[karajorma]

Even if I buy your argument that she is just a piece of meat, she is a piece of meat that belongs to the family. Surely you would have a problem with the government making an unconstitutional seizure of your property?

[Bobboau]

I'm willing to believe the government in this instance when they say they'll give it back in a couple of months, and I don't really think it is going to deprecate in value in that time. so I don't really see much harm in this particular instance. though in general I agree with your premise.

[666maslo666]

Even if I buy your argument that she is just a piece of meat, she is a piece of meat that belongs to the family. Surely you would have a problem with the government making an unconstitutional seizure of your property?

If it is required to save or protect a human life, then absolutely not. Now in this case I think the foetus is still a piece of meat, too. But if it was few months older, then I would certainly support this action.

[666maslo666]

...

[DarkBasilisk]

Also there's the matter that regardless of what you think about the afterlife, following proper final wishes, funeral arrangements, etc, of the deceased has a profound effect on the emotional well-being of those still living that cared about the person. Or rather, not following them tends to be extremely harmful to the grieving process.

I know it's rude to repeat oneself, but I just wanted to recall attention to the above. Bob : THIS is the harm. What something like this does to the people left behind.

While the source of conflict is different I've seen this in play first hand. One of my friends SO was rendered brain dead due to an accident. Because they hadn't married yet (he was going to propose two days after the accident), her final wishes that were discussed in detail with him were completely trampled upon when her parents decided to do something else entirely : instead of a quiet burial with everything intact, they donated her organs and cremated her (so basically the opposite of both of her requests). It... didn't go well.

I don't think it would have gone well in any case, but sitting there knowing you can't provide the last thing you can possibly give the most important person in the world to you does not help the grieving process very much. It went badly and he's been messed up for a long time now.

Especially in this case they seem very unsure whether the baby can survive like this, i think the harm to the family far far outweighs any potential gains.

[Mikes]

Even if I buy your argument that she is just a piece of meat, she is a piece of meat that belongs to the family. Surely you would have a problem with the government making an unconstitutional seizure of your property?

If it is required to save or protect a human life, then absolutely not. Now in this case I think the foetus is still a piece of meat, too. But if it was few months older, then I would certainly support this action.

Do you even realize how deep the hole you are digging with this comment really is?

You could save a lot of lives by using all those perfectly healthy organs for transplants you know, surely those lives would be worth more than a single fetus that likely won't be healthy anyways - just a "piece of meat", in your own words, right? :coughs:

And while we're at it, those stem cells certainly could be put to good use and save a ton of lives later on as well.

Hey ... and why stop there when other people are starving. You want all that perfectly fine meat to rot in a grave!? While people are starving!?


I mean really... you would rather spend lots of money artificially keeping that dead woman's body alive, while it could be used to help all those other people who are dying?

You monster! Think of all the human live's that are lost only because the state does not make use of ALL the bodies after someone dies!

[Bobboau]

they can have her organs (etc) after the baby.

[karajorma]

When you're saying that the state should take a persons organs regardless of their wishes, you're either trolling or so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.

[Lorric]

so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.

That's too much. Try telling that to someone who needs a transplant and perfectly good organs that their previous owner no longer need are being eaten by worms or burning in cremators. You can't tell me they're better off there than in the body of a living person who needs them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to try and force people to give them up after they die, but only because it would be more bother than it's worth trying to make it happen than any ethical concerns. The person is dead. They don't need any of that stuff anymore. Give it to people who do, not to the worms or to the flames.

[karajorma]

Surely that should be an argument you make to the person who is about to die, not an imposition you force upon them after death regardless of what they wanted.

[Lorric]

Surely that should be an argument you make to the person who is about to die, not an imposition you force upon them after death regardless of what they wanted.

When they're dead, they don't need them anymore. You don't build a new house for every new person. Someone else needs it and gets it. How absurd would it be if every house after it's owner died was just left to fall into disrepair?

[TrashMan]

When you're saying that the state should take a persons organs regardless of their wishes, you're either trolling or so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.

I'm personally perfectly fine with the state taking your organs. If I'm dead, I'm not gonna need them and I'll be too dead to care anyway. And what is my family going to do with them? Absolutely nothing. They are going to rot and do no good to anyone, when they could have saved lives.

So I'd either be for a opt-out system (in by default), with benefits for not opting out, or "your organs are mine, period" (unless there is a very good reason why not).

[karajorma]

My post was related to the state saying "**** you, we're talking your organs whether you like it or not. We don't care what reason you give, they belong to us." I find it hilarious that someone like Bobb thinks the state should have the power to do that given his usual anti-authoritarian stance.

I have no problem with an opt-out system. In fact I'd probably be in favour of it.

[666maslo666]

If she is braindead then we should make the best use of her body to help actual living people, including dismantling her for organs and using her as a life support. It is unethical to not do so! And we should do it regardless of the wishes of the family because in a life and death situation there are more important matters than what happens to the body.

Oh, and many countries including mine have opt out systems that only allow the person in question to opt out while alive (and only a very small number of people do), ignoring the wishes of the family. So in practice for what I described above is what happens for 99% of patients and it works fine.

Its fine if you disagree with using dead bodies to save the living, but please dont say that I am digging some big hole or that it is somehow deeply unethical. Thats complete nonsense. In fact, if you are OK with sacrificing human life just to keep a dead persons empty shell, a dead object, intact, then it is most likely you who is unethical, if anyone is.

[666maslo666]

If there is a serious ethical issue here, then it is the fact that the law apparently allows actual living people to be forcibly kept on life support as living incubators for a foetus. Now that could lead to many issues and human rights abuses!

However, what happens to the body after the brain dies is not really very important from an ethical perspective, in my opinion.

[karajorma]

I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.

[TrashMan]

Well, lets look at it logicly.
They are dead, so it won't matter.
The dead won't care or know for that matter (unless you believe in the afterlife).

Only the living might, but any sensible living person should see the greater value in saving lives.

Unless their religion prohibits taking organs out (which is rare), there is no real reason to keep the organs.

Now it would be nice if after I'm dead, I'm burried in the family tomb. But I don't need my good organs for that. And if I end up beign burried in some ditch...meh. I'm dead. My body is worm food anyway.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.

Indeed.  Some people don't seem to care when and how their rights are violated.

Though I am quite curious how any one of them would feel if they had a family member who expressed a strong desire NOT to have their body maintained on life support and experienced a case where their local government refused to allow them to be taken off support despite that person's wishes.  Something tells me an awful lot of feelings might change if this was their wife/daughter/sister/mother/grandmother/etc.

[Mikes]

When you're saying that the state should take a persons organs regardless of their wishes, you're either trolling or so far away from ethical behaviour that your opinion can pretty much be discounted.

So to the point, we have two propositions:

1. using a braindead woman as a brood machine with questionable chance of success, against her explicit wishes and those of her family - "to save/protect human life, i.e. the fetus, which may not even be healthy".
2. taking someone's organ's after their death against their wishes - "to save/protect human life, i.e. another human being who would otherwise die."

In both cases the dead person loses the rights to their body, no more, no less.
Hence, if someone approves the first, it's kinda hard to see how they can reject the second, without being a hypocrite.

To point that out, was the reason of my earlier post.

Personally I find both propositions equally disgusting.


Frankly, from my viewpoint, to use your words, it is the state of Texas that "must be either trolling or is so far away from ethical behaviour that their opinion can pretty much be discounted."

Sadly... for Texas it appears to be the later and they have the power to make other people suffer through their unethical behavior as well.

[Lorric]

I'm amazed at the sheer number of people lining up to say that they believe that people should have no right to decide what to do with their body after they die.

I'm surprised someone as coldly rational as you doesn't see it the other way. Really, you're just about the last person in the forum I thought would hold the view you do, never mind how strongly you seem to hold it.