutely everything and if they aren’t knowledgeable enough or misunderstand other issues, then they’re bad feminists. Well that’s me fucked then, because I know fuck all about the inner workings of my iPad, other than how to use it.

Informed my friend who has POA that I give consent for organs etc but absolutely no reproductive tissue/eggs etc are to be harvested in the event of my death. Everything is a bit old and jaded now but just in case...

Once again posters here open my eyes to situations I had not even considered. Thank you.

Why? That's bizarre. Either you think people can change sex and men are women or you don't. You don't have to agree with everyone else about unrelated controversial topical issues to reject a nonsensical ideological belief.

think many people are not aware that the harvested person is not dead at the time the organs are removed. The person is anaesthetised during the process just in case they are aware

Oh FFS. Yes they are brain dead. I'd been thinking that some of the information on mn had been making me feel more gender-critical but this thread makes me wonder if I'm in really bad company and need to rethink. m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw

If one can identify as dead can one identify as resurrected too? Behold, pomo Jesus!

The principle of not needing consent regarding bodily autonomy will now creep into other laws.
If 'presumed' consent is palatable to a nation, there are a myriad of circumstances where express consent might now be argued unnecessary on principle.

Yep. Horrific.

Kantastic, let me be among the first to say that 'death is a spectrum'

My take is that language matters, the form should ask for sex (biological fact) rather than gender (meaningless) if they can’t grasp such a basic concept then I’m opting out, if they correct the inaccuracy I’ll most likely opt in.

But my point still remains. Please, please don’t use this issue to get gender critical brownie points
You think the whole gender crit thing is about brownie points?
Its more about keeping women and girls safe.

I haven't used "brownie points" to opt out, I have used my brain and thought through the full implications of this now and in the future.
Right now it's my body, I have autonomy. If the government think it's their God given right to my body near/during or after death then they should pay me to sustain it.

The gender shit just clarified my point. If the government cannot tell a man from a woman they have proved they are not capable of running such an important database.