Some issues in Nationstates are pretty interesting. I'd like to bring attention to one of them in particular: compulsory organ donation. If there is a dire need for organs to save the lives of patients but that there are not enough organs available, should it be permitted to use an organ from a dead person who has not signed the proper forms?

Many people will say that it is against a citizen's rights to take organs from his body even if he did not consent during his lifetime, but do dead people really have rights? And are the "rights" of a corpse more important than a patient's life?

I think it would be all right to take organs from a dead person even if they did not consent while living, but everyone should know right now that I think like this because I'm all for organ donation. I also think that living people that need organs have more of a right to them, simply because they're alive.

I mean, sure, a person's body was important to them while they were alive, they lived in it and all, but once they're dead, I think that they're gone, and the body is just the physical left-overs. If someone else can benefit from what's left, then why not?

It's nice to think how quickly ones statis in the world can switch from person to property.

Well.......why shouldn't it?

Well I guess so...but I would think that my 'property' would go to my next of kin and they would decide what becomes of it.


So I guess corpses don't really have rights, but my 'property' holders do.

There's also a debate about an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system. Seems like a reasonable solution.

Why have a "last will and testament" if they aren't going to respect your wishes after your dead?? :)