I don't think it's ludicrous on the face of it. That's basically what happens when an uninsured person dies from something that would have taken $10k to fix and an insured person gets their organs.

Doctors only get in trouble for letting someone die when that person has a medical right to the care that would have saved them. Even then there is leeway because whether someone has a medical right to that care is often something that depends on a doctor's estimation of the situation, which means other doctors would have to testify against them for them to get in trouble. Which of course they'll only do if they are sympathetic to the victim or unsympathetic towards the doctor and they know it won't affect their career prospects too poorly.

So I wouldn't be surprised if in Austria, ethnically MENA organ donors tended to die more often than ethnically MENA non-organ donors and this gap would be bigger than with ethnically European donors/non-donors (if that gap exists). Not even as some kind of conspiracy or malice aforethought, but as just a little bit of laziness here and there. Hell, not even laziness, just setting your boundaries for once and going home after only 2 hours of overtime instead of 2 hours and 15 minutes while ordering an extra test for that one patient who probably doesn't even need it.

There is still the question whether you want to deprive someone of your organs for that small statistical increase in risk, if you're even the sort of demographic that risks being dehumanized. And if you're worried about malpractice, it's much better to buddy up with a friend and agree to supervise the doctors and nurses whenever either of you is in the hospital. Most malpractice and medical mistakes are the sort of thing a lay person can catch with some attentiveness and internet searches.

It is as easy as going to any doctor and having it added to your file. No reason, just "I don’t want that"

I think people should be able to decide what happens to their remains after they die. I'm fine with automatic registration and the ability to opt out.

Joke's on you. I'm on dialysis because of my failed kidneys, I have fluid in my partially collapsed lungs, and… well… actually, my liver is alright for now, so I guess that might not be too bad for ya.

Looks like the rimworld community escaped containment.

For the most part, I'm unconcerned. Especially in a country where organ donation is opt-out, there are plenty enough people dying already; the rich don't need to kill me specifically for my liver. There's another one floating around somewhere out there. Any potential corruption would take the form of the rich and powerful placing themselves at the top of the recipient list, a problem which is also reduced if organ donation is opt-out—more organs floating around means that even if the rich and powerful put themselves at the top of the list, more people will still get the organs they need.

Re: China, that's a different situation entirely. I don't think those forced abortions were opt-in or opt-out. The Chinese government doesn't seem to give its subjects many opts at all

The best argument I have against that happening is that the people saving lives are not the people who manage the donor list. If you're in a car accident and paramedics arrive, they see an injured person, and they treat the injuries. They don't see the list of who needs an organ, they probably don't even check your ID until theyve stabilized you. They will take you to the hospital, where someone else will attempt to stabilize you, or determine that you cannot be saved. And even then, they'll send you to someone else to harvest the organs, and send those to someone else who determines where they are needed.

There is no single person who decides if your organs are worth more than your life. And if one person does try to make that call, there are a lot of others involved they may not let it happen, and acting out of procedure will raise a lot of questions.