[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your basis for asserting this? It seems to me that the state should need a compelling interest to insert itself into what is a critically important decision on the part of the employees. I believe the government should not interfere and that this is actually a very easy decision.

Once government starts deciding for us what is good and right and permissible, we put ourselves on the road to totalitarianism. We are so far down that road now that I doubt very much that we can go back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its an argument that reflects my sense of morality. Obviously, there are many other ways to look at it. Even if you were to successfully convince me that one had an absolute right in their own body, I would still consider it waste if one were to dispose their body without the potential for a greater gain. In such case, the waste of a resource is what is immoral.

As far the your second point, I am afraid such is already the case. The government makes these decisions all the time for the greater good (at least such is the goal). It is usually a cost v. benefit analysis. For example, although we know with certainty that car travel will result in thousands of deaths each year, we have decided that the benefits of car travel to society justify the costs.

However, I don't see this as a bad thing; I am not worried about being so far down the road that we can't "go back." Society is an extremely complicated organism and we cannot freely grant and adhere to "absolute rights."