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