哲學家Robert Veatch 指出， 認定同意制可能【違背】意願（

哲學家Robert Veatch 指出， 認定同意制可能【違背】意願（假如死者生前無表明反對，但其真正意願是不捐贈器官）。雖然明確同意制也可能【違背】意願（假若死者生前無表明捐贈，其實願意捐贈），但相比之下，前者出錯的後果較為嚴重，因為人有「器官不被拿取」的自主權利。認定同意制有機會侵犯這種權利，而明確同意制不會。

結果 (英文) 1:

Philosopher Robert Veatch points out, the system may identify agree [] contrary to the will (if the deceased is no suggestion that opposition, but it is not genuine will to donate organs). Although explicit consent system may violate [] the will (if the deceased is no suggestion that donations, in fact, willing to donate), but in comparison, the former error of more serious consequences, because people have the right to independent "organ not pick up" the. Identification system agreed to have the opportunity to infringe this right, and the system will not express consent.

結果 (英文) 2:

The philosopher Robert Veatch points out that the system of consent may be "contrary" to the will of the deceased (if the deceased did not express an objection in his life, but his real will is not to donate organs). While a clear consent system may also be "contrary" to the will (if the deceased does not indicate a donation before his or her death, he is willing to donate), the consequences of the former error are more serious in comparison, as people have the right to "organ not to be taken". It is determined that the consent system has an opportunity to violate this right, while the system of explicit consent does not. ...

結果 (英文) 3:

The philosopher Robert Veatch pointed out that, It is considered that the consent system may [violate] the will (if the deceased does not show any objection, but its real intention is not to donate organs). Although it may also [violate] the will (if the deceased does not show any donation, it is willing to donate), by contrast, the consequences of the former error are more serious, because people have the independent right of "organs are not taken". The same as The Italian system has the opportunity to violate this right, while the explicit consent system will not.