What about the fact that they have to ask for the next of kin's permission, even if the person themselves was happy to donate? Should the corpse essentially be inherited along with everything else?
Sure it should be the person's choice, but I don't consider a corpse a person. I will not support a culture in which the "rights" of corpses are held above saving people who aren't corpses.
Yes, it does beg the question "Does a corpse have human rights? ". (In my opinion, no.)
What about the fact that they have to ask for the next of kin's permission, even if the person themselves was happy to donate? Should the corpse essentially be inherited along with everything else?
Shouldn't be down to family imo, if the deceased is on the register.
Shouldn't be down to family imo, if the deceased is on the register.
As far as I believe it is though. And because the organs need to be harvested so quickly after death the police essentially have to knock on the next of kin's door and say that the deceased is dead in the same sentence as asking for the organs.
As far as I believe it is though. And because the organs need to be harvested so quickly after death the police essentially have to knock on the next of kin's door and say that the deceased is dead in the same sentence as asking for the organs.
Yeah that's how it works. My Gran died and she always told me that she wanted to donate. They asked for her eyes and my uncle said no because it made him feel 'uncomfortable'
Yeah that's how it works. My Gran died and she always told me that she wanted to donate. They asked for her eyes and my uncle said no because it made him feel 'uncomfortable'
It's not a great situation to be in and really the NoK should respect the wishes of the deceased (I can see why the eyes might make someone uncomfortable though).
It does however raise the question over whether the human rights are essentially handed over to the NoK at birth, and whether that is how it ought to work.
It's as interesting (and polarising) a debate as whether foetuses should have human rights (I don't believe they should btw).
It's not a great situation to be in and really the NoK should respect the wishes of the deceased (I can see why the eyes might make someone uncomfortable though).
It does however raise the question over whether the human rights are essentially handed over to the NoK at birth, and whether that is how it ought to work.
It's as interesting (and polarising) a debate as whether foetuses should have human rights (I don't believe they should btw).
I think a foetus should be considered a person by the time it starts kicking etc. and should hence have rights
A corpse should not because of the corpse itself but I sort of believe that the 'memory' of a person should have rights and that someones wishes in life over their own property should be obeyed in death. It's essentially like a will for your corpse.
I think a foetus should be considered a person by the time it starts kicking etc. and should hence have rights
A corpse should not because of the corpse itself but I sort of believe that the 'memory' of a person should have rights and that someones wishes in life over their own property should be obeyed in death. It's essentially like a will for your corpse.
I'm no expert on wills - is it possible to, for example, give up your body for research through your will?
I can see where you are coming from, in that there really is no need to talk about it to a great extent, but as well even if somebody does choose to talk about it the judgement should not be about said sexual activity that took place