Do you think it is right to sideline the respect for a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others?

In my opinion, it is not right to sideline the respect of a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others. However, the issue regarding HOTA here would be the personal initiative of a person to opt out of the scheme before he or she actually becomes brain-dead, if that day ever comes. There is a minority that are unfortunately already brain-dead when this scheme came into law, and certainly, i think that exceptions should be made for this group of people since they were not given prior notice. How is the person going to opt out of HOTA if he or she was already brain-dead when this was introduced? It would be highly uncompassionate to not make exceptions for this particular group of people.

A brain-dead person encompasses different dimensions of meaning for the doctor, the government and for the family themselves. To a doctor and to the government, the person could just be another source to obtain organs for transplant. The issue at stake here is who is more worthy of saving? Is it the brain-dead patient or the living person who is in dire need of an organ to continue living? To the general society, a brain-dead person is unable to make any contributions for the general good of the public, but a living person is able to, as such, the argument to 'sacrifice' the brain-dead person is more pertinent. However, if we were to practise such extreme utilitarian measures, it would be more of a case of the "ends justifies the means", and we wouldn't be much different from cold-blooded dictators then. To the family and the web of people around the person lying on the hospital bed, the very presence of the person would bring about hope and gratification to them and he means the world to them. If it were your family, wouldn't you have the selfish inclination to keep the person alive no matter what?

Moreover, there is no knowing where the organs go to. What if they are being transplanted to a wealthy but unscrupulous person who will bring more harm than good to the society? As Andy Ho mentions, "debts of gratitude obtain only between people with real connections", precious organs should not be given away indiscriminately and anonymously. This is a very significant issue.

Another worry is that some doctors have unethical medical practices and they might declare a person brain-dead prematurely just to obtain fiscal benefits from sale of the organs. This is a crucial issue and stringent guidelines and stiff penalties be set in place to try to stem out such unscrupulous behaviour.

It is impossible to come up with a way to please everybody. Even though I disagree that we should sideline the respect for a brain-dead person just to prolong the lives of others, i think that ultimately, the person involved should also be inclined to take on the responsibility to opt out of the scheme. However, the system should also allow donors to know who gets the organs and that such practice be monitored strictly. Also, there could be a window period of one year given after doctors declare the person brain-dead before extracting the organs for use. When the family is not given a choice, at least they have to be given time to accept the harsh facts. In conclusion, such an act is not morally abhorrent but there has to be several measures and guidelines put in place to ensure it is not abused and to make it more acceptable to the public.