I was with the author until he mentioned his belief that the end of this life is the beginning of another. If that is what he believes what evidence does he have?. For example does he have any evidence of what he was last time around?

As for body parts, when I am finished with the parts that make up the physical me, they are available for reuse except that, if I get my way, they will be well worn and, like a tyre with no tread, not much use to anyone.

As for the "personal me" I accept that when my brain starts to decompose that is the end of that. The only thing that lives on is the influences I have had on the lives of others. Hopefully, most of those influences will have been a significant benefit.

I have three arguments against the practice of spare human body parts. The first one is a purely practical one, that is the additional financial loading of the already overgrown health care system. Working with human bodyparts is an expensive operation, not just the actual medical procedure, but all the record keeping and the life-long aftercare.

The second is the moral issue of desecreting the human body by treating it just as a spare part repositry that can be cut to pieces and the bits doled out to eager recipients. It smacks of canibalism!

The third could be called a philosophical argument. Each person (I suppose each living being) is a product of million years of evolution, adapted to life in its given environment. One of evolution's regulating aspects is an overproduction of seeds, of young ones, of reproduction, to let nature weed out the offsprings not capable to make it through life on their own.
By artificially replacing naturally deficient body parts we are interfering with nature's check-system and so, quite possibly, perpetuate deficiencies in living bodies.

A possible fourth point is, that we should not forget the bottom line: The one thing our Earth has in over-abundance is humans.

Death is a process, not just a moment in time. It takes time for the etheric or energy body to completely separate from the gross physical body. During this time, the body should be kep undisturbed to encourage and allow complete release from the physical. The most important time is for the body to be kept undisturbed is the first two or three hours after death.

If possible, autopsy, organ donation and embalming should be avoided as these areinvasive and would be disturbing to the being during the death transition out of the physical. Even a bowel puncture (to drain the bowel contents and delay decomposition)is to be discouraged. After the initial two hours, the body may be moved to the place where a vigil will be held for 72 hours.

A vigil of service should be held for three days to serve the transition of the one who has died - to fully release identification and attachment to the body and mind, all his or her relations, and even all of the conditional world.

The purpose of the vigil is to help the deceased to release. Therefore, avoid doing anything to encourage holding on or clinging to the deceased as they once were. Instead, encourage the one who has died to move on with the necessary transition. People who are grieving heavily should do so away from the body and be well supported by friends and intimates.

After 3 days, the body should be cremated. This further serves the release of attachment to the physical body. Ashes should then be scattered - preferrably in moving water.

Donating organs and after death is described as a "gift of life for others". This is based on the belief that the "soul" immediately leaves the body at death and the body is just an empty shell. But people who have been with someone shortly after death often describe feeling a sense of presence in the room, not just an empty shell. The death transition takes time and after death the one who has died is still aware of his or her environment and is still identified with the now clinically dead body.

If the deceased observes the body being mutilated in any way, it can be quite disturbing. It is therefore preferable for the body to be kep undisturbed so the one who has died may relax into the transitional process and let the body go.

The reason for the 3 day vigil is that intially the etheric entity may linger after separating from the body. The person notices what is going on, sees the body and sees others and feels what they feel.

There is a certain mobility to the etheric entity. After death, the etheric separates from the form of the physical, but it is still the same person with that personality. Depending on the person, he or she can become attached or confused, or even have difficulty realizing that he has died, or feel reluctance, or suddenly have great feelings of attachments to places or to the body itself.

The etheric entity must die yet, there is no suffering in this death. The continuing existence of the etheric is the temporary status of the entity after death. The condition of the individual determines what goes on in the process of relinquishing the etheric.

A ghost is simply an etheric entity that cannot relinquish people or places, so it remains associated with and trapped in the physical plane.

The barbaric Western notion of a funeral allows people to indulge in their attachment. Instead of doing what they should be doing, people dramatize attachment. They thus fail to serve the individual, which leads to confusion.

After clinical death it is useful to tell the deceased to relax. People who have died are yet aware of the environment for the initial period of their transition, so it is imporatant to tell them what is happening.

Tell them if the body is to be moved and where it is to be moved. If you know a person is likely to be disturbed about someone or something, you can reassure him that the concern will be addressed or the matter will be handled. If the death was sudden, it is especially important to tell the person that he or she has died, since such a persons confusion about what is occurring may last longer that someone whose death was expected.

Speak directly into the ear, slowly and firmly. As the energy of the being exits the body a great deal of stimulation occurs in the brain core, generating sights and sounds. If you are the one speaking, you must speak steadily and clearly to assist the being in the transitional process. This streaming of energy exiting from the body may last for up to an hour initially, and though the person who has died may not be able to hear what is being said with the physical ear, he can receive the message on a psychic level.

If you are in a circumstance where it would not be appropriate or possible to give such instructions out loud, intend them strongly and clearly with your mind.

Instructions to be read:

There is a strong attractive forrce felt upwards. Let yourself feel that force.

There is also an upward-moving sound. It is an intense Vibration that can be heard and that moves high above.

Let yourself be drawn upward by that sound and be moved by that.

There is also a profound bliss felt above.

Let yourself be attracted upward by that feeling of bliss.

Eventually, you will see that attractive light above, the brilliant white light.

Hold to the center, hold to the upward attraction.

Let go of everything.

Relinquish everything.

Allow yourself to be attracted and drawn - straight, like an arrow - into that white Brightness, that bliss, that vibratory force, or sound.

Allow all sense of separateness and otherness to be dissolved above, in the un-conditional force of Being Itself, the Divine Self-Domain.

Thank you Ian for dealing with the topic; you may be interested in this:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4033162.html

'(Dan 12:2) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

(Dan 12:3) And those who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the sky; and those who turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars forever and ever. '

(Mat 25:32) And all nations shall be gathered before Him. And He shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.

(Mat 25:33) And indeed He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats off the left.

(Mat 25:34) Then the King shall say to those on His right hand, Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

(Mat 25:35) For I was hungry, and you gave me food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you took Me in;

(Mat 25:36) I was naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.

uly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you have done it to Me.

(Mat 25:41) Then He also shall say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.

(Mat 25:42) For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me no drink;

(Mat 25:43) I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; I was naked, and you did not clothe Me; I was sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.

An interesting article, and thank you for the courteous and genuine way in which you invite responses.

Personally, I have no problem with organ donation and would be happy for my organs to be used if they will help someone (though like Foyle, I suspect their quality might not be that great!). Once we are dead, we have no further use for the body. It is possible to treat a body respectfully and still harvest its organs – many of us anyway will have been through some pretty unpleasant and invasive processes prior to death.

I can understand Daffy Duck’s concerns if s/he believes a spirit attends the body after death, but that is not my own belief.

Alfred’s points about the cost of transplants, their effect of extending life and over-population would apply equally to many forms of medical intervention, not just transplants. Perhaps we should have a serious debate about when and whether we should continue to preserve life, but banning transplants would really resolve that issue.

We should respect people’s beliefs and wishes, so a potential donor’s wishes should be paramount, but personally I’d prefer an “opt out” system that presumes people are willing to donate unless they specify otherwise.

Runner

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:41-44

Rhian

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:41-44

No arguement with me on this one.

It is regretfully fully predictable that an article such as this will bring out the usual selective biblical tripe from Runner, and the baseless mystical twaddle espoused by Daffy Duck. There is not one shred of evidence for any of it. There is only body, and if upon my death any of my body parts are of use to anyone in extending or bettering their life, then they are welcome to them. This includes cannibalism, and also includes the right to donate my body parts if I wish to do so before my death - even if such a donation of itself results in my death. I would hope to reach a time in my life where I would willingly die if by doing so a child might live, and I believe that I should be allowed to make this choice.
Unlike Runner et al I have no fear of the state of death (although I do fear the actual process which is generally messy and painful) or any retribution from any imaginary god.

Good afternoon to you MR D. DUCK...

By the sound of your lengthy thread, you have an inherent fear of death ? The fear that at some point in time you'll die. And you worry not only when, but how, and will you suffer, during the actual process of dying ?

I'm old, and as the say '...the old 'must' die, the young 'may' die...' A simple play on words to be sure, though with an element of truth.

Before you leap through the computer and give me a 'kicking' for being so presumptuous even audacious, may I briefly explain. The last two years of service before I retired, I was given a 'kushy' job where life was far less demanding - There, I had the opportunity to witness (scrupulous close), the sequel of death.

A bloke who'd been there for many years (a man of an entirely different vocation, to that of mine), once told me, the more a person babbles on about their own death. Or talks incessantly of their own mortality. Forever, trying to think through, or rationale the many religious intricacies apropos their own death. To the point of actually examining the stages, process, even techniques associated with attempting to delay their (own) point of actually dying - These sad folk do in fact, have an implacable fear of the actual moment of their own death. The point of just 'slipping away', if you like ?

And the fear in these people is never more evident (according to this bloke), whenever they have the regrettable need to attend this establishment.

My advice to you D. DUCK, or to anyone else for that matter, is just forget about it ! It'll come to you, in fact to everyone. Quickly enough without excessively pondering upon; what'll happen, when it'll happen, and how it'll happen. None of us really knows, unless you go neck yourself or something ?

GYM-FISH sensible E-Mail, death does not bother me at all, I will be as I was before I came, I knew nothing then and will know nothing after I go, I will not miss any person family friend or foe, likewise they will not miss me when they go or have gone before I do, we are dead, and if left without attendance we would soon become maggot and ant infested and every thing else to make us rot and eaten away as quickly as possible. As you mentioned the time before death does worry me as it is ugly, with dignity loss and very severe pain normally, I do feel that if my body parts are of use to someone else, then take them, they are no more of use to me, and to save someone else's life would be my every wish.
When somebody can show me a soul or spirit now, or any other death phenom omen I will then start to believe as other writers believe that out there somewhere is a God, Goddess or Fairy written in a book created a long time ago where truth cannot be verified by anyone.

'evening to you GYM-FISH and OJNAB...

I believe both of you have a pretty good handle on this topic, and like you two, my only real concern is 'how' I may die. There are deaths and there are deaths. Self-Immolation, or a dreadful 'fatal' would be horrible. Going off in my sleep would be the ideal I believe. Anyway, both of you have a healthy view on this dreary subject. Thus, all I can say is 'goodnight' !

“To my Buddhist reasoning”

I thought attachment to physical existence was something Buddhists want to overcome.

“false teeth, artificial limbs”

And that's a completely different scenario, with no significant moral or ethical element, unless you're an anti-plastic/anti-mining freak.

“There should be no opting out"

Excuse me, who the hell do you think you are?
This is *my* body, not yours or the government's or even my family's.
How dare you treat me in such a superficial manner!

Not only should there *always* be an opt-out, but it should be opt-in to begin with.

Not only are you presuming everyone supports your definitions and opinions about life, death, the body and disease, but you are *prohibiting dissent* from your definitions and opinions.

This is a bad precedent to set, if we want to live in a society that respects the individual, their liberty, free will, property.

Once violation of these principles is acceptable for the dead, what justification is there for these principles for the living?
What's to stop the deliberate killing of people deemed socially inferior/inadequate, to prolong the lives of worthier “contributors”/”winners”/”leaders”?

These attitudes just creep me out.
I genuinely fear what atrocities this rationalist/materialist perspective could bring into being.

And all because people can't just accept disease and death.
Me, me, me. I must survive a little longer, by any means necessary.
PATHETIC!

The irony is, these rationalist body-parts types are also rabidly anti-racist.

Yet, if they were truly “logical”, and wanted everyone donating, they should be demanding: No immigrants who aren't tissue-compatible (i.e. same ancestry as main population).
Don't hold your breath waiting for consistency with these types.

And don't lecture Daffy and runner about “fear of death”.
Lecture the guy taking the heart from another man's corpse.
He's the one who needs to come to terms with mortality.

I have nothing against any of my organs that may be of use, being put to use. However I do believe that organ transplant is & should be beyond any publicly funded health care.

If someone is prepared to pay for organ transplant, OK by me, but public funded transplant will destroy the health system as we know it. Even now it is becoming unaffordable due to the increasingly high tech investment involved.

Better more stent treatments & gallstone operations rather than just a few heart lung transplant operations in my book. We really do need to start to look at the possibility of a patient repaying the community with their future contribution, when considering ultra expensive treatments.

I particularly like the first two comments on this thread - by Foyle and Alfred - and tend to agree with three of Alfred's four reservations regarding transplantation. (I don't agree with this being viewed as desecration or cannibalism, but I believe the wishes and religious convictions of the deceased should always be fully respected - even if they differ from the wishes or convictions espoused by the immediate family and/or next of kin.)

Organ transplantation is costly (potentially impacting on provision of other general healthcare services), may artificially enable some to pass on detrimental (recessive) genes (thereby multiplying associated long term demands on finite healthcare services), and existing population levels are already stressing the planet's finite resources and capacity to absorb humanity's abuse of natural systems.

That said, I am a registered organ donor, and support organ donation generally, but with one reservation - I believe transplantation should be primarily employed to repair damage occasioned by accident or infection, as against unduly prolonging life in those whose organs have reached their natural use-by date. However, I can have no objection to warranted transplantation to save a young life, as long as that intervention does not facilitate such individuals propagating severely detrimental genes. (Where a young female with a congenital defect may be saved by organ transplant, and such defect may be passed on to any progeny, it possibly should be mandatory that the individual agree either not to propagate or to the automatic termination of any foetus determined as carrying a recessive gene, or otherwise to being surgically sterilised, as a condition of the transplant surgery. Similarly, any male carrying such a gene, capable of propagation to offspring, might have to agree to surgical sterilisation as a condition of receiving a life-saving transplant - because it would not be possible to impose relevant foetal testing and possible termination on any future female partner.) Tough conditions certainly, but in the interest of maximising benefits and minimising downstream risk. Too draconian?

Opt-in - yes; Opt-out - no. Optimally, relatives should not overturn the duly declared wishes of the deceased.

There's no need to wait till you're dead: you've probably got some spare blood you don't need which the nice people at the blood bank would be happy to alleviate you of (if you tick all their boxes).

Cheers,

Tony