Quote (fender @ Feb 17 2018 02:56am)
from a practical standpoint that makes 100% sense, and i expect the outcome of this policy to actually be much closer to my personal ideal than my own approach. maybe i wouldn't be so stubbornly "principled" about this if i or a family member were personally affected, maybe i would be less reluctant if i didn't know about abuse, or even just had a good way of OBJECTIVELY weighing one good against the other, but as of now we'll have to agree to disagree, even though we obviously both want the same results...
Objectively weighing the issue is a valid argument, you only have a few hours to decide and there is no way someone close, can make an objective decision at that time. I think we can agree on that.
The abuse part, I somewhat understand but not fully. From what I know organs are registered thoroughly. I do have a lot of trust in our local research media to find any misconduct, perhaps that indeed is a requirement to impose such a law as sausage said. If it will prove to cause scandals, close relatives will always have the last word and would emotional respond to not trust a donation. So... Free press and politicians taking responsibility is essential, but there is always is a last word from relatives if that fails. However, that can obviously only happen after harm already done, and from that standpoint, I respect your view.