When a nation shifts to an opt-out organ donation system to save more lives, is it right to presume consent from citizens who may not have explicitly agreed, or does this undermine individual rights over their own body?

Why this dilemma matters

These choices are rarely between good and bad — they are between different distributions of harm. Choosing “Prioritize saving lives through presumed consent, as it benefits society and respects the urgency of transplants” prioritises rules that hold everyone the same; choosing “Respect individual autonomy by requiring explicit consent, ensuring no one's body is used without their clear agreement” gives more weight to choices that account for difference.

Worth asking yourself

• What does this say about what we collectively value?
• Whose interests should count more here, and why?