In this paper, I shall argue that it is acceptable for presumed consent of routine salvaging of organs upon death, unless the individual specifically opted-out. I will cover the supporting argument, following with an assessment of objections to this claim. Before I get ahead of myself, I shall start with some background information.
In Canada, the demand for organs for transplantation is much greater than the supply. Resulting from the shortage, many lives are lost, a strategy is needed to improve access to organs. Currently there is an opt-in policy regarding harvesting organs from the dead. This entails people to give informed consent while still alive, but this system fails to meet the need of organs to transplant. What it all boils down to is autonomy, how one wants to live out their life according to their own plans.
Walter Glannon, whom I agree with, believes that routine salvaging should be presumed with one very important factor. The factor is individuals should have an unrestricted choice to opt-out of the routine recovery of organs. Having the option of opting out of the presumed consent policy, respects individual autonomy. There is a duty among humans to not harm others, which restricts what can and cannot be done to other people, even after death. By not giving this choice of choosing not to donate organs upon death, takes away this autonomy, therefore harming individuals who choose to act against donation for whatever reason they decide. The personal interest of the individual survive their death. Although this might not solve the problem of organs scarcity, but it respects individual autonomy.
A policy proposed by Aaron Spital and James Stacey Taylor stated that by practicing opting out or opting in policies both result in lost organs. Which leads them to argue that overriding consent is a solution to the shortage of acceptable organs. Everyone would not have a choice, for any reason, such as religion. Spital and Taylor...