But I think the analogy is closer than this suggests.

After all, I am specifically

talking about our organs after we die. While we have all experienced our
bodieshave lived themvery few of us ever see our organs. Very few of us
feel a particular attachment to our pancreas, for instance. So, it is misleading
to talk of the body as though it is coextensive with our internal organs. While
the body is unlike unseen land, our internal organs are actually substantially
more analogous to such land. We know of our organs indirectly; we

understand them abstractly (for the most part, with most of our organs).
When we add to this that we are talking about organs used after death
organs that cannot be experienced in life, even theoretically, the analogy is
even closer. There is a well-publicized organ shortage ia shortage that is lifethreatening. If my thought experiment has served its purpose, we are in a
position to see that our obligations to respect the wishes of the deceased
(regarding their own bodies) are sometimes trumped by the vital concerns of
others. To reiterate: I am not claiming here that the preferences of the dead

and dying are irrelevant. I think that we have an obligation to respect the
wishes of the deceasedbut I also think that this obligation can be
overridden.