Monday, March 16, 2009

virtual reincarnation


The Lindow Bog man is on display at Manchester University Museum and connected with this came a debate concerning the proper treatment of human remains.......True, I am only using animal varieties but if we stretch the metaphor....?

Two points of view were posited, ... namely a relationalist view as held by both aboriginal peoples and pagans, that the body is tied to place and should be returned to that place of belonging.

Bio- Ethicist John Harris presented a contrary, rationalist view, that once death has visited, the rights to whatever remains should be predicated on where they would be best served.

Remains less than 100 years old come under the human tissue act (resulting from botch ups at Alder Hey and Bristol) which require consent from next of kin etc.

Harris holds that there should be no preferred interest..... any rights end when life ends....

What do you think?

I always hoped that if a child of mine had died ......and a part of what remained could prolong life in another........ that I would be able to give the relevant consent .......

But would I be able to separate the person I had loved from the body that remained in time ? I'm just not sure.....?

The following link is a transcript of a fascinating debate around this issue that took place in 2003

http://www.instituteofideas.com/transcripts/human_remains.pdf

A Myth (ILLUSTRATIONS TO FOLLOW)

Fifty million years before the
first woman
took her first steps on the surface of a warm earth the Tree
Squirrel God looked
over Her forest and thought that it was good.

For many millenia
generations of squirrels lived in peace and
harmony heeding the voice of the
wind until the heartbeat of the earth
called them home, to return into the soil
that had sustained them in life.

Their own heartbeat, swift and shallow,
let each squirrel know that
this time on the skin of the warm earth, flying
through the tall trees would
be as swift as a chatter of their teeth.
The
yellow dwarf that lit their
way and warmed their backs would be a joyous but
brief friend and they must
live quickly.

So they gathered nuts and
seeds, ate some and buried
others for cold winter days.
They found time to
love and raise several
families. And as they leaped through trees they dreamed
of flight and
returning as birds. They changed as the world changed but above
all they
continued.......

When each heart stopped beating as surely as
it had
begun, the squirrel would fall from the highest branch into the rich
earth
below to be warmly embraced and made its own.

There in that place,
among the living, they must remain, never to be disturbed.
Their
children's
children would scurry across the ground where they lay sleeping.
And in this
death they would sustain them, feeding the seeds and nuts that
became food
....... until in the briefest of time, they too would come and
join the rich
ancestry of the soil and the heartbeat of the earth.

10 comments:

  1. OP

    """Myself....if one of my children had died and a part of them could have helped another to live I hope that I would have been able to give the relevant consents """

    I feel the same way as you and although I am all for donating organs from the dead, I wonder if I would feel differently about a loved one.

    I agree with the Prof - in life, a person and his/her body doesn't belong to their next of kin - so why does it suddenly on death belong to them?

    If when we die, the State had all rights to our bodies for two or three days, the shortage of donor organs would be a thing of the past. The funeral could then take place as is normal today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If when we die, the State had all rights to our bodies for two or three days, the shortage of donor organs would be a thing of the past. The funeral could then take place as is normal today."

    To me this would be advocating that there would not even be an opt out stlye of organ donation.
    Even with the opt out system I see a problem that could arise.
    At the minute there is a data base of DNA, and thus tissue type, of UK criminals.
    Access to any database is never totally secure.
    These two things in combination could give rise to people being targetted as donors for recipiants that pay for fatal "accidents" to occur.
    With the DNA database in place I think this possibility is more possible if an opt out system is put in place.
    If compulsory donation is put in place there is more risk of this occurring.
    I know this is only theoretical but I also know how unscrupulous people are and how desperate a recipiant might get.

    Regards the point about who owns the body of the dead. Surely it is valid to consider the body as a object or possession once it is no longer a living entity. I think it is valid as it was once the possession of the mind of the individual. By virtue of this it's ownership would go to next of kin based on marriage, family etc. For the state to then claim the body would be stealing unless no rightful owner could be found or deduced.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SM

    Consider how many deaths there are every day - many thousands. Then think of how many transplants would be needed every day - maybe a dozen when the backlog had been filled. There would be more than enough natural and accidental deaths to negate your worries of you being targetted.

    """Surely it is valid to consider the body as a object or possession once it is no longer a living entity"""

    It is now, as the law stands today, but I see no reason why it should stay a 'possession' for ever. Something like one in a hundred bodies would be needed for the transplants necessary so 99% of people would see no difference to today's method and the body would be given over to the next of kin straight away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If it is up to the person to decide that upon their death the ownership of something currently in their possession can be transferred to whomever they choose, why would this not apply to their body? you own your body, don't you.

    Yes it can be argued that better use might have been made with it elsewhere than the designated new owner would put it to, but so it could be with all of the deceased's former property. But if the principle is that it's up to the current owner...

    ReplyDelete
  5. SM
    Consider how many deaths there are every day - many thousands. Then think of how many transplants would be needed every day - maybe a dozen when the backlog had been filled. There would be more than enough natural and accidental deaths to negate your worries of you being targetted.”

    I understand the idea that it would be more probable of a match but someone with a rare tissue type to get a “good” match may still be difficult to find a match.

    “It is now, as the law stands today, but I see no reason why it should stay a 'possession' for ever. Something like one in a hundred bodies would be needed for the transplants necessary so 99% of people would see no difference to today's method and the body would be given over to the next of kin straight away.”

    I only have objections other than for the reason I gave. It seems the most logical thing to do otherwise. However this idea also doesn’t account for religious objections which may apply.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I agree with the Prof - in life, a person and his/her body doesn't belong to their next of kin - so why does it suddenly on death belong to them?"

    None of a person's other property belongs to their next of kin while they are alive. It suddenly belongs to the next of kin because they have inherited it along with the rest of the deceased's property.

    "If when we die, the State had all rights to our bodies for two or three days, the shortage of donor organs would be a thing of the past."

    Not an opinion shared by the panel of experts the government hired to examine the possibility of changindg from opt-in to opt-out organ donation. They recommended against it on the basis of there being no evidence that it would increase the supply of donor organs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. M6 Hi SM

    """someone with a rare tissue type to get a “good” match may still be difficult to find a match"""

    I think you have much more chance of being told tomorrow that you need a transplant - and then dying because you are unable to get one - than the chance that you have a very rare tissue type and a potential recipient can persuade the surgeon's team to kill you in order to save him.

    I agree about the 'religious objection' argument but that says more about religious peoples' ideas about "Helping others" than it does about common sense.


    M7 Hi Sidescan

    """None of a person's other property belongs to their next of kin while they are alive. It suddenly belongs to the next of kin because they have inherited it along with the rest of the deceased's property"""

    There is a precedent in Death Duties. The governments takes a proportion of a person's wealth 'for the good of the general public'. This wasn't the case before the law was changed - and the law can be changed again.

    I hate the thought of the government taking a good proportion of my money before my relatives get it but I have to accept it. I wouldn't want my loved ones body to be tampered with but if the law were changed I would have to accept that too.

    As for this panel of experts saying an opt-out system wouldn't add to the supply of organs, maybe they found that the vast majority would opt out. I would also opt out of paying Death Duties and Income tax but I can't so maybe my idea would be the only way of saving all those who need transplants.

    If individuals and companies could opt-out of paying taxes, do you imagine the government would be in a better or worse situation than it is today?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a precedent in Death Duties."

    Yes, of course there is. The state can demand some of your money from your next of kin when you die and I wouldn't have it any other way, but your earlier message implied surprise that our bodies don't automatically become state property upon death (of course, from the state's point of view our bodies are its property while we are alive, but that's another issue), and I was just pointing out that our bodies are treated the same way as the rest of our property on death.

    "As for this panel of experts saying an opt-out system wouldn't add to the supply of organs, maybe they found that the vast majority would opt out."

    I don't think they did. You'll need to look up their findings to see exactly what they said, but I believe a large part of it was to do with the fact that when most people die their organs are of no use for transplantation - most of us die old old and sick.

    Organ transplants depend basically on healthy young men dying in motorcycle accidents, and it is the reduction in these accidents along with the medical advances that make more and more people transplant candidates that has led to the drop in the availability of organs, not a lack of willingness to donate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The above comments are just a few from a cosiderable debate that ensued when I raised the same questions on a BBC ethics and religion message board......

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...the comments above are pasted from the bbc ethics message board where I raised the same issues.....30 people added their thoughts for which I am truly grateful.....

    ReplyDelete