RM> Well put; there are definite flaws in my argument. But as I
 RM> pointed out to Roddles (who seems to have temporarily retired
 RM> his dog for this one), I'm not sure what shape my grief would
 RM> take, as I've never been close to a sudden death (the closest i
 RM> got was to my favourite aunt who died of lung cancer cos she
 RM> smoked, that cured me of smoking for life, but I was quite
 RM> young and callous then). Most likely I'd dotherightthing, and
 RM> willingly let my misfortune become someone's hope.

  My experience of grief is that you go on automatic pilot and do what
you normally do. It does not change your deeply-held beliefs.

  To me, a dead body is a shell and my grief was for a departed
Father. I did not give a damn what they did with the shell... Dad was
gone by then.

  My Catholic mother holds exactly opposite beliefs. Even the idea of
the autopsy appalled her, so she clings to the idea that it didn't
happen. But we cremated Dad's shell incomplete and I have no idea what
happened to the rest of him... or care. Mum has this wild idea that
she will meet Dad in heaven, but he'll be missing the good bits. ROFL!

  I do not respect people's beliefs, but I don't try to change them
(mostly because it's a waste of time). It is my experience that these
beliefs are negotiable, in the real world. Convenience is much more
powerful than conviction, in the real world. My christian cousins
"love" Mankind, but when their mother had a stroke it was the
Christians who told her to bugger off and die somewhere else. The
Pagans and Anarchists took her in.

  So... what remains?

  What remains is the sad situation of a dear recently departed, a
perfectly good set of organs, a surgeon who lusts for those bits, and
a hypocrite (read ordinary human being) with really weird beliefs - in
control. The surgeons then try to con the hypocrite out of the bits
needed to SAVE a life and everyone is upset but the dead body which
is well beyond all that.

  I propose that we move the control to the surgeons. That way, they
get their bits, save the lives, and no one gets upset because the
hypocrite (read human being) has no choice. If he likes, he can blame
the government. Such a law *already* exists for an autopsy.

 BL> If you can't see the clear difference between claiming organs
 BL> from a dead and unrecoverable body, and a live one you are a
 BL> very sick man

 RM> *I* can tell the difference. My argument is that there are some
 RM> that can't.

  In this sad world, there are some of everything and nothing is
perfect however, it is not too hard to write a law that prevents
doctors killing people to get the good bits. I suspect that such a law
already exists. Murder... something like that?

  On another subject, I *love* the way the papers are supporting the
idea of ROAD RAGE as an offence that needs new laws when it is already
dealt with as assault or offensive behaviour, and has been for years.

 BL> I am suggesting that we *don't* ask you. Or even tell you. I am
 BL> suggesting that the law gives the surgeons first choice of
 BL> anything they like in dead bodies, and arrange things
 BL> appropriately.

 RM> That puts a subtle sort of value on a corpse, which might just
 RM> outweigh the value of the barely alive near-corpse.

  So... tell me what has changed? If doctors can't be trusted to make
these life-and-death decisions then we are *already* in trouble. To me
it is plain silly (beyond paranoia) to assume that doctors will start
killing recoverable people for their parts. Of course they will make
mistakes. No one is perfect and they do anyway... but I would be
surprised if it did not work the other way: doctors extending life
unnecessarily so that no one could doubt their final decision to take
the organs.

 RM> It's the dividing line I'm worried about - this makes it a bit
 RM> more mushy. I tend to agree with you, but legislating
 RM> (apologies for the obscenity) the dividing line will be messy.

  Lawyers do their lawyering (excuse the obscenity) and in the end
everyone does what they have to do, ignoring the fucking lawyers. The
problem today is that the Law, lawyers, and judges in particular are
out of touch with reality by a wide margin, and with a bit of luck
will soon become irrelevant. Roll on Anarchy!

 BL> Don't tell me about personal until you've buried a couple for
 BL> yourself.

 RM> That's exactly what I'm saying! I *don't know* how I'd react!

  And what I'm saying is that it is mad to give control to someone
who is irrational... give control to the surgeons.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---