First point is very valid and one I hadn't considered
Second is the one I was arguing against. I certainly don't doubt they did sincerely feel a lot of upset. I suppose I still think it shouldn't matter. It would in that regard have been better had they just never found out.
I see where you're coming from with your argument, and certainly I have no qualms about the use of my organs after I die, but not everyone shares that belief and personally I don't think it's right to just disregard that. Sure, it might have been better if the families never found out, but it would have been best if the families wishes (no matter how irrational) were respected from the get-go.
Disregarding someone's irrational beliefs (every one of us has some) just like that is a sign of serious lack of empathy, and an easy way to make enemies. You can try and convince someone to stop holding that irrational belief, but you don't have to disrespect their feelings in the process.
Regarding the second point. Suppose someone went in your house and rummaged around looking at everything. Would you feel violated? Would it be better if you didn't know?
Or took naked pictures of you without you knowing about it?
Another example: what if someone stole something from you that you didn't need?
Some things matter even if they don't cause concrete harm.
I disagree; in the vast majority of cases I suspect your better off ignoring ephemeral harm.
That said many of the things that creep people out carry risks. But, IMO risk is a concrete harm. EX: False confictions are common so random searches cause concrete and measureable harm in aggregate.
Second is the one I was arguing against. I certainly don't doubt they did sincerely feel a lot of upset. I suppose I still think it shouldn't matter. It would in that regard have been better had they just never found out.