http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/05/01/death.in.space.ap/index.html
Some interesting questions here. What policies would you suggest? Does the mission always come first? To what extent should Federal laws as to workplace discrimination and individual rights be relaxed - or even waived - on a manned Mars mission, for instance?
The mission should be approached like a special forces military mission. Only the best of the best need apply. Survival of the whole comes first. Mission second. Survival of the individual probably somewhere in between. Any other rights a distant third. Regular workplace guidelines shouldn’t apply. In space, no one can hear you file a grievance to the department of labor.
It sounds authoritarian and cold blooded, because it is. But, since the astronauts are volunteers and very smart people, they can choose not to go if they have a problem with it. It’s good that NASA is considering the hard questions before they come up. Even if the commander would have come to the same decision re: pulling the plug, he’ll be grateful that he can turn to the official guidelines for authority.
Whatever you do with an astronaut’s corpse, you should not leave it on Mars. Bacteria in his body might contaminate the local lifeforms (there are none so far as we know, but we can’t be sure).
I think that Menocchio has framed a response that I agree with. A trip to Mars would be nothing like a current work place, and to treat it as such would invite disaster.
However, the story linked to in the OP asks a very strange question:
I have to assume that NASA wouldn’t send a person on a ventilator on a long term space mission. In that case how could an injured crewman use up ‘precious oxygen’? Presumably, they allowed for X astronauts to get to Mars, should it matter if one is in a coma?
It might, if he/she were injured in some accident that also compromised the equipment’s ability to scrub/generate air.
At least sooner or later NASA’s gonna start coming up with policies on sex in space. Mixed-crew or not there’s no way to avoid it. And of course on a 3 year Mars mission some form of contraception would be a must, but what happens if it fails and a female astronaut gets pregnant anyway? An abortion would be the only viable option.
Solution: All-gay crew! 
Yeah, but male or female?
Maybe they can make a few extra dollars on that there pay per view.
I guess the easy solution is not sending life saving equipment in the mission. Just don’t pack that ventilator and then you don’t have to worry about whether a dying astronaut should be kept on it.
Other than that, what Menocchio said. This is not an opening for a greeter position in Walmart. They have “discriminated” on their selection process since the beginning of the program, what is different about this?
I’d be willing to bet that NASA requires all members of the crew to have themselves sterilized before leaving Earth. Not only to prevent accidental pregnancies along the way, but considering that the crew could potentially get dosed with some pretty heavy levels of radiation while they’re away from Earth, so there’s little to no chance that they’ll have some wierdly deformed kid upon their return to Earth.
Oh yeah! I saw that one. It was an episode of The Scary Door or something, right?
Wouldn’t the issue of contamination be sort of moot if LIVING humans had already been there?
Didn’t they do just that in Red Mars to begin forming a soil?
A pregnancy on the way or on the return would yield medical data for generation ships to the stars. 
What were the USSR episodes?
The crew of Apollo 13 was changed due to exposure to a childhood disease, was it not?
Not if they kept their pressure suits on, which they would.
Menoccio’s got it. Mars Expedition One will HAVE to be an extraordinary special mission run, at best, under protocols totally alien to anything “civil service”-like. Hell, that’s one of the main problems we have with support for manned spaceflight, that public opinion doesn’t seem to want to imagine it IS and will remain for quite a while, extreme, experimental, high-risk endeavor.
Ideally the live humans will maintain the proper protocols to minimize contamination from landing to departure and be gone*. Unless you packed an environment-tight coffin, eventually the remains of the deceased left behind would become exposed to the environment, including internal bacteria that may not have normally been floating around the airlock. But hell, yeah, even THAT means there WILL be some contamination if live humans are there.
Kind of inconvenient if nobody thought to pack diapers (especially in zero-g).
OMG! Zero-G lesbian orgy! :eek: 
They would not only have to keep their pressure suits on and sealed all the time (that’s just not going to happen - they’ll need to de-suit indoors to eat, wash, sleep, etc), they would also have to hermetically contain all of their bodily wastes.
I have to admit that I just don’t see the point of trying to keep Mars pristine. Aside from the fact that it’s probably as dead as a doornail, if human beings want to create a presence there, it’s going to become contaminated at some point.
I would state with complete conviction that a manned mission there will introduce Earth-based microbes of some kind; there’s no conceivable way our arrival could be totally clean. Sure, you can keep your pressure suit on, but there will be a microbe or two on the outside of your pressure suit from having been in the cabin. Or there will be microbes on the lander.
In fact, what am I talking about… we’ve already probably introduced Earth organisms to Mars via Viking, Sojourner, etc. etc.
Let’s go to Mars and bring our germs with us. There’s no native population there that will die off of smallpox.