Your Body and Death

[xorbie]

I have been wondering about this for some time. What rights do we have regarding our body after we die. Do we have the right to control what happens to it? What if society has a need for our body?

Now barring someone who, say, cryogenically froze themselves or something for hope of "rebirth" or something, shouldn't we be able to use your body? What if someone was dying and they needed your liver to stay alive. Should they be allowed to go in there and get it if just want to get cremated or something?

Would your answer change if the dead person in question was a convicted murderer? Or George Bush?

[Mullibok]

If a dead person gets to decide what happens to his property after he dies, it hardly makes sense to treat the body any differently.

[xorbie]

Well no. Because the property can serve some function, like your house does not become useless just because you are dead. The body, on the other hand, is useless to you, and to anyone else.

The body only because useful if you give it to science to be disected, or donate organs (are there any other uses?).

[Mullibok]

Well how about looking at it as what a family wants then? I'd say most people would want their family members' wishes about their eventual corpses to be respected, and that there could be a lot of unrest if the government seized them and did what it pleased. So there's a positive: keeping the citizens happy!

[mecca777]

Originally posted by xorbie
The body only because useful if you give it to science to be disected, or donate organs (are there any other uses?). I assume you're not asking about BBQ ideas here.

[xorbie]

I assume you're not asking about BBQ ideas here.

A fair assumption indeed. :D

Right mulli, but my point is that what use would the family have with the body? And what of those viscious killers....

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by xorbie
Right mulli, but my point is that what use would the family have with the body? And what of those viscious killers....

Well, the use for the family would be the satisfaction of fulfilling a loved one's request after s/he has died. As long as people are making such requests families will feel honor-bound to go by them. Killers, true, I wouldn't care much about them, except for perhaps a slippery slope sort of deal where we end up arguing over who deserves the choice and who does not.

[ScumDog]

You answered your own question xorbie, in that the human body does still have use after it dies. Analogous to the deceased' house or money.

[Vandrare]

what about the people who have religious beliefs pertaining to their burial and how their corpse has to be treated. there's plenty of religions that have that sort of thing, so just taking a corpse to use for science (though being a noble use for it) would be a serious infringement on someones rights and beliefs.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by xorbie
I have been wondering about this for some time. What rights do we have regarding our body after we die. Do we have the right to control what happens to it? What if society has a need for our body?

Now barring someone who, say, cryogenically froze themselves or something for hope of "rebirth" or something, shouldn't we be able to use your body? What if someone was dying and they needed your liver to stay alive. Should they be allowed to go in there and get it if just want to get cremated or something?

Would your answer change if the dead person in question was a convicted murderer? Or George Bush?

My understanding of the law is that you can order whatever done with your body that could legally be done with it. Obviously the estate has to have the funds to do this--if you say you are to be buried on the moon there had better be a *LOT* of moola in your estate or it's not going to happen.

Personally, I disagree with this. I think doctors should be allowed to harvest any parts they can use to help others. It seems to me that the public interest in saving lives is more important than in having one's body intact after death.

[xorbie]

Very interesting. Chalk that up as another thread Loren and I agree on. When will the madness end?

And with regards to religious beliefs, I thin they are clearly false. So while I give them the right to believe what they want while living, I fail to understand how this should apply once they are dead. I mean they wouldn't really know what happened to their body, would they?

Personally, I have nothing against going to a family and saying: "You want to cremate this guy and put him in a jar? Fine, go ahead. We are just gonna go ahead and take out this heart and this liver, and this kidney, and save 3 people's lives."

Wouldn't this be what any living person who isn't a total shmuck want anyway?

[Furby]

But what if the family has religious reasons for wanting to keep the body intact? I don't think it would be right to forcibly take the deceased's organs away for a transplant, unless he has stated in his will that he wished to do so. Shouldn't the deceased's body belong to his family?

If there is a law that states that the family must donate the organs, wouldn't it be like making it mandatory for a person to donate blood since there is a chance that a victim of an accident might be saved by his/her donation.

I think a good compromise would be a law that states that by default, a person's organs are donated to the hospitals upon death, unless he specifically states otherwise. If he does not, then his organs will be donated even if his family objects.

A little off topic, I wonder how useful for transplant the organs of a person are if he has died of old age. Wouldn't the organs have suffered significant deteoriation due to aging? If we put a 90-year old kidney into a body of a 20-year old man, how long will it last?

[Secular Elation]

In California, when you get your driver's license you can get a donor sticker on it, accompanied with details on what you want done with your body. I simply marked the box next to "Donate to both transplantation and medical research." There's an option to donate your entire body. I might actually like that rather than be buried in the eternal coffin bed six feet under. Lying in a coffin underground forever has always creeped me out, even though I won't know it after the fact. But still...

[Roland98]

Originally posted by xorbie

And with regards to religious beliefs, I thin they are clearly false. So while I give them the right to believe what they want while living, I fail to understand how this should apply once they are dead. I mean they wouldn't really know what happened to their body, would they?

I think they're false as well, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't respect them. Even though I disagree, people of some religious beliefs feel it's necessary to maintain all their organs after death. Who would I be to go against their wishes? I certainly hope my family would abide by my wishes to donate any organs they possibly can, even if some may think it's wrong. You wouldn't like the thought of someone throwing you a big Christian funeral bash now, would you? I think it's important to respect the wishes of the deceased, even if we think they're nuts.

Personally, I have nothing against going to a family and saying: "You want to cremate this guy and put him in a jar? Fine, go ahead. We are just gonna go ahead and take out this heart and this liver, and this kidney, and save 3 people's lives."

Wouldn't this be what any living person who isn't a total shmuck want anyway?

IMO, yes--but recall that there are many, many, many people out there who are total schmucks! I don't agree with their views, but I do respect their right to be a schmuck, and to have their wishes carried out regarding treatment of their body after death.

[scigirl]

According to what I've learned -

The rules regarding dead bodies are getting more strict. Even for research purposes, you need permission from the next of kin to take cells, etc.

If your family doesn't want you to donate your organs, even if you checked 50 boxes on a card somwhere - very rarely will the doctors take them. So it's important that your family know about your wishes. In my limited experience so far, people want to carry out the wishes of their loved ones, but only if they had been personally communicated to them (not just checked on a box somewhere). "Jane always told me she wanted to donate her body, and even though I don't like the idea, it's what she really wanted, so we are carrying out her wishes."

What Loren Petchel has suggested may seem right in theory, but in practice, it is immoral. Imagine a grieving family - their son just died in a horrible traffic accident. They didn't know that their son wanted to donate his organs, and they aren't sure themselves how they feel, since they never discussed it. Their son isn't even cold yet, and the doctor says, "Do you want to donate your son's organs? You don't? Oh well fuck you I"m taking them anyway, go grieve somewhere else, and quit crying on the body - the tears might be contaminated or something."

Ok so that's a bit extreme. But it's unethical to even put a doctor in that position. Would you all PLEASE for my sake - talk to your familes in advance so that if and when something happens, they are more prepared to deal with it? thanks,

scigirl

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Furby
But what if the family has religious reasons for wanting to keep the body intact? I don't think it would be right to forcibly take the deceased's organs away for a transplant, unless he has stated in his will that he wished to do so. Shouldn't the deceased's body belong to his family?

If there is a law that states that the family must donate the organs, wouldn't it be like making it mandatory for a person to donate blood since there is a chance that a victim of an accident might be saved by his/her donation.

I think a good compromise would be a law that states that by default, a person's organs are donated to the hospitals upon death, unless he specifically states otherwise. If he does not, then his organs will be donated even if his family objects.

A little off topic, I wonder how useful for transplant the organs of a person are if he has died of old age. Wouldn't the organs have suffered significant deteoriation due to aging? If we put a 90-year old kidney into a body of a 20-year old man, how long will it last?

Yeah, they don't transplant organs from 90 year old's.

I would certainly make the default presumption that transplant is ok. I have a problem with denying it even if that's what the person wishes, though--their body is of no use to them, why should they deny somebody else life? And that's generally what they are doing--a denied heart means someone dies.

Note: I would grant an exception for those who have themselves cryogenically frozen. There's a possibility that they might actually have a use for the organs.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by scigirl
What Loren Petchel has suggested may seem right in theory, but in practice, it is immoral. Imagine a grieving family - their son just died in a horrible traffic accident. They didn't know that their son wanted to donate his organs, and they aren't sure themselves how they feel, since they never discussed it. Their son isn't even cold yet, and the doctor says, "Do you want to donate your son's organs? You don't? Oh well fuck you I"m taking them anyway, go grieve somewhere else, and quit crying on the body - the tears might be contaminated or something."


If it's the law of the land why would the doctor be asking?

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
If it's the law of the land why would the doctor be asking?
What? I don't understand.

The law of the land is "ask before using."

Therefore doctors have to ask, by law.

scigirl

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by scigirl
Ok so that's a bit extreme. But it's unethical to even put a doctor in that position. Would you all PLEASE for my sake - talk to your familes in advance so that if and when something happens, they are more prepared to deal with it? thanks,

scigirl

Well I have DONOR on my driver's license, I think that'll do it. :)

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by scigirl
What? I don't understand.

The law of the land is "ask before using."

Therefore doctors have to ask, by law.

scigirl

I was saying that the law of the land *SHOULD* be that the doctors get to use whatever they can to save others.

Other uses, such as medical school etc, should only be by consent.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
I was saying that the law of the land *SHOULD* be that the doctors get to use whatever they can to save others.

Other uses, such as medical school etc, should only be by consent.
Ahh ok.

Well - of course I disagree, since I would be the one to force the issue. "Excuse me, could you move away from your dead son, I need to, uh, extract his organs I MEAN, um, do something else, yeah."

I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything with their bodies - while they are alive, nearly alive, or dead. I personally would not do it if the family was not on board. Even if it was legal. Maintaining good and *trusting* relationships with the living patients is just as important as saving the lives, IMHO. If we all live longer but are afraid of doctors stealing our organs as soon as we fall ill. . . that would be bad. Of course I don't think this would happen, but doctors and health care professionals wield an enormous power over patients. If anything, we need to give them more power, not take more from them. (them meaning patients)

scigirl

edited for clarity

[xorbie]

I think they're false as well, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't respect them. Even though I disagree, people of some religious beliefs feel it's necessary to maintain all their organs after death. Who would I be to go against their wishes? I certainly hope my family would abide by my wishes to donate any organs they possibly can, even if some may think it's wrong. You wouldn't like the thought of someone throwing you a big Christian funeral bash now, would you? I think it's important to respect the wishes of the deceased, even if we think they're nuts.

I'm sorry, I don't recall ever saying that bash would trouble me. In fact, if several fundies proclaimed that I was Jesus II and took my body, and put it on a cross, and let it hand there for eternity, it would not bother me one iota. See, that's the thing about being dead, you tend not to notice these things.

The problem here is that you assume my body is mine after I'm done using it, so to speak. Or that it is my family's. Quite frankly, I see no reason why the family needs the body. You could use it for all sorts of things (reasearch, med school practice, organs). And quite frankly, any family that says "no, I refuse to save some guys life if it would mean taking my dead son's heart!" should go sit down and re-examine their values. I'm not really sure where the assumpion stems from that the body belongs to the family.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by xorbie
I'm sorry, I don't recall ever saying that bash would trouble me. In fact, if several fundies proclaimed that I was Jesus II and took my body, and put it on a cross, and let it hand there for eternity, it would not bother me one iota. See, that's the thing about being dead, you tend not to notice these things.

Sorry--I realize you didn't say anything about a fundy bash; that's why I asked the question. And obviously I understand that you personally wouldn't notice if you were dead, but I guess it's even the thought of someone doing that to my body after death that bugs me.

The problem here is that you assume my body is mine after I'm done using it, so to speak. Or that it is my family's. Quite frankly, I see no reason why the family needs the body. You could use it for all sorts of things (reasearch, med school practice, organs). And quite frankly, any family that says "no, I refuse to save some guys life if it would mean taking my dead son's heart!" should go sit down and re-examine their values. I'm not really sure where the assumpion stems from that the body belongs to the family.

Again, I agree regarding the values issue--my whole family is staunchly in favor of organ donation, and they can have anything they want from me after I'm gone. I would assume the assumption regarding possession of the body is simply many, many years of tradition. I simply wouldn't deny a family, or an individual, the right to choose what happens to their body after death, even if they're going to be asses about organ donation.

[truelies]

When I move on to the next plane of existence my next of kin here will have all rights to my worldly possesssions including my cold dead body. If Society wants to make use of that corpse it is just going to have to offer my kin sufficient cold hard cash inducement to make it worth their while to deliver me (or what was me actually).

[xorbie]

Why? Is there any actual objective, rational, moral or whatever reason why the family should actually get to keep the body? I don't want to hear about "they might feel bad" or "tradition" or any circular arguments that assume it is the family's to do with it as they please.

Barring some sort of cryogenic freezing or other process in which there is a chance the person might need those organs or their body, what right does the family have?

Keep in mind that if we went by what made people "feel bad" or went by tradition, the 10 C would still be up in 'Bama and well hell, the whole country might as well be a theocracy.

[Mullibok]

I find the idea of laws passed that requires society to do something to be always potentially troublesome and to be avoided in general, I don't think the government has the right to require things solely for the common good. Passing laws prohibiting things obviously is fine, but forcing only one course of action is worrying for me.