I have to ask why you associate selfishness with something that is essentially one's own? Am I being selfish by protecting my own property? If, say, I am banned by religion from donating organs, am I being selfish by conforming to my religion?
Are you thinking that organ donation is the ripping of organs from your still-living body? It is selfish because you are no longer using them. To use your property analogy, would it be selfish to burn your house down, rather than allow someone else to live in it? Of course it is. As to you question "Am I being selfish by conforming to my religion" the answer is, obviously, yes.
You're not quite the liberatarian you say you are. In fact, you appear authoritarian.
You're not aware of what Libertarian means, then. It does not mean that I have to respect every viewpoint. It simply means that I do not wish the government to enforce my point of view. Don't confuse criticism and derision with oppression.
Who are you to say how and in what people should believe. I say that if people want to donate organs, then fine. If they don't, then that's the end of the matter. They are not selfish nor are they worthy of reproach. You live in a democratic and diverse society, I feel that you ought to respect others' beliefs.
Again, we run up against the confusion of tolerance with acceptance. We live in a society that rightly promotes tolerance. Tolerance says that regardless of your views, I may not hurt you. Acceptance is another matter entirely. You feel that I should "respect others' beliefs?" Are you kidding? The entirety of democracy is based on the peaceful DISrespect of others' beliefs. Again, don't confuse derision with oppression. I have zero respect for the idea that there is any defensible reason to willfully not be an organ donor. You claim that because we live in a free society, I should give up this view? The irony is palpable, my friend.
(1) Most organs become useless when one dies. Organs are perishable and when not supported by a constant flow of blood simply rot. If you define dying as the cessation of all brain and heart activity, you will be left with few useful organs.
What does this have to do with being an organ donor? The fact that organs are difficult to harvest only strengthens the case that more people should sign up to be donors, the increase these already low statistics as much as possible.
(2) There is a black market for organ donation. Those who donate are typically impoverished while those who receive from the black market are always well-off. If we raise legitimate organ donation, will the well-off simply not benefit more?
The black market is taken illegally, not from organ donors. You honestly think Yakuza are checking your Care Card number? Again: This has NOTHING to do with being an organ donor, or not. It has even less to do with some class-warrior hatred of the rich.
(3) If you're so adamant on maintaining the public good, why not kill healthy middle-aged people and give away their organs to the needy? Is that not in line with your reasoning? After all, we'd have way more organs this way and be able to benefit way more people (e.g. someone needs a kidney, someone else needs a lung, someone else needs a heart, someone else needs a spleen, that's at least four people you can benefit by killing only ONE person). Why don't we do that and "call that person names" who doesn't want to contribute because obviously we won't respect people's wishes if those wishes do not run in line with the public good?
Do you realize what sort of a slippery slope you'll be headed if choose to disregard autonomy? Do you realize what one can justify with your logic?
I honestly have trouble even formulating a response to this. It's like someone walked up to me and yelled "purple jelly wallets!" in my face. How do you respond? I *think* this again stems from the misapprehension that you are "giving up" an organ, by becoming an organ donor. You are not. You are, at the time of "donation," dead. So, there is no parallel. I'm not advocating the cessation of anyone's rights, in support of the rights of others. I'm advocating the cessation of respect for the ridiculous myth that a corpse is a human being, with rights. It is not.
(4) What about family? If you won't respect a dead person's wishes, will you disrespect the wishes of the dead person's family too?
As to the family, there is no doubt that the emotional connection to a corpse is strong. I am not saying that we trounce the body about in front of the family, singing happy little ditties and tap-dancing. I'm saying that if a corpse may be used to save another's life, we should do that. As I keep saying over and over - those organs? They're coming out either way. If anything, surgical removal is infinitely more "respectful" than the vacuum-slurping of homogenized people-goo that happens during regular embalming. It's not a question of being buried with your organs or not. You're not going to be, period, end of story. I don't think we should allow someone to be so spiteful as to declare that if their organs COULD be used to help someone, they'd rather they be allowed to rot, and be vacuumed out by some mortuary worker, rather than perhaps save the life of small child with cancer.
(5) What about ownership? Why does ownership end when one dies? If I die and my ownership automatically disappears for, say, some property, whose does it become once I die? The problem here is that any picking up of ownership upon a person's death is arbitrary! Why? Simply because one has no right to claim another's property when the other dies. On what basis would he do so? On the basis of that property no longer being used? If you say yes to that, then another person has an equally legitimate chance to claiming that property. Why shouldn't another person claim a dead person's property on the same basis. That won't cut it and neither will saying "civil liberties do not extend to the dead". The ony way to escape this arbitrariness is to assume that ownership extends even beyond death. It may be crude and cumbersome, but it is the only logical way.
Ownership ends when one dies, for those things that are linked specifically to life. Your worldly possessions survive you. Your organs do not. Again, there is absolutely no parallel between the bequeathing of property, and the perishable items that are organs. None.
On that note, I say respect freedom. Kudos to you if you want to donate, but one ought not to be rebuked if one chooses to respect what is essentially his own. That's that.
Again, and I know I'm repeating myself at this point, but don't try to hide behind "freedom" as some shield that you think ought to make you immune to criticism. It makes you immune to oppression. The idea that anyone has the right no expect "not to be rebuked" for anything is utterly nonsensical, in the context of a democratic nation. I have the right to say that your views are wrong, and you have the right to say that mine are wrong. See how that works?
Are you thinking that organ donation is the ripping of organs from your still-living body? It is selfish because you are no longer using them. To use your property analogy, would it be selfish to burn your house down, rather than allow someone else to live in it? Of course it is. As to you question "Am I being selfish by conforming to my religion" the answer is, obviously, yes.
We live in a society that puts individual rights and autonomy first. If someone wants to burn their house down, than they should be able to. It would be selfish if the underlying rationale of the act were specifically to deprive somebody else of living quarters. The question with organs is a slightly more murky: can you say with absolute certainty that everyone who does not want their organs placed into somebody else because of a religious barring is acting selfishly? I doubt few people would prohibit the usage of their organs with the specific aim of human suffering in mind. When you're calling an act "selfish", be sure to take people's intent into consideration.
Morro;14663 said:
You're not aware of what Libertarian means, then.
Of course it must be I who's not aware, right?
Morro;14663 said:
It does not mean that I have to respect every viewpoint. It simply means that I do not wish the government to enforce my point of view. Don't confuse criticism and derision with oppression.
Let's go back to the account you set up. You mentioned that we should reuse everyone's organs irrespective of whether they want it done or not. Such a procedure would of course have to be estalished in law. Hence if your account becomes law, it would be oppressive: we'd have to be disregarding people's rights to what they want done to their bodies if we were to reuse everyone's organs. Deride people's usage of their organs all you want, but it is still their right to do so and you cannot deprive them of this. Does disregarding people's autonomy (what they want done to their bodies) not qualify as a form of oppression?
Morro;14663 said:
Again, we run up against the confusion of tolerance with acceptance. We live in a society that rightly promotes tolerance. Tolerance says that regardless of your views, I may not hurt you. Acceptance is another matter entirely. You feel that I should "respect others' beliefs?" Are you kidding? The entirety of democracy is based on the peaceful DISrespect of others' beliefs.
We can disrespect others' beliefs but we must respect others' rights to have beliefs. My point is more fundamental. You can continue to deride people's rights to how they use their organs (judging by your previous posts, you appear to feel quite passionate about how organs should be used--to the point of wanting to deprive people of their autonomy; this is fine, since we respect your right to have such a view. However, were such an account ever to be engrained in law, then it would be disrespectful of people's autonomy).
You also confuse the term "respect". When I say respect somebody's rights, I do not mean honour or esteem them; merely, I mean recognize them as somebody's rights and show consideration for them, no matter how far away from your views they may be. Look at meanings 9 and 10 here and you'll see the difference:
I'm talking about meaning 10 in regards to others' view when you seem to take it as if I'm talking about meaning 9.
Morro;14663 said:
Again, don't confuse derision with oppression.
You can continue to deride all you want but if your view ever became fixed in law (since we'd have to use everyone's organs despite how the owners of these organs feel about it even if they're dead), then that would be potentially oppressive.
Morro;14663 said:
I have zero respect for the idea that there is any defensible reason to willfully not be an organ donor. You claim that because we live in a free society, I should give up this view? The irony is palpable, my friend.
Is it so clear-cut? My idea respects people's autonomy: you want to be an organ donor, fine; if you don't, then that's all right too because you've got the right not to be one. Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. You advocate an account of using everyone's organs after they die regardless of how those people feel when they're alive. The only way to enforce your account is to affirm it in law. But when you do so, that law becomes oppressive because it does not respect autonomy. I'm not saying you should give your view up; merely, your account is at odds with libertarianism--isn't that ironic?
Morro;14663 said:
What does this have to do with being an organ donor? The fact that organs are difficult to harvest only strengthens the case that more people should sign up to be donors, the increase these already low statistics as much as possible.
What I meant to say was the fact that organs are difficult to harvest is what makes this debate more futile. The best way to maximize the use of organs would be to take them out of people when they're alive. Since organs have a very high perishability, they are almost always useless when people die (since many people are not discovered immediately when they die). What I'm saying is that even if everyone's organs were to be used, very few people would be helped. Hopefully, however, we won't be having this debate in the future given stem-cell research.
Morro;14663 said:
The black market is taken illegally, not from organ donors. You honestly think Yakuza are checking your Care Card number? Again: This has NOTHING to do with being an organ donor, or not. It has even less to do with some class-warrior hatred of the rich.
What I'm saying is that if we use everyone's organs, there will still be a shortage. Only the filthy rich will be able to afford having organs legitimately.
Morro;14663 said:
I honestly have trouble even formulating a response to this. It's like someone walked up to me and yelled "purple jelly wallets!" in my face. How do you respond? I *think* this again stems from the misapprehension that you are "giving up" an organ, by becoming an organ donor. You are not. You are, at the time of "donation," dead. So, there is no parallel. I'm not advocating the cessation of anyone's rights, in support of the rights of others. I'm advocating the cessation of respect for the ridiculous myth that a corpse is a human being, with rights. It is not.
You're not advocating the cessation of anyone's rights? What about using everyone's organs when they're dead regardless of what they want when they're alive? Is it not one's rights to have one's wishes honoured when one dies? Admittedly, my example was extreme (albeit I'm still confused as to how you'd equate it with the absurdity of "purple jelly wallets"). However, it is ultimately an extension of what you're advocating. If we respect dead people's wishes with their property, why can't we do so with their organs? For example, one dies a rich man and leaves his property to his immediate family when it could benefit many more people. Should he not have the right to do so and should all his property be given to the poor? I do not think so. How does this wealth example differ from organs when both are potentially beneficial to mankind?
Morro;14663 said:
As to the family, there is no doubt that the emotional connection to a corpse is strong. I am not saying that we trounce the body about in front of the family, singing happy little ditties and tap-dancing. I'm saying that if a corpse may be used to save another's life, we should do that. As I keep saying over and over - those organs? They're coming out either way. If anything, surgical removal is infinitely more "respectful" than the vacuum-slurping of homogenized people-goo that happens during regular embalming. It's not a question of being buried with your organs or not. You're not going to be, period, end of story. I don't think we should allow someone to be so spiteful as to declare that if their organs COULD be used to help someone, they'd rather they be allowed to rot, and be vacuumed out by some mortuary worker, rather than perhaps save the life of small child with cancer.
Don't equate every act of exercising one's autonomy with spitefulness. You of all people should know since you claim to be a libertarian. What I want done with my organs is my own business. The fact that they're vacuumed out is probably to reduce a health risk. Yet it is still one's choice not to have one's organs implanted into somebody else, no matter how many needs that somebody may have. If it is done with the aim of somebody else's suffering, then it is a selfish act; if it is done on religious grounds or simply because one chooses to do so on a matter of principle, such an act does not deserve to be called spiteful or selfish.
Morro;14663 said:
Ownership ends when one dies, for those things that are linked specifically to life. Your worldly possessions survive you. Your organs do not. Again, there is absolutely no parallel between the bequeathing of property, and the perishable items that are organs. None.
Do organs not qualify as one's property. Can one hence choose not to bequeath one's organs?
Morro;14663 said:
Again, and I know I'm repeating myself at this point, but don't try to hide behind "freedom" as some shield that you think ought to make you immune to criticism. It makes you immune to oppression. The idea that anyone has the right no expect "not to be rebuked" for anything is utterly nonsensical, in the context of a democratic nation. I have the right to say that your views are wrong, and you have the right to say that mine are wrong. See how that works?
I'm hiding behind freedom, huh? My view strikes the perfect balance between that of the religious fanatic and a person such as you. Religious fanatics say organs should not be placed into somebody else; you say we should place organs into all people who need it despite what the previous owners want done with them. My view says do as you feel but only to yourself.
Neither your view nor the view of the religious fanatic would not stand a chance to be public policy. Mine does. I'm not hiding behind freedom; merely, my account of autonomy is most appropriate to our free and democratic society. Sure I respect your right to maintain the view you maintain, but I will not respect the view itself because there is no basis for it. Don't get me wrong: I understand where you're coming from when you say it is selfish not to want one's organs placed into somebody else. However, we must respect (not honour) people's rights to make such decisions pertaining to their organs.
If we begin placing organs into anyone upon the owner's death, there will follow an inherent arbitrariness: no one has the right to claim ownership to these organs unless it was explicitly stated by the owner. That is what makes an opt-out procedure so ridiculous: it will be inherently arbitrary if you give the organs to anyone if the owner does not explicitly state it.
You're not advocating the cessation of anyone's rights? What about using everyone's organs when they're dead regardless of what they want when they're alive?
This is really the root of the disagreement, as I see it. We both believe that a person has absolute authority to be selfish. We can yell at them and tell them they're terrible people for what they're doing, but they are still technically allowed to do it. The mistake you're making, as I see it, is simply one of categorization: is a corpse a person? I believe the answer is no. You can dictate your own fate, but what does that statement have to do with the mortal remains?
I mean, if you're burried without a casket, and your body goes on to be fertilizer for a tree - should your living wishes be applied to the tree? The person is the person, not the matter that makes up their body.
When the person dies, that's it. They're gone. There is not one bit of them left in the body itself, either in the eyes of the atheist or the fundamentalist - it's a point we can all agree on. Either the soul is gone, or the spark of life is gone. The point is, it's only a corpse. It has no rights, because it's not a person. Again, the bequeathing of organs doesn't make any sense - organs are linked inextricably to life. At the point of death.
And, ONCE AGAIN, a choice against organ donation only changes the way in which the organs are removed, not whether or not they WILL be removed. It's a non-choice. I agree that there is no warrant strong enough to infringe on individual liberty. But a corpse is not a person, and it has no wishes.
This is really the root of the disagreement, as I see it. We both believe that a person has absolute authority to be selfish. We can yell at them and tell them they're terrible people for what they're doing, but they are still technically allowed to do it. The mistake you're making, as I see it, is simply one of categorization: is a corpse a person? I believe the answer is no. You can dictate your own fate, but what does that statement have to do with the mortal remains?
Simply concluding that a corpse is not a person and hence has no rights is overly simplistic. Should we hence have the right to do anything we want to a corpse (even things that the person would not condone were he/she alive)? Why not trounce it? Why not dismember and eat it? After all, it isn't a person and doesn't possibly have any rights, right?
Not so clear-cut, is it? We must first accept that at one point in time so and so was a person and occupied some space during some particular time. Given that he is dead now does not mean that his wishes pertaining to what is his cannot be respected. Of course anything out of the ordinary can be excluded, but such a thing as not wanting your organs to be utilized is not one of them.
Morro;14910 said:
I mean, if you're burried without a casket, and your body goes on to be fertilizer for a tree - should your living wishes be applied to the tree? The person is the person, not the matter that makes up their body.
True, but it does not change the fact that the corpse was once alive and was entitled to some rights.
Morro;14910 said:
When the person dies, that's it. They're gone. There is not one bit of them left in the body itself, either in the eyes of the atheist or the fundamentalist - it's a point we can all agree on. Either the soul is gone, or the spark of life is gone. The point is, it's only a corpse. It has no rights, because it's not a person. Again, the bequeathing of organs doesn't make any sense - organs are linked inextricably to life. At the point of death.
It's even arguable whether Christian would accept the fact that the soul is gone, but that is a debate for another day. We allot people rights pertaining to their property: they can give it to whomever they want to after they die. Organs can be considered property, so why can't people do with them as they please. The stipulation here is that they are embalmed by law but that is understandable and really goes back to our notion of the reasonable use of autonomy: autonomy can be used to the fullest extent possible insofar as it does not interfere with the autonomy of another. When it does, that interfering use of autonomy becomes unjust. Let's say someone doesn't want their organs taken out, we would still do it becuase not because we want to disregard that person's autonomy but because we want to preserve the autonomies of others: there are biohazardous risks from corpses that will ensue if the organs are not removed that are potentially harmful to everyone. The fact that corpses are embalmed or organs are vacuumed out or whatever against the wishes of the owner is respectful of others' autonomy.
I see organs as property: they can be used by the owner in whatever way possible insofar as they do not interfere with the autonomy of others. Again, if we respect dead people's wishes with their property, why not respect a dead person's wishes regarding their organs?
Morro;14910 said:
And, ONCE AGAIN, a choice against organ donation only changes the way in which the organs are removed, not whether or not they WILL be removed. It's a non-choice. I agree that there is no warrant strong enough to infringe on individual liberty. But a corpse is not a person, and it has no wishes.
Alas, the choice of whether or not they're inserted into another person is still the choice of the original owner. Let's say there is an opt-out procedure and a fellow does not opt out; somebody will get his organs, but on what basis. Any receiving of organs is arbitrary unless the owner stipulates it. Why should one, sufferer receive organs instead of another when both have the same problem? Sure, we can help one and increase utility, but any such effort is unfounded and not based on anything. The same goes with property: if property is not bequeathed to anyone, then anyone's claiming this property is automatically arbitrary.
Of course corpses are not people, but we must accept that they once were and that they once had rights that are still potentially respectable when they die. Ultimately, however, I will be tolerant of either view: whether you want you organs donated or not, it's all fine by me because you and only you have the right to make that choice.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, then. I take it you're opposed to the archaeologists opening up ancient Egyptian tombs as well, right? Those Phoarohs definitely wouldn't have wanted their resting place disturbed, or their belongings put on display in museums. Their rights carry over, in your opinion, yes? Or is there a statute of limitations on this stuff?
I will be tolerant of either view: whether you want you organs donated or not, it's all fine by me because you and only you have the right to make that choice.
Well, there is a difference between saying that you'll tolerate both views, and that they're both fine by you. I tolerate both points of view in the strictest sense, both both are very definitely NOT fine with me. Just as I would vehemently defend the right of a hollocaust denier to speak his mind, but would in the same breath turn around and call that person a degenerate.
Comments
You also confuse the term "respect". When I say respect somebody's rights, I do not mean honour or esteem them; merely, I mean recognize them as somebody's rights and show consideration for them, no matter how far away from your views they may be. Look at meanings 9 and 10 here and you'll see the difference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respect
I'm talking about meaning 10 in regards to others' view when you seem to take it as if I'm talking about meaning 9.
You can continue to deride all you want but if your view ever became fixed in law (since we'd have to use everyone's organs despite how the owners of these organs feel about it even if they're dead), then that would be potentially oppressive. Is it so clear-cut? My idea respects people's autonomy: you want to be an organ donor, fine; if you don't, then that's all right too because you've got the right not to be one. Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. You advocate an account of using everyone's organs after they die regardless of how those people feel when they're alive. The only way to enforce your account is to affirm it in law. But when you do so, that law becomes oppressive because it does not respect autonomy. I'm not saying you should give your view up; merely, your account is at odds with libertarianism--isn't that ironic? What I meant to say was the fact that organs are difficult to harvest is what makes this debate more futile. The best way to maximize the use of organs would be to take them out of people when they're alive. Since organs have a very high perishability, they are almost always useless when people die (since many people are not discovered immediately when they die). What I'm saying is that even if everyone's organs were to be used, very few people would be helped. Hopefully, however, we won't be having this debate in the future given stem-cell research. What I'm saying is that if we use everyone's organs, there will still be a shortage. Only the filthy rich will be able to afford having organs legitimately. You're not advocating the cessation of anyone's rights? What about using everyone's organs when they're dead regardless of what they want when they're alive? Is it not one's rights to have one's wishes honoured when one dies? Admittedly, my example was extreme (albeit I'm still confused as to how you'd equate it with the absurdity of "purple jelly wallets"). However, it is ultimately an extension of what you're advocating. If we respect dead people's wishes with their property, why can't we do so with their organs? For example, one dies a rich man and leaves his property to his immediate family when it could benefit many more people. Should he not have the right to do so and should all his property be given to the poor? I do not think so. How does this wealth example differ from organs when both are potentially beneficial to mankind?
Don't equate every act of exercising one's autonomy with spitefulness. You of all people should know since you claim to be a libertarian. What I want done with my organs is my own business. The fact that they're vacuumed out is probably to reduce a health risk. Yet it is still one's choice not to have one's organs implanted into somebody else, no matter how many needs that somebody may have. If it is done with the aim of somebody else's suffering, then it is a selfish act; if it is done on religious grounds or simply because one chooses to do so on a matter of principle, such an act does not deserve to be called spiteful or selfish.
Do organs not qualify as one's property. Can one hence choose not to bequeath one's organs? I'm hiding behind freedom, huh? My view strikes the perfect balance between that of the religious fanatic and a person such as you. Religious fanatics say organs should not be placed into somebody else; you say we should place organs into all people who need it despite what the previous owners want done with them. My view says do as you feel but only to yourself.
Neither your view nor the view of the religious fanatic would not stand a chance to be public policy. Mine does. I'm not hiding behind freedom; merely, my account of autonomy is most appropriate to our free and democratic society. Sure I respect your right to maintain the view you maintain, but I will not respect the view itself because there is no basis for it. Don't get me wrong: I understand where you're coming from when you say it is selfish not to want one's organs placed into somebody else. However, we must respect (not honour) people's rights to make such decisions pertaining to their organs.
If we begin placing organs into anyone upon the owner's death, there will follow an inherent arbitrariness: no one has the right to claim ownership to these organs unless it was explicitly stated by the owner. That is what makes an opt-out procedure so ridiculous: it will be inherently arbitrary if you give the organs to anyone if the owner does not explicitly state it.
I mean, if you're burried without a casket, and your body goes on to be fertilizer for a tree - should your living wishes be applied to the tree? The person is the person, not the matter that makes up their body.
When the person dies, that's it. They're gone. There is not one bit of them left in the body itself, either in the eyes of the atheist or the fundamentalist - it's a point we can all agree on. Either the soul is gone, or the spark of life is gone. The point is, it's only a corpse. It has no rights, because it's not a person. Again, the bequeathing of organs doesn't make any sense - organs are linked inextricably to life. At the point of death.
And, ONCE AGAIN, a choice against organ donation only changes the way in which the organs are removed, not whether or not they WILL be removed. It's a non-choice. I agree that there is no warrant strong enough to infringe on individual liberty. But a corpse is not a person, and it has no wishes.
Not so clear-cut, is it? We must first accept that at one point in time so and so was a person and occupied some space during some particular time. Given that he is dead now does not mean that his wishes pertaining to what is his cannot be respected. Of course anything out of the ordinary can be excluded, but such a thing as not wanting your organs to be utilized is not one of them. True, but it does not change the fact that the corpse was once alive and was entitled to some rights. It's even arguable whether Christian would accept the fact that the soul is gone, but that is a debate for another day. We allot people rights pertaining to their property: they can give it to whomever they want to after they die. Organs can be considered property, so why can't people do with them as they please. The stipulation here is that they are embalmed by law but that is understandable and really goes back to our notion of the reasonable use of autonomy: autonomy can be used to the fullest extent possible insofar as it does not interfere with the autonomy of another. When it does, that interfering use of autonomy becomes unjust. Let's say someone doesn't want their organs taken out, we would still do it becuase not because we want to disregard that person's autonomy but because we want to preserve the autonomies of others: there are biohazardous risks from corpses that will ensue if the organs are not removed that are potentially harmful to everyone. The fact that corpses are embalmed or organs are vacuumed out or whatever against the wishes of the owner is respectful of others' autonomy.
I see organs as property: they can be used by the owner in whatever way possible insofar as they do not interfere with the autonomy of others. Again, if we respect dead people's wishes with their property, why not respect a dead person's wishes regarding their organs? Alas, the choice of whether or not they're inserted into another person is still the choice of the original owner. Let's say there is an opt-out procedure and a fellow does not opt out; somebody will get his organs, but on what basis. Any receiving of organs is arbitrary unless the owner stipulates it. Why should one, sufferer receive organs instead of another when both have the same problem? Sure, we can help one and increase utility, but any such effort is unfounded and not based on anything. The same goes with property: if property is not bequeathed to anyone, then anyone's claiming this property is automatically arbitrary.
Of course corpses are not people, but we must accept that they once were and that they once had rights that are still potentially respectable when they die. Ultimately, however, I will be tolerant of either view: whether you want you organs donated or not, it's all fine by me because you and only you have the right to make that choice.