Organ Banks
Tim Bruening
removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
trigonom...@gmail.com
> What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
It is said that the "red" Chinese sometimes do this already.
And I'd assume they prefer political opponents/dissidents to
criminals proper.
Criminals proper are often from poorer social classes that
are more likely to be infected with both known diseases
and emerging diseases. Known diseases would include
HIV, Hep C and B and emerging diseases
might include prion diseases, Chagas or perhaps
some new retrovirus not in the commonly tested for diseases.
The proposal reminds me of an SF story were
the condemned man is waiting to be taken apart for
his organs due to his crime of crossing the street without
the go ahead signal.
In short, I say thumbs down to this idea.
Tim Bruening
trigonom...@gmail.com wrote:
The Larry Niven story in question had the man awaiting execution for running
red lights and speeding. That's where I got the idea!
trigonom...@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been decades since I read the story.
So I can't be sure it is the same story.
Wow, you post frequently to the Usenet.
I just Googled your posting history.
I don't have much time for science fiction as there
is too much science to read.
Vincent D. DeSimone
>the condemned man is waiting to be taken apart for
>his organs due to his crime of crossing the street without
>the go ahead signal.
>
>In short, I say thumbs down to this idea.
>
convicted of a very horrible crime? Say, a mass murderer? Hitler? Charles
Manson? Bin Ladin?
Instead of life imprisonment at the public's expense, would the farming of
their organs to save a number of other lives force them to make up in a
small way for the lives that they took?
In the Known Space TL, those were the kinds of crimes that were required to
warrant a trip to the Organ Banks. Only much later when spare parts became
scarce did the more mundane crimes warrant a trip to the banks.
David Lesher
>In the Known Space TL, those were the kinds of crimes that were required to
>warrant a trip to the Organ Banks. Only much later when spare parts became
>scarce did the more mundane crimes warrant a trip to the banks.
Sorta like the phone taps under Patriot Act, ehh? First they were ONLY
for nasty terrorists [and of course, anyone alleged to have talked to
same, like Brandon Mayfield...]. Then we moved to marijuana smokers....
Soon, we'll sweep up all the No Turn on Red & jaywalker types...
Guess Larry Niven *could* see what was coming... No wonder reading
good SF get scarier every day.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Erik Max Francis
> Sorta like the phone taps under Patriot Act, ehh? First they were ONLY
> for nasty terrorists [and of course, anyone alleged to have talked to
> same, like Brandon Mayfield...]. Then we moved to marijuana smokers....
Uh, and when exactly did that happen? Want to try to back up such a
laughable claim?
> Soon, we'll sweep up all the No Turn on Red & jaywalker types...
You do realize that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right?
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Chance favors the trained mind.
-- Louis Pasteur
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>David Lesher wrote:
>
>> Sorta like the phone taps under Patriot Act, ehh? First they were ONLY
>> for nasty terrorists [and of course, anyone alleged to have talked to
>> same, like Brandon Mayfield...]. Then we moved to marijuana smokers....
>
>Uh, and when exactly did that happen? Want to try to back up such a
>laughable claim?
>
>> Soon, we'll sweep up all the No Turn on Red & jaywalker types...
>
>You do realize that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right?
Yeah, you let people get away with the Slippery Slope, and the next
thing you know you've got ad hominems all over the place.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Mike Schilling
And then they'll start citing silly Larry Niven stories as prophecies.
Bill Snyder
And generalizing from one example, too, I'll bet.
philos...@yahoo.com
<desi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>The proposal reminds me of an SF story were
>>the condemned man is waiting to be taken apart for
>>his organs due to his crime of crossing the street without
>>the go ahead signal.
>>
>>In short, I say thumbs down to this idea.
>>
>Let me put this out for comments: what about someone who is tried and
>convicted of a very horrible crime? Say, a mass murderer? Hitler? Charles
>Manson? Bin Ladin?
>
>Instead of life imprisonment at the public's expense, would the farming of
>their organs to save a number of other lives force them to make up in a
>small way for the lives that they took?
>
There is a certain amount of squick factor in there to consider. Would
you _want_ to have Hitler's heart pumping away in your chest?
Rebecca
Groups trimmed
Mike Schilling
Everyone does that.
norrin
> "Vincent D. DeSimone" <desimo...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >In the Known Space TL, those were the kinds of crimes that were required to
> >warrant a trip to the Organ Banks. Only much later when spare parts became
> >scarce did the more mundane crimes warrant a trip to the banks.
>
> Sorta like the phone taps under Patriot Act, ehh? First they were ONLY
> for nasty terrorists [and of course, anyone alleged to have talked to
> same, like Brandon Mayfield...]. Then we moved to marijuana smokers....
>
It seems to me the feds tap phones and read phone logs
when they feel the need, and reasons are ex post facto.
pullo
<philos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ucfn39gr2t32lc8n...@4ax.com...
If the choice was that or death... well I'd get over my distaste
post-haste.
William December Starr
philos...@sbcglobal.net said:
> There is a certain amount of squick factor in there to
> consider. Would you _want_ to have Hitler's heart pumping away
> in your chest?
Considering the likely alternative that's implied by that question,
yes.
I saw a bit on NBC Nightly News' ongoing series on "Our Planet" or
somesuch that reported that many people were squicked when informed
that their drinking water was reprocessed sewage... me, I figure
that as long its current content is good then its history doesn't
bother me.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Howard Brazee
At least I do.
Jon Schild
Tim Bruening wrote:
> What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
The matching problem is so considerable, and keeping separated organs
alive until they can be inserted in someone is so difficult, that at the
present it is completely impractical. Thus I do not believe that anyone
is stealing and selling organs from cadavers in hospitals, or that some
other country is routinely harvesting organs for future transplant.
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
Tim Bruening
Jon Schild wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> > removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
>
> The matching problem is so considerable, and keeping separated organs
> alive until they can be inserted in someone is so difficult, that at the
> present it is completely impractical. Thus I do not believe that anyone
> is stealing and selling organs from cadavers in hospitals, or that some
> other country is routinely harvesting organs for future transplant.
All we need is time for medical scientists to solve the above problems.
David E. Siegel
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> > removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
>
> The matching problem is so considerable, and keeping separated organs
> alive until they can be inserted in someone is so difficult, that at the
> present it is completely impractical. Thus I do not believe that anyone
> is stealing and selling organs from cadavers in hospitals, or that some
> other country is routinely harvesting organs for future transplant.
If you assume (as Niven chose to) that these problems would all be
solved by some date in the future (iirc Niven set the earliest of
these stories about 200 years in the future) then a real social and
ethical issue would exist. Niven's explorations of the issue are at
least interesting, IMO. The premise probably looked more likely circa
1970 than it does now. Consider the steady progress in transpalts and
related tech from the first effective blood transfusions around
1900-1910 to the first heart transplants in the 1960s,
-DES
Jim Lovejoy
news:4779862C...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us:
The same medical scientists have to also *not* solve other problems so that
the need for transplanted organs still remains. (I'm thinking of growing
organs using your own DNA as instruction set, but artificial organs so good
that transplants would be a poor substitute also works.)
Tim Bruening
Jim Lovejoy wrote:
What if you are prejudiced against artificial organs?
Data
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fl9cq0$5ed$1...@panix2.panix.com...
If you want to think about it, isn't most water recycled somewhere unless
it's a fresh creation from something burning? I have to agree, as long as
it's been "recycled" properly (anything harmful removed and as clean as
possible) then so what? Hell, you want long term space exploration, what're
astronaughts going to be drinking?
pullo
"Data" <daf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11992316...@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
>
> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fl9cq0$5ed$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <2ucfn39gr2t32lc8n...@4ax.com>,
>> philos...@sbcglobal.net said:
>>
>>> There is a certain amount of squick factor in there to
>>> consider. Would you _want_ to have Hitler's heart pumping away
>>> in your chest?
>>
>> Considering the likely alternative that's implied by that question,
>> yes.
>>
>> I saw a bit on NBC Nightly News' ongoing series on "Our Planet" or
>> somesuch that reported that many people were squicked when informed
>> that their drinking water was reprocessed sewage... me, I figure
>> that as long its current content is good then its history doesn't
>> bother me.
> If you want to think about it, isn't most water recycled somewhere unless
> it's a fresh creation from something burning? I have to agree, as long as
> it's been "recycled" properly (anything harmful removed and as clean as
> possible) then so what? Hell, you want long term space exploration,
> what're astronaughts going to be drinking?
Although there was legitimate concern vis a vis Mad Cow, I recall people
being squicked over the source of protein fed to cattle which included both
cattle parts and waste products. At the time I pointed out to co-workers who
were grossed out over that, that fertilizer is shit.
As for the original Niven idea of people voting crimes to keep the organ
banks full: The biggest plausibility problem I had was that while I could
accept a populace voting themselves extended lives via organ banks; I could
not accept Niven's next step.
I can believe that the vast majority could vote for murderers to go to the
the organ banks because the vast majority of people don't identify with nor
expect to be in the position of a murderer. Probably most murderers don't
prior to murdering someone don't either.
OTOH pretty much everyone would identify with getting traffic tickets
[Keith Lynch excepted :) ] and are able to imagine themselves in that
position.
il...@rcn.com
Yes -- I would *much* rather have the heart of Bin Laden than the
heart of a random stranger. I never felt that organs are anything but
replaceable parts and/or property, and making good use of mass
murderer's former property, *especially* in the way I know he would
have found repugnant, is very satisfying. It is a form of revenge.
DouhetSukd
Well, better al-Bino's than ol' Adolf's body parts. Adolf was a tee-
totaller, as bin Laden presumably might be, but he was also heavily
into stimulants in the last years of the war and had sleeping
problems. Therefore, I would guess his body parts would be in crap
shape.
There has been speculation (at times, now known to have been
erroneous) that Bin Laden had died as a result of kidney failure, so
try to avoid those if you know what's best for you ;-)
Ginevra M. Longbottom
"pullo" <pull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Although there was legitimate concern vis a vis Mad Cow, I recall people
> being squicked over the source of protein fed to cattle which included
> both cattle parts and waste products. At the time I pointed out to
> co-workers who were grossed out over that, that fertilizer is shit.
It's thought farmers also fed them sheep's brains, which was how the
prion disease (I think it's Scrapie) crossed species to cattle. Anyway,
the point is that people were puzzled, saying cows aren't carnivores,
only to be told that they are, but just can't *catch* sheep... ;-)
Ginevra
--
Purple rolling N'veen
Aidan Karley
> All we need is time for medical scientists to solve the above problems.
>
general problems of tissue typing and rejection, maintenance of organs in
"Organ Banks", and the other problems with Larry's rhetorical device of
the "Organ Banks" ... then at least a significant proportion of the
world's population could afford to have banked their own <various tissue>
stem cells in a form that could be grown into tissue for repair within a
week or two in the event of a traumatic injury. Modern intensive care is
good enough that you've got to be really badly messed up (or very old) to
not be able to survive a couple of weeks on a machine.
For prophylactic work (e.g. replacing your wobbly heart valve, and
you might as well replace half the islets of Langherans while you're in
there and give me a new bladder sphincter too) the tissues would be
prepared from the stem cells in time for the planned operation.
--
Aidan Karley,
Written at Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:24 GMT, but posted later.
"Please turn your monitors off when you leave the building. Not only
does it save power, but the flickering of the monitors annoys the
pterosaur."
Aidan Karley
> What if you are prejudiced against artificial organs?
>
expensive health care than your competitors, leading to the starvation
and death of your grandchildren (in which case, you might as well not
have bothered with the operation in the first case.
--
Aidan Karley,
Written at Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:33 GMT, but posted later.
David DeLaney
>Tim Bruening wrote:
>> All we need is time for medical scientists to solve the above problems.
>
> The likelihood is that by the time there is good progress on the
>general problems of tissue typing and rejection, maintenance of organs in
>"Organ Banks", and the other problems with Larry's rhetorical device of
>the "Organ Banks" ... then at least a significant proportion of the
>world's population could afford to have banked their own <various tissue>
>stem cells in a form that could be grown into tissue for repair within a
>week or two in the event of a traumatic injury. Modern intensive care is
>good enough that you've got to be really badly messed up (or very old) to
>not be able to survive a couple of weeks on a machine.
Remember, after all, what the plot device driving the events of A Gift From
Earth _was_...
Dave "and we here in reality may get that sort of thing before the problems
of real-organ transplants are fully solved" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Keith F. Lynch
> Although there was legitimate concern vis a vis Mad Cow, I recall
> people being squicked over the source of protein fed to cattle which
> included both cattle parts and waste products.
And rightly so. Mad Cow wasn't some bizarre coincidence. There's
a reason why cannibalism is rare in any species more advanced than
cockroaches.
> At the time I pointed out to co-workers who were grossed out over
> that, that fertilizer is shit.
There are lots of things it's possible to be grossed out about,
including one's own insides, which are quite icky.
Fastidiousness is a major opportunity for space development. How much
will rich yuppies pay for bottled cometary water guaranteed to have
never been in any organism's urine or feces?
> I can believe that the vast majority could vote for murderers to
> go to the the organ banks because the vast majority of people
> don't identify with nor expect to be in the position of a murderer.
> Probably most murderers don't prior to murdering someone don't
> either.
> OTOH pretty much everyone would identify with getting traffic
> tickets [Keith Lynch excepted :) ] and are able to imagine
> themselves in that position.
Driving a car does seem to encourage lawlessness, as does the general
level of tolerance of such behavior. People freely admit breaking
traffic laws who would never dream of admitting, say, smashing a pay
phone to steal the coins. The former is generally accepted, while the
latter would result in shock and rejection, even though the former is
far more likely to get some innocent person killed.
But no, I don't support the death penalty for anything.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Aidan Karley
> How much
> will rich yuppies pay for bottled cometary water guaranteed to have
> never been in any organism's urine or feces?
>
on his space suit. "Don't eat the yellow snow."
--
Aidan Karley,
Written at Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:27 GMT, but posted later.
Tim Bruening
Jon Schild wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> > removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
>
> The matching problem is so considerable, and keeping separated organs
> alive until they can be inserted in someone is so difficult, that at the
> present it is completely impractical. Thus I do not believe that anyone
> is stealing and selling organs from cadavers in hospitals, or that some
> other country is routinely harvesting organs for future transplant.
The above problems exacerbate organ shortages. Obtaining organs from
executed criminals could greatly ease organ shortages so that the
matching and keeping separated organs alive problems don't matter as
much.
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>> trigonom...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 1:34 am, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>>> What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
>>>> removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
>>> And I'd assume they prefer political opponents/dissidents to
>>> criminals proper.
>>>
>>> Criminals proper are often from poorer social classes that
>>> are more likely to be infected with both known diseases
>>> and emerging diseases. Known diseases would include
>>> HIV, Hep C and B and emerging diseases
>>> might include prion diseases, Chagas or perhaps
>>> some new retrovirus not in the commonly tested for diseases.
>>>
>>> The proposal reminds me of an SF story were
>>> the condemned man is waiting to be taken apart for
>>> his organs due to his crime of crossing the street without
>>> the go ahead signal.
>> red lights and speeding. That's where I got the idea!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> It has been decades since I read the story.
> So I can't be sure it is the same story.
Story is "The Jigsaw Man".
spoiler:
<http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/2007/11/larry-niven-jigsaw-man-chilling.html>
Tim Bruening
trigonom...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 1:34 am, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> > removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
>
> It is said that the "red" Chinese sometimes do this already.
> And I'd assume they prefer political opponents/dissidents to
> criminals proper.
>
> Criminals proper are often from poorer social classes that
> are more likely to be infected with both known diseases
> and emerging diseases. Known diseases would include
> HIV, Hep C and B and emerging diseases
> might include prion diseases, Chagas or perhaps
> some new retrovirus not in the commonly tested for diseases.
>
> The proposal reminds me of an SF story were
> the condemned man is waiting to be taken apart for
> his organs due to his crime of crossing the street without
> the go ahead signal.
In Larry Niven's Known Space Universe, dolphins are known to be
sentient. "World of Ptavvs" even mentions a trial involving a dolphin
murder victim and 3 dolphin witnesses in the late 21st century. By that
time, dismantling criminals for the organ banks was already popular. Do
the dolphins have organ banks? If so, can dolphins be dismantled for
the dolphin organ banks?
ncw...@hotmail.com
Then 72% of them will start making up statistics on the spot.
Cheers,
Nigel.
ncw...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In article <flelm0$m3...@news.datemas.de>,
>
> "pullo" <pullo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Although there was legitimate concern vis a vis Mad Cow, I recall people
> > being squicked over the source of protein fed to cattle which included
> > both cattle parts and waste products. At the time I pointed out to
> > co-workers who were grossed out over that, that fertilizer is shit.
>
> It's thought farmers also fed them sheep's brains, which was how the
> prion disease (I think it's Scrapie) crossed species to cattle. Anyway,
> the point is that people were puzzled, saying cows aren't carnivores,
> only to be told that they are, but just can't *catch* sheep... ;-)
>
You mean that you've never seen a herd of predatory Frisians pouncing
onto their prey with a blood-curdling moo !
Cheers,
Nigel.
Aidan Karley
> Do
> the dolphins have organ banks? If so, can dolphins be dismantled for
> the dolphin organ banks?
>
least, there's more in MKW), there's probably not enough information to
sensibly consider the question. At a gut level, I'll suspect that the
Dolphins would take a seemingly "unsympathetic" view of illnesses that
would benefit from transplants. That comment in (IIRC) Ptavvs that a
Dolphin might consider it "educational" to bite the fin off another
Dolphin speaks to me of a very different culture.
(I'm leaving aside NLarry's false presumption that most
illnesses would benefit from transplantation of the single organ
affected. I'm also capitalising Dolphin for the same reason that we
capitalise Armenian or Kzin - the Known Space Dolphins don't seem to be
the same organisms as the group of small toothed cetaceans that we call
dolphins. NLarry doesn't address how "his" Dolphins related to the
other presumed-intelligent species in their environment. Did they, for
example, fear orcas, and murder porpoises?)
--
Aidan Karley,
Written at Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:06 GMT, but posted later.
Jerry Brown
But there's only a 40% chance of that.
>Cheers,
>Nigel.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Bill Snyder
Fortunately, 89.6327% of them will give the game away by claiming a
clearly spurious precision.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
pullo
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:9978o359rffcbgvcr...@4ax.com...
While the other 23.56% will look the fool for leaving in 9 levels of
quoting.
:)
Wayne Throop
:::: ONLY for nasty terrorists [and of course, anyone alleged to have
:::: talked to same, like Brandon Mayfield...]. Then we moved to
:::: marijuana smokers....
::: Uh, and when exactly did that happen? Want to try to back up such a
::: laughable claim?
Methamphetamines count?
I suppose that's producing, not just consuming.
Still, doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about prosecutors'
uses of the PA.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
David Lesher
Donation Automatic In UK
LONDON - Britain's prime minister is calling for a sweeping change to the
country's organ donation system, but the plan isn't sitting well with
patients' rights groups.
In an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph, Gordon Brown calls for an
"opt-out" system for organ donation, in which consent is assumed unless
people explicitly register disapproval.
Brown writes that forcing people to opt out of donating would "close the
aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant" and the "limits
imposed" by the current system.
...
http://www.ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=21500
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<wb8...@panix.com> writes
>
>
>Donation Automatic In UK
>
>LONDON - Britain's prime minister is calling for a sweeping change to the
>country's organ donation system, but the plan isn't sitting well with
>patients' rights groups.
>
>In an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph, Gordon Brown calls for an
>"opt-out" system for organ donation, in which consent is assumed unless
>people explicitly register disapproval.
>
>Brown writes that forcing people to opt out of donating would "close the
>aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant" and the "limits
>imposed" by the current system.
>
>...
>
>
>http://www.ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=21500
>
of kin?) is still required.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Gary R. Schmidt
> Donation Automatic In UK
>
> LONDON - Britain's prime minister is calling for a sweeping change to the
> country's organ donation system, but the plan isn't sitting well with
> patients' rights groups.
>
> In an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph, Gordon Brown calls for an
> "opt-out" system for organ donation, in which consent is assumed unless
> people explicitly register disapproval.
>
> Brown writes that forcing people to opt out of donating would "close the
> aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant" and the "limits
> imposed" by the current system.
>
> ...
>
>
> http://www.ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=21500
>
existing system in Spain.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries
Michael Stemper
>Donation Automatic In UK
>
>LONDON - Britain's prime minister is calling for a sweeping change to the
>country's organ donation system, but the plan isn't sitting well with
>patients' rights groups.
>
>In an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph, Gordon Brown calls for an
>"opt-out" system for organ donation, in which consent is assumed unless
>people explicitly register disapproval.
I believe that this is a good time to mention Harry Harrison's short
story, "The Ghoul Squad", which portrays a society with an "opt-out"
requirement.
Of course, since organs only have a limited shelf-life, you need to have
your evidence of having opted out with you when you snuff it.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2
Aidan Karley
> According to radio news reports here the permission of the family (next
> of kin?) is still required.
>
discussion for a while. viz : the doctors treating someone who is
to-all-intents-and-purposes dead MUST ask the next of kin, if available,
for permission to remove any usable organs from their body. "Their body"
obviously referring to the body in the bed, not the body sobbing in the
chair next to the machine that goes "ping". The body of a deceased person
belongs to their next of kin, not to the deceased person (how can a
deceased person own property?), and not to the state. Which is why "living
wills", donor cards, etc have always been no more than a guideline in
Britain.
Someone is obviously chewing over the idea of assigning the
ownership of the meat to the state, but thinks that it would be a
politically "difficult" sale.
Veering back to Known Space, I don't recall it having been
explicitly mentioned, but it is implicit in the whole "Organ Banks" issue
that on death one's body becomes the property of the state. Can anyone
remember this being mentioned (with respect to Earth ; I do recall it
being explicit in the mind of the Implementation boss in AGfE)?
--
Aidan Karley,
Written at Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:21 GMT, but posted later.
James Kuyper
> In article <wNc3JRhz...@meden.invalid>, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
>> According to radio news reports here the permission of the family (next
>> of kin?) is still required.
>>
> It's closer to the "required request" system that was under
> discussion for a while. viz : the doctors treating someone who is
> to-all-intents-and-purposes dead MUST ask the next of kin, if available,
> for permission to remove any usable organs from their body. "Their body"
> obviously referring to the body in the bed, not the body sobbing in the
> chair next to the machine that goes "ping". The body of a deceased person
> belongs to their next of kin, not to the deceased person (how can a
I'm no lawyer, but as I understand the law here in the US, people who
die continue in some sense to be the owner of their estates even after
their death. Their estates don't become someone else's property until
the probate process has been completed (with some exceptions, such as
for property titled as being owned by more than one person as joint
tenants with rights of survivorship). What happens to their Estates is
controlled by their wills, if any, and is otherwise governed by the laws
of intestacy. Their estates don't belong to the state, and they don't
belong to the executors of their estates.
I would expect that the bodies of the deceased, if treated as property,
are considered to also be part of the estate. However, I'm not at all
sure that the law covers bodies by treating them as property.
> ... Which is why "living
> wills", donor cards, etc have always been no more than a guideline in
> Britain.
I think that they have somewhat more legal authority in the US, but I'm
not sure about that.
> Veering back to Known Space, I don't recall it having been
> explicitly mentioned, but it is implicit in the whole "Organ Banks" issue
> that on death one's body becomes the property of the state. ...
It seemed to me that this is true only for condemned criminals, and this
is considered to be legally comparable to the fact that, after you pay a
fine, the money you've paid is now the property of the state.
David E. Siegel
> >> According to radio news reports here the permission of the family (next
> >> of kin?) is still required.
>
> > It's closer to the "required request" system that was under
> > discussion for a while. viz : the doctors treating someone who is
> > to-all-intents-and-purposes dead MUST ask the next of kin, if available,
> > for permission to remove any usable organs from their body. "Their body"
> > obviously referring to the body in the bed, not the body sobbing in the
> > chair next to the machine that goes "ping". The body of a deceased person
> > belongs to their next of kin, not to the deceased person (how can a
> > deceased person own property?), and not to the state. ...
>
> I'm no lawyer, but as I understand the law here in the US, people who
> die continue in some sense to be the owner of their estates even after
> their death. Their estates don't become someone else's property until
> the probate process has been completed (with some exceptions, such as
> for property titled as being owned by more than one person as joint
> tenants with rights of survivorship). What happens to their Estates is
> controlled by their wills, if any, and is otherwise governed by the laws
> of intestacy. Their estates don't belong to the state, and they don't
> belong to the executors of their estates.
>
> I would expect that the bodies of the deceased, if treated as property,
> are considered to also be part of the estate. However, I'm not at all
> sure that the law covers bodies by treating them as property.
>
there are restrictions on wht can bew done with it. Normally it cannot
be legally sold, frex.
> > ... Which is why "living
> > wills", donor cards, etc have always been no more than a guideline in
> > Britain.
>
> I think that they have somewhat more legal authority in the US, but I'm
> not sure about that.
Yes. Instructions in a will or other properly executed document are
generally binding in such matters under US law. (Many "Donor cards"
are not properly binding documets, however: not noterized, etc) One
limitaiton, if a body is "donated for research" the institution
involved must agree to accept it, which they are under no obligation
to do unless arrangements have been made in advance. Depending on the
age and condition of the body, they might be eager or quite reluctant
to accept.
>
> > Veering back to Known Space, I don't recall it having been
> > explicitly mentioned, but it is implicit in the whole "Organ Banks" issue
> > that on death one's body becomes the property of the state. ...
>
> It seemed to me that this is true only for condemned criminals, and this
> is considered to be legally comparable to the fact that, after you pay a
> fine, the money you've paid is now the property of the state.
Yes, only convicted criminals and volunteer doners go into Niven's
organ banks. The logic used in the Niven stories ought to have implied
a law mandating that at natural death all organs are harvested, but it
seems pretty clear that no such law was in effect in that fictional
world. Another inconsistancy here.
There was a Harry Harrison story, set in a near future, about this. In
that story the law had been changed: unless you wore a badge or
bracelet (like a medic alert badge) you were conclusively presumed to
have consented to organ donation at death. The badge had to be
physically on the body or clothing. Known wishes to the contrary did
not count -- no badge, organs harvested.
I am pretty sure that this was included in his collection _Prime
Number_ and looking at the contents of that in the ISFDB the title is
probably "The Ghoul Squad"
-DES
Michael Stemper
>> > ... Which is why "living
>> > wills", donor cards, etc have always been no more than a guideline in
>> > Britain.
>>
>> I think that they have somewhat more legal authority in the US, but I'm
>> not sure about that.
>
>Yes. Instructions in a will or other properly executed document are
>generally binding in such matters under US law. (Many "Donor cards"
>are not properly binding documets, however: not noterized, etc)
What good would it do to put bodily disposal instructions in your
will? As I understand it, a will's not generally read for weeks
after death; long after a body would have been disposed of.
>Yes, only convicted criminals and volunteer doners go into Niven's
>organ banks. The logic used in the Niven stories ought to have implied
>a law mandating that at natural death all organs are harvested, but it
>seems pretty clear that no such law was in effect in that fictional
>world. Another inconsistancy here.
Shocked, shocked I am to hear of an inconsistency in Known Space.
ObSFW: The Man-Kzin Wars short story that's an homage to _Casablanca_.
>There was a Harry Harrison story, set in a near future, about this. In
>I am pretty sure that this was included in his collection _Prime
>Number_ and looking at the contents of that in the ISFDB the title is
>probably "The Ghoul Squad"
Yup.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
David E. Siegel
> In article <f576e842-4ff9-4d71-b074-20873c286...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, David E. Siegel writes:
> >On Jan 16, 6:57=A0am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Aidan Karley wrote:
> >> > ... Which is why "living
> >> > wills", donor cards, etc have always been no more than a guideline in
> >> > Britain.
>
> >> I think that they have somewhat more legal authority in the US, but I'm
> >> not sure about that.
>
> >Yes. Instructions in a will or other properly executed document are
> >generally binding in such matters under US law. (Many "Donor cards"
> >are not properly binding documets, however: not noterized, etc)
>
> What good would it do to put bodily disposal instructions in your
> will? As I understand it, a will's not generally read for weeks
> after death; long after a body would have been disposed of.
>
This is often not as true as you might think. (Still the will is used
more for "donated for medical research" than for "dontated for organ
transplants" where delay is not quite so much of a problem. Note that
traditionally a will includes burial instructions.) But putting it in
the will gives it legal standaing, you back this up with a donor card
or a "to be opened on my death" letter or the like
-DES
Tim Bruening
Jim Lovejoy wrote:
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
> news:4779862C...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us:
>
> >
> >
> > Jon Schild wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >> > What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> >> > removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
> >>
> >> The matching problem is so considerable, and keeping separated organs
> >> alive until they can be inserted in someone is so difficult, that at the
> >> present it is completely impractical. Thus I do not believe that anyone
> >> is stealing and selling organs from cadavers in hospitals, or that some
> >> other country is routinely harvesting organs for future transplant.
> >
> > All we need is time for medical scientists to solve the above problems.
>
> The same medical scientists have to also *not* solve other problems so that
> the need for transplanted organs still remains. (I'm thinking of growing
> organs using your own DNA as instruction set, but artificial organs so good
> that transplants would be a poor substitute also works.)
Tim Bruening
trigonom...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 1:34 am, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea in Larry Niven's Known Space universe of
> > removing the organs of executed criminals for the organ banks?
>
> It is said that the "red" Chinese sometimes do this already.
> And I'd assume they prefer political opponents/dissidents to
> criminals proper.
>
> Criminals proper are often from poorer social classes that
> are more likely to be infected with both known diseases
> and emerging diseases. Known diseases would include
> HIV, Hep C and B and emerging diseases
> might include prion diseases, Chagas or perhaps
> some new retrovirus not in the commonly tested for diseases.
>
> The proposal reminds me of an SF story were
> the condemned man is waiting to be taken apart for
> his organs due to his crime of crossing the street without
> the go ahead signal.
That story was written by Larry Niven.
Joel Olson
news:4CC00B34...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
And then there was _Bug Jack Barron_ ...
Robert Carnegie
I thought it was a motorist who jumped a red light, therefore not so
unjust, but maybe you remember better than I.
Robert Carnegie
dead?
Now if the artificial organ involves something unethical (more
unethical than somebody dying so you can have bits of their body) -
such as being made of mahogany and ivory with conflict-diamond
bearings and endorsed by Glenn Beck - well, yes, there's a problem.
Likewise if your society simply gets transplant organs from animals -
but cute ones.
But, I wear a wristwatch and spectacles, plus rather a lot of creative
dentistry, I think I could stand to have some mechanical parts but I
don't want to be Luke Skywalker... well, not /that/ much.
Ilya2
> Tim Bruening wrote:
No, you have it right. Four red lights, actually.
Ilya2
You probably meant Anakin Skywalker -- Luke only had one artificial
hand.
We'll know an artificial body part has been perfected when someone
willingly cuts off a perfectly healthy piece of themselves because
relpacement is so much better.
I was going to mention Ultras in Reynold's "Inhibitors" series as
obSFref, then realized Ultras are a poor example. Almost all of them
were cyborgs to various degrees, but more out of necessity than
choice. Ultras did pride themselves on their metal body parts as
distinguishing them from "baseline" humans, but they were proud of
their dreadlocks more.
Ilya2
Some people may have just an irrational phobia against metal parts
inside them. I think it is very rare though.
Joel Olson
news:831756a8-cb29-4ce0...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_Limbo_ by (iirc) Bernard Wolfe
Joel Olson
news:4CC00B34...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
>
>
And then there is the one about the prison planet where all
the inmates lay around growing extra limbs. Something
(insectoid or birdlike) comes by and injects a bud; they spend
most of their time doped up. Eventually the limbs are harvested
and the cycle repeats.
Eef Hartman
> And then there is the one about the prison planet where all
> the inmates lay around growing extra limbs. Something
> (insectoid or birdlike) comes by and injects a bud; they spend
> most of their time doped up. Eventually the limbs are harvested
> and the cycle repeats.
That's from Cordwainer Smith, I forgot exactly which story.
--
******************************************************************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT **
** e-mail: E.J.M....@tudelft.nl - phone: +31-15-27 82525 **
******************************************************************
TB
I am imagining Glen Beck appearing in infomercials singing the
praises of artificial body parts. What would he say in his sales
pitch?
Default User
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:0a526e76-2b1f-4b58...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
More than that. "The state will prove that the said Warren Lewis Knowles
did, in the space of two years, willfully drive through a total of six red
traffic lights. During that same period the same Warren Knowles exceeded
local speed limits no less than ten times, once by as much as fifteen miles
an hour."
Basically, he was set to die for being a dumbass.
Brian
--
Day 625 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.
James Kuyper
In a world where there's a death penalty for speeding; that's pretty
dumb; but don't confuse being dumb with the crime for which he was
convicted: he demonstrated a lack of concern for other people's lives,
by engaging in unsafe driving practices.
Erik Max Francis
I may be misremembering, but I recall one of the other ARM-era stories
mentioning someone getting sent to the organ banks for jaywalking,
though not the particularly story that's being invoked (which I think is
the first that introduced the organ banks).
The point is that demand for organs had gotten so great that mere
infractions (not even actual crimes) were enough to get you the death
penalty.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do
is to shut up. -- Tom Lehrer
Mike Ash
James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> wrote:
Something millions do every day. Don't confuse legal punishment with
justice.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
James Kuyper
> In article<i9t4o6$h77$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> James Kuyper<james...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> In a world where there's a death penalty for speeding; that's pretty
>> dumb; but don't confuse being dumb with the crime for which he was
>> convicted: he demonstrated a lack of concern for other people's lives,
>> by engaging in unsafe driving practices.
>
> Something millions do every day. Don't confuse legal punishment with
> justice.
I was merely pointing out while being dumb had a lot to do with the fact
that he got executed, it was NOT the crime that he was executed for.
Well, to be honest, I also provided the justification for making what he
did a crime; but I did not intend to imply that the crime was sufficient
serious to justify the punishment he received; the whole point of the
story was precisely that the punishment was excessive.
Joel Olson
news:i9tgng$o5v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
It says a lot (I just can't find the right word for it) that even now that
this
trend (escalating punishments for increasingly mild offenses) is beginning
to get criticized, we still can't present the argument against cruelty, but
have to base it on the cost of containment.
Robert Carnegie
> "Ilya2" <il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:831756a8-cb29-4ce0...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 7:36 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Re "prejudiced against artificial organs" - um, why? You prefer being
> > dead?
> >
> > Now if the artificial organ involves something unethical (more
> > unethical than somebody dying so you can have bits of their body) -
> > such as being made of mahogany and ivory with conflict-diamond
> > bearings and endorsed by Glenn Beck - well, yes, there's a problem.
> >
> > Likewise if your society simply gets transplant organs from animals -
> > but cute ones.
> >
> > But, I wear a wristwatch and spectacles, plus rather a lot of creative
> > dentistry, I think I could stand to have some mechanical parts but I
> > don't want to be Luke Skywalker... well, not /that/ much.
>
> You probably meant Anakin Skywalker -- Luke only had one artificial
> hand.
Yeah, but that would be enough to bug me. Better than no hands,
but...
> We'll know an artificial body part has been perfected when someone
> willingly cuts off a perfectly healthy piece of themselves because
> relpacement is so much better.
>
> I was going to mention Ultras in Reynold's "Inhibitors" series as
> obSFref, then realized Ultras are a poor example. Almost all of them
> were cyborgs to various degrees, but more out of necessity than
> choice. Ultras did pride themselves on their metal body parts as
> distinguishing them from "baseline" humans, but they were proud of
> their dreadlocks more.
Is _Mindplayers_ by Pat Cadigan the one where immersive mental contact
through electronics involves either one or both people having
electrodes temporarily inserted /around/ your eyeballs onto the optic
nerves, or, if you're doing it regularly, having your eyes replaced
with more easily removeable cameras?
And, how did Inspector Gadget get that way? (I don't mean dumb...)
Robert Carnegie
> I am imagining Glen Beck appearing in infomercials singing the
> praises of artificial body parts.
That is my fault.
> What would he say in his sales
> pitch?
Oh, golly. Hitler didn't have any?
The Beck-model liver brings a new meaning to the words "zero
tolerance" for alcohol?
Artificial limbs include patented stop-masturbation technology?
Robert Carnegie
Come to think, anti-cyborg prejudice appears from time to time in sci-
fi.
And remember the mockery a couple of years back when Fidel Castro was
reported to have become the owner of an artificial anus.
David Mitchell
I was wondering about early adopter cyborgs the other day (with reference
to a scenario in a bad novel wot I wrote), and this seems an opportune
time to ask, so:
If a well-respected company announced, tomorrow, that they had developed
a process and hardware which would move your brain and gonads to an
artificial body, would you take up the offer?
Assume it's legal, that the body is superior in every way to basic human
(four times stronger, faster, with better senses), gains energy from
eating almost anything organic, (or via sunlight, or the mains), costs
one weeks salary (the owner of a company wants as many people to
"Upgrade" as possible for philosophical reasons).
Obviously, the body can self-repair, and comes with a built in AI and a
fully immersive VR world which you can share with any other cyborg.
It's also made of something like utility fog, and so can assume almost
any shape and appearance.
Now, I'd have one within a month, would any of you?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
Erik Max Francis
There's no smiley, and I'm not familiar with this particular
announcement and any subsequent commentary on it, but I'd bet pretty
heavily that the mockery you're referring to had essentially nothing at
all to do with "anti-cyborg prejudice," but rather an opportunity for
some easy jokes aimed at Castro.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
I used to walk around / Like nothing could happen to me
-- TLC
Erik Max Francis
> I was wondering about early adopter cyborgs the other day (with reference
> to a scenario in a bad novel wot I wrote), and this seems an opportune
> time to ask, so:
>
> If a well-respected company announced, tomorrow, that they had developed
> a process and hardware which would move your brain and gonads to an
> artificial body, would you take up the offer?
>
> Assume it's legal, that the body is superior in every way to basic human
> (four times stronger, faster, with better senses), gains energy from
> eating almost anything organic, (or via sunlight, or the mains), costs
> one weeks salary (the owner of a company wants as many people to
> "Upgrade" as possible for philosophical reasons).
>
> Obviously, the body can self-repair, and comes with a built in AI and a
> fully immersive VR world which you can share with any other cyborg.
>
> It's also made of something like utility fog, and so can assume almost
> any shape and appearance.
>
> Now, I'd have one within a month, would any of you?
Definitely not. Even if the rewards were appealing, I'd want to wait
plenty of time to make sure there were no unintended side effects.
Especially for something that unprecedented.
Not to mention the exact details of what the "transfer" process would
be. It's hard to see hwo with any reasonable physics and engineering it
would be anything but a transfer, but more like a copy. The old
non-cyborg me would be still be around, and presumably need to be
disposed of.
TB
wrote:
Can I make love in that body?:)
Robert Carnegie
I assume that deep-freezing and then grinding up really, really small
is the /start/ of the conversion process.
Somewhere in Warren Ellis's TRANSMETROPOLITAN - the second collection,
of nine barely connected stories, I think - we're shown somebody
getting converted to utility fog (by choice). It doesn't seem to be
difficult or expensive, so I figure there must be catches or everybody
would have already done it.
Robert Carnegie
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Ilya2 wrote:
> >>> Re "prejudiced against artificial organs" - um, why? You prefer being dead?
> >> Some people may have just an irrational phobia against metal parts
> >> inside them. I think it is very rare though.
> >
> > Come to think, anti-cyborg prejudice appears from time to time in sci-
> > fi.
> >
> > And remember the mockery a couple of years back when Fidel Castro was
> > reported to have become the owner of an artificial anus.
>
> There's no smiley, and I'm not familiar with this particular
> announcement and any subsequent commentary on it, but I'd bet pretty
> heavily that the mockery you're referring to had essentially nothing at
> all to do with "anti-cyborg prejudice," but rather an opportunity for
> some easy jokes aimed at Castro.
Uh, mostly, I guess. At least he wasn't portrayed as a terrifying
invincible cyborg socialist.
The last I noticed, official information about Fidel's anus and his
health in general was declared a state secret, which, honestly, to me
just looks like natural politeness.
It was on _The Daily Show_ as an alleged, um, leak.
You pretty much have to put Castro in; if you just google "artificial
anus", he does show up amongst the other results, but, oh my.
Apparently, colostomy and using your own body material for
reconstruction are techniques that also may be described using the
words "artificial anus" as part of the story. But the story was or is
that he actually has machinery back there.
David Mitchell
> On Oct 23, 11:18 pm, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@gmail.com>
>> Now, I'd have one within a month, would any of you?
>
> Can I make love in that body?:)
Yup, it's superior in every respect to your original one, and contains
your gonads, so you can even breed, ultimately.
David Mitchell
Not freezing - but certainly dissection by utility fog which can move
quickly and flexibly enough to handle any involuntary movement your
anaesthetised body might make. Your blood has already been replaced by
this point,and your heart stopped.
David Mitchell
>
> Not to mention the exact details of what the "transfer" process would
> be. It's hard to see hwo with any reasonable physics and engineering it
> would be anything but a transfer, but more like a copy. The old
> non-cyborg me would be still be around, and presumably need to be
> disposed of.
As I mentioned, your brain and gonads are moved to your new body, so no
copying required.
Eef Hartman
> In alt.books.larry-niven Joel Olson <joel....@cox.net> wrote:
>> And then there is the one about the prison planet where all
>> the inmates lay around growing extra limbs. Something
>> (insectoid or birdlike) comes by and injects a bud; they spend
>> most of their time doped up. Eventually the limbs are harvested
>> and the cycle repeats.
>
> That's from Cordwainer Smith, I forgot exactly which story.
A Planet Named Shayol, that's the story I meant.
Joel Olson
news:n7ednZsdp8gyUl7R...@brightview.co.uk...
How much for the extended warranty?
trag
wrote:
It is clearly an invasion by the Cybermen and I'd have already joined
the resistance.
Dan Lingman
There Will be Dragons by John Ringo had something like this as an
optional "upgrade" that one could take. This went rather poorly for the
girl that had upgraded, when the power that was running the utility fog
was diverted to deal with a sort of a civil war...
Dan
Michael Hellwig
you mean with included razors on the hands?
Hmm. An episode from this season of The Big Bang Theory comes to mind.