31

We do not need our bodies once we leave this world regardless of what you think happens after we die. We should be focused on curing diseases and extending the life of living humans. Science would go so far if we used human bodies after death instead of requiring people to give consent to something they don't need.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

having an opt-out policy instead if an opt-in policy would allow those that care enough to opt out, but allow science and organ donation to become the cultural norm.

[-] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

if you opt out, you are no longer eligible to receive organs if you need them

[-] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

i disagree here. someone caring enough to opt out shouldnt be considered a detriment to the program - i dont think a punishment here is suitable; after all, in my country (usa) we want people to have different viewpoints from our own (as much as the current racist president would probably despise that phrase, it is still a strong sentiment among the people).

having body/organ donations as a normal part of society would make a plethora of organs and bodies available - having a couple fewer bodies shouldnt be reprimanded.

[-] deur@feddit.nl 1 points 2 weeks ago

This doesnt clear the anti discrimination bare minimum standard for a rule given its okay if a religion says no donation and people apply that to themselves the same way it's okay if a person says that for themselves.

[-] brendansimms@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

There was a scandal in the US where bodies being donated to ‘science’ were used for munitions testing by the us military. So the “who receives said body” is very important.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah but there you're talking about the US where no one gives a fuck about anything but money.

I fully agree that after tmdeath all bodies should be used automatically for either organ donation or science. I'm dead already, let my (un)timely demise be the reason why someone else can be helped

[-] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

Problem is, lots of them just get given to cops to play with.

If i knew it was gonna get cut up to train new surgeons or study how i died or figure out how i didn't so many times, I'd be on board.

But there's no way yo be sure it won't be a chew toy for cops. So I'll be cremated.

[-] rektdeckard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Sorry wait what are the cops doing with the bodies?

[-] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Basically chew toy.

[-] Vrijgezelopkamers@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I live in Flanders, Belgium and we have an opt-out system of sorts. Everyone is a donor, unless official objections were made. That sounds great, but doctors need to ascertain if there are no objections, even informal ones.

So it kind of boils down to doctors still having to ask your next of kin. But - according to data from UZ Leuven, one of our biggest hospitals - asking ‘are there any objections to the normal course of events’ works better than ‘do you wish to donate you loved ones organs’. Especially during a time of grief. It says Belgium has about 30 donors per million, whereas Germany and The Netherlands have about 15. (Data from 2024)

Because of this system you can still also officially state that your organs are to be donated if possible. And apparently you can do so from the age of 12 onwards. If you do so, no questions are asked and no one is able to object.

Tl;dr In Belgium we have an opt-out system, but it’s not bulletproof. And it doesn’t result in an enormous amount of donations. There are still waiting lists, though there are more donations than in some of our neighbouring countries. Reality is messy!

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

It's worth giving this paper from 2021 a read. The basic conclusion is that shifting away from an opt-in organ donation system does not increase the number of actual organs available, because the number of people willing to donate organs is not the (only) bottleneck in obtaining usable organs.

[-] blueamigafan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Here in the UK all everyone is automatically on the donation list, you have to opt out, not opt in like a lot of countries.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

This opinion is unpopular because science doesn't need that many bodies and organ shortages are already solved by opt-out systems, so it's just being a tyrant for no gain over far simpler solutions.

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Great post! Definitely unpopular on every level, and with a solid explanation of your reasoning.

I don't agree, not in the way it's presented, but it's still an awesome post.

The reason I don't agree is that it isn't practical. Well, not in the way it would need to be to make it useful.

See, it's not enough that a person be a donor for their organs to be useful. They have to die in the right place, at the right time, and in a way that doesn't otherwise prevent viability. The difficulties of matching a donor to a living recipient isn't really limited by people checking the box to be a donor. Not opting in just pushes the decision off to the next of kin. Making it opt out isn't going to solve the limitations, so there's no need to deal with all the legal rigamarole to get a system for opt-out in place, much less mandatory.

As far as donating to science goes, the limitation is less about donors again. It's proximity vs usefulness vs cost. You'd first have to overcome the social factor where the kin of the dead have a valid claim to determine disposition of remains, which is a huge barrier when trying to enact it.

But they you still run into being able to get a body to a "science" in a reasonable timeframe. Which isn't always possible. If I die right now, the chances of me getting to a program that can prepare my body for much of anything before decomposition would set in is low. Not impossible, just difficult because even that teaching hospital in the next county doesn't use cadavers for education, or experimentation.

I'm too far away from any of the "body farms" for use in that field of research. Even if decomposition wasn't a factor, anthropology and osteology programs don't really need more bones. So, if I specifically wanted my remains to go to something like that, I'd have to pay for it. Which is no longer donation in my mind, it's just an unusual funeral. When my bones got to whatever university was willing to store them, they'll sit in a box in a room and never do anything useful.

There would need to be something unusual about my remains for them to be useful in education at this point.

Medical research doesn't need dead bodies often.

So what science is it going to?

The answer is none because the number of people voluntarily donating is already meeting demand for research.

But, hey, maybe it would be worth setting up a cadaver transportation and storage system anyway. Maybe future research would need them. But, it would need to be set up. Preservation has to be done locally, so tack it onto existing medical examiner's offices. They apply whatever method is determined to be best to the bodies. Then they ship them to some kind of centralized storage. We can build those over existing cemeteries, so it'll be decades before we run out of land to build them on.

Once there, staff would maintain the remains. Most likely frozen, since chemical preservation causes other hassles. So you'd have freezer cemeteries that can build upwards instead of outwards, which is definitely a good thing.

Then, they can stay there until someone needs a dead body, but doesn't need it freshly dead. Even has the side benefit of still allowed kin to visit!

But, still, dead bodies aren't very useful for "science". Great for training new doctors though. So we'd always have enough on standby for that.

[-] shades@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

All bodies should be automatically given to science and organ donation upon death.

Let me get that right. What you're proposing is that every human is a burlap $ack full of $$$ if not ruined by cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, or cancer from micro plastics is to be given away for free with zero compensation to the grieving family and all $xx,xxx to $xxx,xxx profits for said sold organ going to some executive?

¡Fuuuuuuuuck that shit!

¿You think this kid's knee or kidney is gonna pay for someone not in this blood line's Ferrari?

¡You're out of your god damn mind!

My next of kin get market value of that organ or my shit gets burnt to ash and pressed into vinyl records so I can continue going to raves even after I am dead.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Capitalism at its finest my friends.

[-] douz0a0bouz@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

No one person can make that determination or all of us. Also, have you looked into what actually happens when a body gets donated. Here is John Oliver's investigation:

https://youtu.be/Tn7egDQ9lPg

[-] jonesey71@lemmus.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

I want my remains spread around Disney World. Also I do not wish to be cremated.

[-] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Just switch it to opt out, not opt in. In Australia you can opt in to organ donation but many people don't care either way. My partner would definitely opt out because they don't feel OK with it, and fair enough, but most people actually don't care and would go with the default.

[-] Hotrod54chevy@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Probably an unpopular reply, but I already have enough fear of organ harvesting. I don't need the government to one day decide that there are too many people on waiting lists so they're just gonna pull feeding tubes or some other drastic dystopian level shit they're probably really thinking about. Maybe kill off a few minorities or poor people or the handicapped while we're already ignoring body autonomy and basic human rights?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

If they're gonna go that far, do you really think your consent matters at all?

[-] Hotrod54chevy@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's the only thing that matters.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

And who is going to enforce it? Why can't they just fake it?

this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
31 points (87.8% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7614 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS