It's a really interesting somewhat thought provoking idea. To some extent these people are valuable enough that turning them into blood factories after cerebral death is the more moral option?
I can see it from a "yes" perspective and from a "no" perspective, and I can find reasons to regret saying either. Agency, autonomy and compassion are critical features of the scenarios that have the least regrets.
At the bottom of that article it indicated they've successfully recreated the antibody in a lab, I hope that saves a lot of families from suffering.
On the list of "best options" for my vegetative body, this would rate fairly highly.
But yeah, like assisted suicide, there are people with non-aligned motives who could be incentivized to coerce a decision from weak/befuddled/old patients.
There are many decisions I'd like to make now, while of sound mind and body, that I would like to be respected when I am no longer able to make decisions for myself. The state allows some of them, but not all.
If he consented when he was alive, I don't see how it could be moral to ignore his wishes and let more people die as a result.
I guess laws will get in the way of this kind of thing though.
we already turn people into transplant organs source, so i don't see much difference between harvesting a kidney, heart or blood