Wills are about disposition of property. A body isn’t property it’s just a carcass that needs to be disposed of. The government already mandates that it be disposed of. If the body can be looted for spare parts first, so much the better. There is no rio such thing as a right of a carcass to keep its organs.
Okay, one, to the best of my knowledge no religion on Earth has a requirement remotely similar to that. I suspect that’s because many of them evolved in a time with lower standards of medical knowledge, and the ancients were nothing if not practical.
Two, sometimes issues are more than just moral. Requiring someone to actively help to save another’s life - that’s a morality issue. Requiring someone to refrain from actively endangering another’s life is a moral issue too, but it’s also a different kind of issue. I want to use the word ‘ethical’, but it’s not quite what I’m looking for. If we didn’t outlaw murder, everyone would be worried about the next person on the street killing them on a whim, and society would disintegrate. I’ll call it socio-ethical. So while it’s not okay to outlaw murder because ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ - it is okay to outlaw murder because we would face enormous hardship cooperating as a civilization if we didn’t. Public Health laws designed to prevent the spread of disease (which I suspect is the purpose of any law that prevents you from propping up your folks in the manner you describe) clearly serve that second function.
That said, I’m not sure that the scenario you describe is against the law everywhere - not really familiar with those laws of the dead.
However, if there was a way for you to accomplish the propping-up while not allowing for the spread of disease (FuneralCo’s new Plexi-Dome™! For All your Corpse-Propping Needs) then that should be allowed.
What are those conditions, exactly? If we’re talking about “We have to find out if the Mutaba Virus incubating inside him had time to mature, so we can quarantine Anytown in time!” then it’s a violation, but a necessary violation socio-ethically. (I love my new word.)
Absolutely wrong. Not only is your opinion at odds with current legal standards, but it’s at odds with common sense as well. Your body’s the first thing you own. And the one thing that’s indisputably yours. Why should it get less respect than your collection of ALF pogs?
Murder victims (or possible victims) are specifically what I had in mind. I’m sure there are public health exceptions too. Thing is, if you grant this, you are accepting that society can have an interest in what happens to a corpse regardless of what the person wanted while alive. My understanding of your argument is that society can have no such overriding interest.
Your constant repetition does not make this statement true.
Besides, if this were true, how come many states have laws against desecration of a corpse?
Indeed, the government has no moral right to invade the integrity of a corpse via autopsy without the permission of the deceased or his next-of-kin. The fact that the government quite often forces autopsies to be performed on corpses only shows its moral turpitude.
Your understanding is incorrect. As noted in my response to belladonna.
You can’t override someone’s rights to prolong life for a finite number of people - so what if his organs will be transplanted into, and give a few extra years to, half a dozen people? While it might be within your moral imperative to do just that - everyone has a different moral code. Just because you’ve outlived him doesn’t mean yours is superior. (Ooh, Wrath of Khan flashback. But I digress…)
In the case of analysis for disease, you’re making a temporary infringement (you can put the samples back in his grave later, really) to prevent the deaths of an indefinite number of people. And believe me, this is only justifiable socioethically if we’re talking about an ebola-style megavirus; Asian Bird Flu ain’t gonna cut it. It has to be a situation where “If we don’t infringe on this person’s rights, society as we know it is in danger of collapse.”
The murder investigation - eh. Hard to say. Personally, I have an overdeveloped sense of justice, love seeing criminals brought down. So I’m a bit biased towards allowing it. But, admitting that, it seems to me that making the small allowances for autopsies to investigate murders is part and parcel of our socioethical outlawing of the act of murder itself.
You most certainly have. Deciding upon the disposition of one’s estate is a right, and is exercised while alive.
Dig up some bodies. When Mister Policeman shows up, explain that you haven’t committed any crime because the bodies are just stuff that is lying around to which nobody has any particular right (which, by ancient common law, means that anybody with a mind to take it is entitled to do so). See how far you get with this argument.
Yep, “deliberately obtuse” seems to cover it. :rolleyes:
Belladonna, arguing that helping people is morally no different from not hurting people is really kind of irrelevant, because your OP was talking about legal issues rather than moral ones. There’s a world of difference between saying that everyone ought to do x and saying that everyone is legally required to do x unless they’ve done all the proper forms. We’ve already got laws that differentiate between the obligation to not harm someone and the obligation to help someone. I am, for instance, not allowed to set a baby on fire. I am also not required to stop and extinguish a baby that someone else has set on fire. I’m not allowed to stab someone for shits and giggles, but I’m not required to provide first aid to a person who someone else has stabbed for shits and giggles. I’m barred from stealing money from someone, but I’m not required to give money to homeless people. Morally, I’m required to do these things, sure. But legally, not so much.
You just can’t legislate good works. There’s too many moral codes, too many interpretations of what we ought to do, and too many of them conflict with one another. It just isn’t possible to fully accommodate everybody’s beliefs. That’s why helping other people has to largely be left to an opt-in system. The exception is the government aid system, which has been set up because we’ve decided that tax money spent helping those in need has benefits for society as a whole in a big way. If you want to try and convince the country that tax money spent on an opt-out donor system benefits society as a whole in a big way, go for it.
Simple – you have a right to not be actively injured, but not a right to receive an active benefit. For instance, if I take $20 out of your wallet, you can have me charged with theft; if I decline to give you $20 out of my wallet, that’s just too darn bad.
Google on “positive rights” and “negative rights” for further research on the subject.
Suppose, while I’m still alive, I buy a cemetery plot with perpetual care. After I’m gone, should the funeral director be able to sell my body to the Doggie King Pet Food Company and spend all the money I gave him on beer and hookers? Breach of contract? Breach of contract with whom? A dead person? The dead have no rights, right?
I’d still like to know how this scheme would work. What laws would we have to pass to make it so everyone is an organ donor? What legal basis can the legislature use to make it a law and would it be constitutional?
I do agree with Diogenes that dead people have no rights. However we do extend certain legal protections even after people have passed away. Attorney client privilege comes to mind as one.
Marc
I haven’t read the whole thread as I am running out of time. (Workday is almost over 
)
But I have seen a program about this very subject in which ER doctors were interviewed and a lot of them said some very interesting things.
When a body is dying a certain process is started.
This process stops after brain-death.
With organ-donation most organs have to be salvaged before they are bereft of oxygen.
So these doctors said that it would interfere with the dying process.
So my thought is that when I am 100% braindead, sure, rip out what you need.
If there is still just the slightest sign of life, keep your hands of my internal organs.
I could be mistaken, but I think the only organ that can be saved after death is the skin, so you are welcome to skin me after my death, but that is all.
It might be selfish, but I think there is more there than just simply a case of “I am not religious, so I have no right to claim what I want to be done to my body whilst dying”.
By the way, come to think of it : these were doctors that were directly involved in the harvesting of organs, so I do give them a lot of credit.
OK cite please. Where does any law state that a dead body has rights?
There is a law against breaking a phone boothe, that doesn’t mean the phone boothe has a right not to be broken.
Here is a link to an article that address this exact issue. More than 500 pairs of corneas were harvested without the consent of either the “donors” or their family. The corneas were sold to a eye bank for $335 a pair, and resold by the eye bank for $3,400 per pair.
According to the article 29 states permit the involuntary removal of eye tissue from cadavers, most under a presumed consent justification.
I have heard that a dead human is in a unique position legally, in that it can’t own anything, and can’t be owned by anyone. I don’t have a cite for this, so maybe I made it up and just think I remember it, so don’t quote me.
When I was in college, I had an Economics professor tell my class that doctors can’t always tell when you’re well and truly dead…but if they wait until you are, your organs are no use to them. So they may well take organs (ensuring your death) when you might have recovered. He felt this was not good body-economics. I had been an organ-donor before that time. I ceased to be, afterward.