Perhaps there needs to be an additional option; eg a) Organ Donor vs b) Science Donor, and some redefinition of the former to preclude post mortem pecuniary feasting. Most certainly, strict policy is needed to prevent harvesting without consent, which may be an issue more often than expected [1].
I must say, that the utilitarian views on corpse harvesting are to me, appalling. The thought of someone I cared profoundly for, having their form indifferently, irreverently butchered for anything other than pure, noble science or directly life-critical purposes is wretched, and even then... It appears that an argument is being made that such procedures benefit some, who even if able to survive without, are entitled and that it fills a market niche and therefore it's perfectly fine. If a case can be made for justifying cosmetic harvesting beyond the will of the departed, it doesn't seem drastically more extreme to propose an industry for necrophilia or necro-voyeurism or any other taboo having only ideological consequences. The same reasoning could be applied, with arguments both for and against being mostly of subjective values. I'd rather not.
I hope those who view existence and its every detail from macro to micro exclusively through the lens of cold science and economy can pause to consider either that some others don't, or find a suitable formulaic substitute for empathy. Assuming ownership and control of someone's (formerly) most intimate personal property, ie body, might not be as agreeable as you think.
1. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-nov-02-mn-49420...