Revisions To Uniform Determination Of Death Act

I don’t think this has been mentioned here, something to keep an eye on.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/...hanges-to-definition-of-death-in-federal-law/

 

They have been after this for years. Leave it to the Biden group to finally get it near being enacted. I guess we could harvest ol' Joe's organs while he is still in office, as he seems comatose much of the time he is in public. The world is falling apart and Joe goes to Ireland. In a different form, it was also in the ACA, as Sarah Palin pointed out and was ridiculed for, but that would only deny care for a sick person who no longer paid taxes (my interpretation).

 

It wouldn't surprise me to find that this is backed by the insurance companies. If they can get a comatose patient declared "dead," then the insurance wouldn't have to pay for the possible months/years of life support and hospitalization.

 

Not all organ donation saves lives. Cornea transplants save sight, and some skin is used for cosmetic purposes for cancer patients and burn victims, as well as accident victim reconstruction. A lot of blood goes to research and reagent companies, but I don't believe that is the majority of most types. AB blood types mostly go to waste (cells) but O and A blood types are almost completely used. I am referring to the red cells. Plasma and platelets are different and are usually pheresed for use

 

Remember the Terry Schiavo case?
For her, the question of sentience and consciousness was reduced to a debate between politicians and lawyers.

Remember how she eventually died?
When it was found that her body could live on its own sans mechanical devices, she was starved to death.

 

One of the biggest tragedies of modern times. If I recall, her husband was behind much of it.

 

True.
The main point I think that is pertinent to the conversation is that there’s a flaw or rather, many flaws.
Whilst the unborn are still connected to the umbilical cord, they are not considered to be sentient ergo they are “disposable”.
Whilst the elderly Are connected to an umbilical of sorts, they aren’t considered to be a viable element of society therefore they too are subject to whatever definition that lawmakers decide to give to define life.
Terry wasn’t hooked to anything and was still considered to be a burden on society.

As of yet, the fledgling sciences of psychology and neurology cannot determine nor measure consciousness but yet with such a huge limitation, lawyers and politicians without the help of science can administer decrees that affect the life and death of those who cannot speak for themselves.

Personally, if I’m aware or seemingly unaware and for whatever reason I am hooked up and cannot live without machinery, I get unplugged.
But, that isn’t because that some law has determined that I’d be better off among the unbreathing, it’s because I say so.

 

It seems odd to me that we can say (of an adult), because of certain brain wave characteristics, a person’s physiology, that they are essentially “dead” as a person, nothing left of who they were and no ability to recover it. We feel comfortable saying that person is dead.

I’ve never understood, why they don’t, at least for the sake of consistency, apply they same criteria in determining whether an embryo is a person under the law. I honestly have no idea at what points those similar mental and physiological conditions might exist, or in fact if there is even enough similarity to make it feasible. At least though it would be legally consistent instead of arbitrary as it is now. Of course they continue pursuing absurd execution methods for the death penalty instead of simple, inexpensive and completely lethal inert gas asphyxiation. Where’s the bang head emoji?