I usually think of myself as a liberal. But maybe I am different when it comes to organ donation — or when it comes to dead people. I certainly understand and sympathise with the viewpoint put forward by Longrider.

Our bodies belong to us, not the state. We decide what becomes of them after death, not the state. If we decide to donate them, then that should be our choice, not the state’s.

But I can’t help thinking that Liam Donaldson’s idea of changing the current system of opting in to an organ donation scheme to one where you have to opt out is a sensible solution to a major problem.

We all know that there is a shortage of organs. As such, lives are lost (one person per day apparently). Moreover, it seems to be generally accepted that many people — probably a majority — would want their organs donated after they have died. It’s just that most people do not get round to putting their name down and getting that donor card. Longrider says:

So because these people did not specifically tell the state why they were not on the register, the state is to assume in all its arrogance that they were guilty of apathy.

But I don’t think it would be arrogance for the state to assume people were guilty of apathy. The BBC story suggests that 70% of people would like to donate their organs, but only 20% get round to signing up.

Moreover, it makes common sense that people would be apathetic. While carrying a donor card may give you a “warm glow”, this is probably not a high enough incentive to encourage people to go to the hassle of registering. Under the current system, people who are indifferent or just slightly in favour of donating their organs actually do not donate their organs. As such, lives are lost.

As for people who flatly object to donating their organs after death, they surely needn’t worry about the system changing to an opt-out. You might say that if the current system had the problem of “not getting round to opting in” then the proposed changes would lead to people “not getting round to opting out”. But this wouldn’t be the case.

The reason that people do not get round to registering at the moment is because they do not have particularly strong views one way or another. But if you object to having your organs donated, you do hold a strong view. So people who don’t want to donate their organs will have a sufficient incentive to opt out. So they will.

I can understand why some people find it objectionable that the “default” option would be for your organs to be donated without having given your express permission. As Longrider says, the proposal is one to steal the bodies of the dead. This leads on to an interesting topic tackled by Chris Dillow: do dead people have rights?

I would have thought not. I would strongly hope that my wishes are respected when I am dead. But to be frank, if there is one time in my life (ahem) when I won’t worry about my rights, it will be when I am dead. After all, it’s not as if I will care much about it then. I will be dead, so it would be a little bit impossible.*

I can understand why this might be different if you are a religious person. But even then, I would have thought that this is mostly concerned with concepts like “spirit” rather than your body itself. After all, your body is a bit of a lost cause as it will only be eaten by maggots anyway.

In sum, I think the idea that the state “steals the bodies of the dead” is a little bit grisly. But it’s not nearly as grisly as letting one person per day die due to a shortage of organs when there is no shortage of potential willing donors.

* For similar reasons, I never really understand the hoo-ha surrounding inheritance tax. A tax you only pay when you’re dead? Surely more taxes should be like this! Moreover, one of the strongest arguments against high taxes is the fact that it reduces incentives to work. But there’s not much you can do to incentivise a dead person to do, well, anything really.