Death Without Dignity

Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

Think about these matters for a minute.

We are all encouraged to have a will - a document that directs how our property will be distributed or disposed of after we die. A person's right to control their property, even after death, is legally recognized and traditionally honored.

Most societies consider it important to treat the dead with respect. That includes, not only a deceased person's property, but also their physical remains. Desecration of a corpse is considered especially detestable. Abusing, mishandling, or improperly disposing of a corpse carries both civil and criminal penalties.

When it comes to organ donation (using a person's body and its parts after death), once again, we are encouraged to express our wishes prior to death. If a person has not given permission for their organs to be used by other people, then it is illegal to use those organs. In some cases, family members are permitted to grant permission ater the person's death, but, in any event, it remains illegal to take organs, or to use a body in medical research or experimentation, without proper permission.

Traditionally, grave robbing - taking a body out of its grave - is considered a particularly vile crime. In times past, professional grave robbers would supply freshly dead bodies to medical schools where they were dissected for the purpose of teaching anatomy and surgery. This practice was widely condemned, and laws were enacted to control the acquisition of cadavers and to ensure that bodies used in medical education would eventually receive a dignified burial or cremation.

Unfortunately, we now find ourselves living in a society where some people are no longer allowed the respect and dignity that comes with making one's own choices regarding the handling and use of the body after death. Specifically, there is a trend to treat women as less than fully human, a lower caste of beings who do not enjoy the same rights as men when it comes to basic decisions regarding their own bodies. For some time, there have been persons openly advocating for the use of female corpses in bizarre medical experiments. Until recently, one might expect that a woman, just like a real person, could choose to grant - or not - permission for her body to be used in research and experimentation, and that, in the absence of such permission, her remains would be handled and disposed of in accordance with her and her family's wishes. In the year 2025, this is not true.

A woman who happens to be pregnant at the time of death may end up as a sort of living corpse, her body connected to machines that force some of her organs to continue functioning, so that her body can be used as an incubator for the nonviable fetus that, under normal circumstances, would have died with her. This has just been done to the remains of a woman who did not give permission for organ donation or medical research, against the wishes of family members who wanted her to be treated with dignity.

As it happens, in this case, the mad-scientist experiment seems to have succeeded, in that an extremely premature infant, weighing less than two pounds, was extracted from the woman's body and placed in intensive care. Infants delivered at this stage have about a 10% chance of survival and, if they survive, are likely to face severe medical problems.

• Health concerns fror micro preemies

 

Whose Body Is It, Anyway?

Photo by Mufid Majnun on Unsplash

Imagine this. A young man falls ill, experiencing some kind of seizure, or perhaps a stroke, that releases blood clots into his brain, ultimately causing his death. His brain is not functioning, and the attending physician has declared him dead. However, because he was connected to life support equipment in the hospital, some parts of his body are still functioning in a machine-like way.

An examination reveals that his testicles are still producing viable sperm cells. A state agency notifies the hospital that the man must not be disconnected from life support, even though the local medical board officially confirms that he is dead. According to a recently-passed state law, destroying or discarding potentially viable gametes is "equivalent to terminating human life" and carries heavy penalties. The hospital is required to maintain the man's body and to retrieve the sperm.

The man was single, and there is no one in his family who wants to use or preserve his sperm. In fact, his family members have refused to give permission for any further medical treatment, and have requested that the life support equipment be removed. State officials suggest that the sperm can be frozen and stored at a sperm bank, although it is unclear who would be responsible for the costs involved. Further, without the man's consent (impossible to get at this point), the sperm cannot be used in a fertilization procedure. State legislators introduce a bill that would make "orphaned or unclaimed gametes" wards of the state, to be donated as directed by state health officials.

In the meantime, the man's dead body continues to be operated by machines, using resources that otherwise would go to living people in critical condition whose lives might be saved.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But is it any crazier than artificially maintaining a dead woman's body so she can be used as an incubator?

• Hospital tells family brain-dead Georgia woman must carry fetus to birth
• Georgia woman’s plight reveals anti-abortion forces’ endgame
• Dear America: women’s bodies are not state property

 

Whose Nose Is It, Anyway?

Imagine a state government that decides to outlaw rhinoplasty and septoplasty. In other words - no nose jobs. They are under the influence of a small but vocal religious sect that opposes cosmetic surgery as being against God's will. "Your face is sacred," they insist.

Of course, it's not just about imposing one group's religious beliefs on the larger population. The government also sees changed noses as a way to evade facial recognition software and other surveillance/identification systems.

People who need nose surgery because they have breathing problems are dismissed as a tiny, meaningless minority. People whose noses are damaged in accidents or by violence are told that it's "God's will," and they should learn to love the new look.

Plastic surgeons, protesting against political interference in medical decisions, are vilified as money-grubbing demons who mutilate people for profit. People with crooked noses who travel to a state where rhinoplasty is still legal are reported to authorities and their medical records are seized. People with naturally small, straight noses are viewed with suspicion by religious zealots who harass them in public and send death threats to their homes. Protestors outside plastic surgeons' offices carry signs with graphic photos of bloody, swollen noses, and chant at everyone entering the office: "Don't break your nose! Don't break your nose!"

A couple of politicians get publicity for themselves by blocking state highway funding as a protest against government agencies that allow employees to use paid sick leave for nose surgery. The unrepaired roads contribute to an increase in traffic accidents - and more damaged noses. People who get out-of-state nose jobs are afraid to be seen with bandages on their faces, so they stay indoors or wear disguises.

People unhappy with their big, crooked noses are labeled as having "facial dysmorphic disorder" and are told they need counseling to accept themselves as they are. Parents who allow teenagers to get nose jobs are investigated by Child Protective Services. Some people go to underground practitioners who may or may not be safe. Some people become so desperate they try to fix their noses themselves, using steak knives and crochet hooks. Sometimes it works, but some people get permanent brain damage, and some bleed to death. Anyone with a nosebleed is suspected of having had an illegal nose job.

Celebrities who had nose jobs back when it was legal write books about their experiences; a few are invited to testify before Congress.