decemberfox
Member
Holy crap Des has sex with dead people =Ogamingfan1989":3r6gr02l said:
=] check your definitions first, buddy.
Bury Your Dead?
- Thread starter sixtyandaquarter
- Start date
=] check your definitions first, buddy.
I have to agree with Sixty, it's a real shame peoples' weird superstitions potentially cost so many lives. I mean you guys do realize that your organs are removed when you die anyway, to prevent unsightly decomposition of your corpse? Either they get cut out and thrown away or they get cut out and put in somebody still living. You don't even currently have an absolute right to object to an autopsy in many places.
You have to try to think of it from the perspective you'll hold when the situation crops up, not your current perspective. You can't really know for sure how you'll feel or how you'll react to something until given the opportunity. As a corpse, you're dead, so your projected sentimentality is entirely irrelevant. You are no longer extant and thus have no opinion. The molestations your remains may suffer will trigger neither pain nor disgust, and aren't subject to humiliation or embarrassment as they don't constitute a person, just a slowly decomposing bag of organic matter with all the dignity of a beached jellyfish.
Really though, what makes me angry about sentimentality regarding the dead is its exploitation in the funerary industry. These assholes, fucking ASSHOLES, charge people exorbitant fees for cremation, let alone the cost they put on a wooden box with some fabric inside and the price to dissect and airbrush a corpse. They exploit real human grief and misery for a quick buck and prey on guilt and superstition to keep the con going. These fuckers will actually try to guilt your friends and relatives into buying a nice wooden box to put your body parts into before burning the whole package to ash for a fee of several thousand dollars if you request cremation. Then they'll try to talk you into buying a cheaply manufactured ceramic urn to put those ashes in, and try to hawk all kinds of other gewgaws (how about 300 dollars for a gold plated cylinder on a neckchain to put a little drop of that ash in? would you like to send a gram of your relative's ash into space on a satellite for the low low price of ten thousand dollars? You did love grandpa right? How could you disrespect him by not giving us your money for stupid shit?). What's worse than all that is that the law mandates you have to go through these fuckers to get the job done, so if you don't fork out a couple grand for a cremation, and yes it costs that much these days, or several grand for a box and a hole to put them in, you can actually get fined or go to jail.
I hate those bastards more than I hate almost any group of sick fucks on the planet, and that's a short list for me because there aren't a lot of people who are sick enough to raise my ire. I advocate donating your body to science just to stay out of their hands, even if you don't have a philanthropic bone in your body.
@Shadowball: It's spongiform encephalopathy or Creutzfelt-Jakobs disease, the exact same disease that causes mad cow. It's a common result of consuming nerve tissue from ones own species; cows had it because until recently farmers used to burn up dead cows and feed them back to other cows (and some evidence shows this is still being done in the US and elsewhere despite bans). The fact that cow prions, which cause the disease, happen to affect humans is coincidental but the result is the same. Pigs and chickens get it to but their encephalopathy doesn't transmit to humans.
You have to try to think of it from the perspective you'll hold when the situation crops up, not your current perspective. You can't really know for sure how you'll feel or how you'll react to something until given the opportunity. As a corpse, you're dead, so your projected sentimentality is entirely irrelevant. You are no longer extant and thus have no opinion. The molestations your remains may suffer will trigger neither pain nor disgust, and aren't subject to humiliation or embarrassment as they don't constitute a person, just a slowly decomposing bag of organic matter with all the dignity of a beached jellyfish.
Really though, what makes me angry about sentimentality regarding the dead is its exploitation in the funerary industry. These assholes, fucking ASSHOLES, charge people exorbitant fees for cremation, let alone the cost they put on a wooden box with some fabric inside and the price to dissect and airbrush a corpse. They exploit real human grief and misery for a quick buck and prey on guilt and superstition to keep the con going. These fuckers will actually try to guilt your friends and relatives into buying a nice wooden box to put your body parts into before burning the whole package to ash for a fee of several thousand dollars if you request cremation. Then they'll try to talk you into buying a cheaply manufactured ceramic urn to put those ashes in, and try to hawk all kinds of other gewgaws (how about 300 dollars for a gold plated cylinder on a neckchain to put a little drop of that ash in? would you like to send a gram of your relative's ash into space on a satellite for the low low price of ten thousand dollars? You did love grandpa right? How could you disrespect him by not giving us your money for stupid shit?). What's worse than all that is that the law mandates you have to go through these fuckers to get the job done, so if you don't fork out a couple grand for a cremation, and yes it costs that much these days, or several grand for a box and a hole to put them in, you can actually get fined or go to jail.
I hate those bastards more than I hate almost any group of sick fucks on the planet, and that's a short list for me because there aren't a lot of people who are sick enough to raise my ire. I advocate donating your body to science just to stay out of their hands, even if you don't have a philanthropic bone in your body.
@Shadowball: It's spongiform encephalopathy or Creutzfelt-Jakobs disease, the exact same disease that causes mad cow. It's a common result of consuming nerve tissue from ones own species; cows had it because until recently farmers used to burn up dead cows and feed them back to other cows (and some evidence shows this is still being done in the US and elsewhere despite bans). The fact that cow prions, which cause the disease, happen to affect humans is coincidental but the result is the same. Pigs and chickens get it to but their encephalopathy doesn't transmit to humans.
Scribblette
Member
Yikes, those got increasingly too long for me to read, especially with my damaged little brain. But, a couple of points here...
I'd love for parts of my body to save someone else's life. For every bit of me that goes on after I die, I live that little bit longer, and I give someone else that little bit more time to appreciate life. And when you've been that close to the edge, you REALLY appreciate it.
All that bothers me is I want my parts back together, afterwards - but only because I want them all together, near where ever my fiancee/wife winds up in the end. I want my heart near hers, and if we died together, I'd want to be with her.
Whatever reality comes next, if our bodies have any impact on it whatsoever, be it simply to nourish a tree, I want to travel it with her.
And I'd want my birdies buried near me too. ^_^
I dunno. If I can't have all that, maybe just a preserved strand of DNA or hair or something, wrapped up in hers, and feathers.
I'm also in a stupid sad mood right now. :P
I don't think they remove all your organs for all bodies, Mr N. That must vary by culture and country. I don't recall them doing that with my relatives in Pakistan. If they did, however, I'd want my organs all going to save lives.
I'd love for parts of my body to save someone else's life. For every bit of me that goes on after I die, I live that little bit longer, and I give someone else that little bit more time to appreciate life. And when you've been that close to the edge, you REALLY appreciate it.
All that bothers me is I want my parts back together, afterwards - but only because I want them all together, near where ever my fiancee/wife winds up in the end. I want my heart near hers, and if we died together, I'd want to be with her.
Whatever reality comes next, if our bodies have any impact on it whatsoever, be it simply to nourish a tree, I want to travel it with her.
And I'd want my birdies buried near me too. ^_^
I dunno. If I can't have all that, maybe just a preserved strand of DNA or hair or something, wrapped up in hers, and feathers.
I'm also in a stupid sad mood right now. :P
I don't think they remove all your organs for all bodies, Mr N. That must vary by culture and country. I don't recall them doing that with my relatives in Pakistan. If they did, however, I'd want my organs all going to save lives.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Very true, different cultures have different practices.Scribblette":ghisjbir said:
In the US it is quite common to have major organs removed, not just in autopsy. Even so, bodies are AMAZINGLY mangled afterwards, particularly with autopsies. It is not uncommon to be buried with pvc piping to support your frame, mainly for those viewing the body - as you'll still look human. For example an autopsy involving a a tumor may have parts of the body ravaged on the inside, creating a sort of divot. A dent.
At times in the past simple straw or even small bags of sand were actually put into the body, in an attempt to remold the shape. Consider if a tumor in your neck killed you, and the tumor and some tissue removed. Your neck, which is visible, may sag inwardly. This helps. If you were highly damaged in a car crash, there have been times where entire femurs and other bones were removed and replaced with cheap material, so that your leg still held the shape of a leg.
It's considered "fair" in these cases because your attempting to help the grieving in an open casket funeral. It's like putting makeup on the corpse, to appear presentable. There was a famous case, and it was spoofed in one of the CSI shows. I don't remember what was used in the real case, but in the show a person ran out of pvc pipe so they used an umbrella. Another case saw the skull so badly damaged, a soft ball was put under the skin, and part of the flesh actually stapled into the soft ball, to help hold shape.
I guess Mr. N meant that the mandatory need to bury the deceased ones according to the State's law makes the whole process quite anti-democratic since not everyone may be able to afford that much money. In the USA that may not be a common issue, but elsewhere that may even mean that you won't be able to pay the debts but after a year or two... It's one of the most extremist features of capitalism that I hate, too, even if I'm not really against capitalism and private property.
Organs have to be removed in the embalming process or they swell up and emit nasty smelling fluids and gasses during decomposition. I'm not sure what they do in other countries but anywhere where the body it embalmed before it's interred all soft tissue has to be removed. The remainder of the body, the skin muscles and bones essentially, is drained of fluids and the fluids are replaced with embalming fluid, then the corpse is sewn up, dressed up and airbrushed or spray-painted to give it a more lifelike appearance.
@Shadowball: it's not so much that you are forced by law to have bodies professionally interred or cremated, which is understandable from a health & safety point of view. It's that the law grants a virtual monopoly to the mortuary industry, which is becoming more and more a cartel. Like most other industries in the United States, mortuaries, though they may seem to be local and private, are by and large owned by one of a few very large national corporations. This kind of control, combined with the exploitation of people's grief, allows them to charge prices that have nothing whatsoever to do with an actual reflection of costs. There is no competition in the industry and no regulation so there's no way to combat the whole thing. It's total and complete exploitation.
@Shadowball: it's not so much that you are forced by law to have bodies professionally interred or cremated, which is understandable from a health & safety point of view. It's that the law grants a virtual monopoly to the mortuary industry, which is becoming more and more a cartel. Like most other industries in the United States, mortuaries, though they may seem to be local and private, are by and large owned by one of a few very large national corporations. This kind of control, combined with the exploitation of people's grief, allows them to charge prices that have nothing whatsoever to do with an actual reflection of costs. There is no competition in the industry and no regulation so there's no way to combat the whole thing. It's total and complete exploitation.
You can't really say "well you're being superstitious and don't know what's going to happen to your body" as an excuse for why people shouldn't bury their dead. People should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their body. Hell, if I had my way I'd have my body tied to puppet strings attached to a low flying helicopter and paraded about town while haunting Disney tunes played in the background. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, but I'd like to think in a perfect world so long as my body was disinfected and the airspace safe it could happen.
The only problem is the government coming in and saying "that's ours." The government already takes a shitload from all of us, be damned if they took your body as well. Next they'll work on taking your mind.
... Oh wait.
The only problem is the government coming in and saying "that's ours." The government already takes a shitload from all of us, be damned if they took your body as well. Next they'll work on taking your mind.
... Oh wait.
In principle I agree that you have a right to say what happens to your corpse, but I think its a real shame to make the decision based on superstition and sentimentality, especially regarding organ donation. One way or other the organs are coming out (or in the case of cremation turn into a couple grams of ash indistinguishable from the rest). Why not allow them to go to saving a life?
Mr. N":3vd45phf said:
Because I feel that it's a cultural thing that keeps people burying their dead. Hell, lots of non-religious or spiritual people get buried. If you wanted to change things you'd have to change the culture. Since no one knows what happens after you die, and since most people are not accustomed to death or even thinking about it, it will remain a vanity, spiritual and personal choice. The only other way is if the government stepped in to try and push things in a progressive direction and that's the worst thing that could happen.
That and I have a petty personal reason for saying "fuck you" to people waiting for organs.
Social change starts with information distribution and heightening awareness. If more people understood that their organs didn't get buried with them in the first place perhaps they'd be more inclined to donate them. As for petty reasons, whatever they may be I can hardly understand why a person halfway across the country waiting for a heart, liver or kidney is a worthy target for your ire.
The best and strongest argument against becoming an organ donor is the fear that a person with a donor card may be given less preferential treatment when they are in critical conditions after accidents due to a subconscious (or simply evil) bias that they are likely to die anyway and the organs could be going to somebody with a reasonable chance to live. There needs to be proper safeguards against this problem.
The best and strongest argument against becoming an organ donor is the fear that a person with a donor card may be given less preferential treatment when they are in critical conditions after accidents due to a subconscious (or simply evil) bias that they are likely to die anyway and the organs could be going to somebody with a reasonable chance to live. There needs to be proper safeguards against this problem.
But you can't just take out some organs and hand them off to someone else. They have to be fresh, especially kidneys, which can only be removed while the donor is still alive and must be transferred usually within 15 minutes or so. And, as such doctors keep allowing some patients to die for the sake of other patients to live. When you increase organ donation you increase the idea that organs are a commodity, a product that can be bought, sold and traded without care for human life. I'm sure members of the Falun Gong could write pages for you to read about why creating such a situation isn't a peachy idea. That's my problem, and why I'm not an organ donor. It then becomes a situation where if you get in an accident depending on the severity you might get treatment or die to help someone I don't know or care about.
Furthermore I don't know who the organs are going to. I've donated blood before, but to people who I know. Someone who needs a liver might need it because they have liver cancer... Or they're a violent alchoholic. A person in need of a lung might need it because of an illness or because they were shot in a gang related incident and plan on getting revenge where and when they get the chance. While you and Sixty have nice ideas you can't expect anyone else to change their minds. I'm sure if people knew their organs would be removed anyway after death they might sign onboard, but if they also knew there's a chance a doctor might not help them while they're still alive then you'd lose potential donors.
That and there's something inherently condescending about the way the government sees the problem (the first time I went there it played some crappy gospel music.) And the pretentious attitude donors have to people who aren't donors. Once you have safeguards against harvest happy surgeons and better systems in place we'll talk. Of course by then we'll have stem cell grown organs so...
Furthermore I don't know who the organs are going to. I've donated blood before, but to people who I know. Someone who needs a liver might need it because they have liver cancer... Or they're a violent alchoholic. A person in need of a lung might need it because of an illness or because they were shot in a gang related incident and plan on getting revenge where and when they get the chance. While you and Sixty have nice ideas you can't expect anyone else to change their minds. I'm sure if people knew their organs would be removed anyway after death they might sign onboard, but if they also knew there's a chance a doctor might not help them while they're still alive then you'd lose potential donors.
That and there's something inherently condescending about the way the government sees the problem (the first time I went there it played some crappy gospel music.) And the pretentious attitude donors have to people who aren't donors. Once you have safeguards against harvest happy surgeons and better systems in place we'll talk. Of course by then we'll have stem cell grown organs so...
The solution to that problem isn't to stop organ donation, it's to ensure proper safeguards are put in place to prevent abuse. For instance, in theory we could keep a person's donation choice secret until the moment of confirmed death so that doctors can't have their decisions and efforts influenced.
As far as the question of who the organs are going to, that's not really a fair argument at all. Sure the organs could be going to someone you don't like, but if your decision is based solely on the fact that you don't want to help people just in case you might not like them you're essentially sentencing those people to misery and death based on nothing but a (massively ignorant and lazy) prejudice.
Saying "there's problems with the system, therefore the whole thing should be tossed out or ignored" is a non-solution. That's an intellectually lazy answer, which requires absolutely no action or responsibility on your part. If you think organ donation is good in principle but the system is flawed you ought to be trying to fix the system, either through action or at the very least through supporting good action through your vote.
If you think organ donation is bad in principle because the organs might go to people you don't like, on the other hand, I don't even know how to reply to that. Its monstrous, frankly.
As far as the question of who the organs are going to, that's not really a fair argument at all. Sure the organs could be going to someone you don't like, but if your decision is based solely on the fact that you don't want to help people just in case you might not like them you're essentially sentencing those people to misery and death based on nothing but a (massively ignorant and lazy) prejudice.
Saying "there's problems with the system, therefore the whole thing should be tossed out or ignored" is a non-solution. That's an intellectually lazy answer, which requires absolutely no action or responsibility on your part. If you think organ donation is good in principle but the system is flawed you ought to be trying to fix the system, either through action or at the very least through supporting good action through your vote.
If you think organ donation is bad in principle because the organs might go to people you don't like, on the other hand, I don't even know how to reply to that. Its monstrous, frankly.
And it's still my opinion. Same as anyone else's opinion on what they want to do with their body when they die. You may see my opinion as ignorant or lazy but it is still my opinion. Should your will be forced unto me because you disagree? Do you see me as some monster lording over my organs selfishly? They're mine, I can do what I want with them. If we were to open organ donations where would we stop? Who owns a person's body? What about DNA, is that owned by the individual or the public?
I'm not saying "there's a problem with the system so let's not do anything" I'm saying there's a problem with people so we should find a new solution. Personally it disinterest's me so I feel no need to give a care, or at least not enough to be able to make a discernible difference. Also, who says I'm not voting in favor of the things I want? Do you think I just idly sit about complaining about things all the time?
So here's the situation: you'd ask me to become an organ donor, or at least you're trying to change my mind. The reality of the situation is, you really can't do anything but convince me, sell me on the idea. In the end what anyone does with their body is there's to choose. All you can do is change public opinion through what you say and do. Calling someone else's opinions (no matter how monstrous or lazy they seem) lazy, ignorant, etc isn't the way to go, as I'd hope you'd realize. Much like many of the threads on this forum, things should be one way (the majority feels), but they aren't due to public opinion. It's best to supply people knowledge and let them make a choice on their own, instead of the old formula of information plus a spoonful of bias. But since people are so fucking stupid that's never going to go away entirely... Which is another reason why I wouldn't donate organs.
...
Despite that, I still chose to be an organ donor on my driver's license. I fucking wish it got me less tickets :P
Last thing I say before I beat Assassin's Creed and God-forbid work on my goddamn RPG: A person's opinion is there opinion no matter what. A person's body is there own no matter what. It's important to discuss things and give counter-points, but when it comes to opinion I feel you just stick with it, change it, or fucking leave the country. The thread originally was about what to do with the dead, and while it supplied some interesting, frightening and funny concepts in the end it became sixty trying to understand why people care so damn much about what happens to them after they die. I'm not sure if he understood or ever will, but that's no reason to dismiss the opinions of people who care.
No one choses to be born, and letting people do whatever they want with their brains, bodies and whatever else imaginary soul-appendages is the least we can do.
I'm not saying "there's a problem with the system so let's not do anything" I'm saying there's a problem with people so we should find a new solution. Personally it disinterest's me so I feel no need to give a care, or at least not enough to be able to make a discernible difference. Also, who says I'm not voting in favor of the things I want? Do you think I just idly sit about complaining about things all the time?
So here's the situation: you'd ask me to become an organ donor, or at least you're trying to change my mind. The reality of the situation is, you really can't do anything but convince me, sell me on the idea. In the end what anyone does with their body is there's to choose. All you can do is change public opinion through what you say and do. Calling someone else's opinions (no matter how monstrous or lazy they seem) lazy, ignorant, etc isn't the way to go, as I'd hope you'd realize. Much like many of the threads on this forum, things should be one way (the majority feels), but they aren't due to public opinion. It's best to supply people knowledge and let them make a choice on their own, instead of the old formula of information plus a spoonful of bias. But since people are so fucking stupid that's never going to go away entirely... Which is another reason why I wouldn't donate organs.
...
Despite that, I still chose to be an organ donor on my driver's license. I fucking wish it got me less tickets :P
Last thing I say before I beat Assassin's Creed and God-forbid work on my goddamn RPG: A person's opinion is there opinion no matter what. A person's body is there own no matter what. It's important to discuss things and give counter-points, but when it comes to opinion I feel you just stick with it, change it, or fucking leave the country. The thread originally was about what to do with the dead, and while it supplied some interesting, frightening and funny concepts in the end it became sixty trying to understand why people care so damn much about what happens to them after they die. I'm not sure if he understood or ever will, but that's no reason to dismiss the opinions of people who care.
No one choses to be born, and letting people do whatever they want with their brains, bodies and whatever else imaginary soul-appendages is the least we can do.
But. They. Are. Dead.
That's the biggest thing that I have a hard time getting over. The "decision" doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever. You're dead. Dead. I cannot stress it enough and it makes me wonder if you people understand the concept of dead. It's not your body anymore, because there is no "you". Nothing is "yours" anymore. It doesn't matter what happens to the empty shell.
Hell I could have these really specific burial instructions in my will and die happy because of it, but then I die and something happens and my body ends up falling off the back of a truck and some redneck finds it and has sex with it. Do I give a shit? No. Because I am not aware that it is happening. I am dead. I NO LONGER EXIST. What happens to "my" corpse doesn't matter at all. I went to death thinking that my burial instructions from my will would be fulfilled, and that's good enough for me!
The specific beliefs you hold upon which you base your arguments in favor of superstition are ignorant on the grounds that they don't account for the fact that organs will be removed regardless of whether they go to a useful or non-useful purpose and are not included with the corpse when it's interred. Therefore not donating based on the superstition that your organs have to be buried with you is ignorant, whether or not you're entitled to the superstition, and regardless of whether the superstition is valid.ixis":3897yxgz said:
As to the laziness...
If you're going to state that you are against organ donation because you're afraid that some donated organs will go to "bad people", you open the door to others giving an opinion about that belief. I'm making an argument that your position is both illogical and ethically foul. Based on that logic we might as well get rid of medicine in general, because a fraction of the millions of people treated by physicians every day might somehow deserve their condition. Maybe you should stop paying taxes since the government services you're paying for benefit bad people, and leave all the good people out in the cold in the process. Your basic assertion seems to be it's better to let everyone suffer than risk helping someone undeserving based on your moral standards, or worse yet that all people are stupid and thus undeserving of a second chance at life from a superior being such as yourself. That's atrociously conceited.
In the alternative form, that is that "I could donate organs, but what if they go to someone bad" not as some sort of passive aggressive attack on society but rather as way to dismiss the argument that organ donation is a good ethical choice you pose a narrow circumstance where organ donation could result in some sort of social harm and thereby dismiss a rule with an exception. That is intellectual laziness, as you're making an simple excuse to not have to think about the implications of a complex problem. In debate dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter or converse fallacy of accident, wherein you argue the rule from an exception.
I already acknowledge the legitimacy of your fear that you will be left to die so your organs can be harvested.
In general don't make an opinionated and offensive statement and then complain that's only an opinion and not fair grounds for counterpoint, it's poor form. You're entitled to your opinion, and if you state it here you're entitled to have it dissected and criticized.
Well you'd have to assume that with that system would come a quick and convenient way to determine a potential donor's preferences after death. For instance it could be concealed in a driver's license in such a way that you'd have to destroy or visibly modify the license to determine the preference, or it could be contained in a sealed portion of the patient's medical records, or I'm sure a number of other solutions.shadowball":nx19ye80 said:
You obviously wouldn't want to rely on relatives to relay the wishes of the dead, that's the same reason we have the Last Will and Testament rather than just asking the deceased's next of kin how he wanted to divide his estate.