I don't want my body to be burnt
A newspaper article (SMH) points out how we can make good use of our body (at a body farm), if we only can bring ourselves to see
the value in donating it to science. I believe this thinking is all the wrong
way around: We should not have to decide to donate our body to science, we
should have to decide if our body should
not go to science. (Read also THE CONVERSATION, Opt-out organ donation ... a model for Australia?) I wrote a letter to the newspaper about the issue:
"Some people, like Carol Cruikshank
(and myself), believe "the body is a dead carcass and there is too much
hoopla about funerals.” Indeed. Her dead body will be donated to science. Mine
too.
"Here is a thought: Our live bodies
are ours; especially in view of abortions we may or may not want to have, transfusions, organ donations etc. But our dead bodies? Well, I don’t think
they’re ours.
"This is the thing: Our bodies are
kept alive and well by the state, by the public health system. When we die we
have no use for them - but the health system, science, the universities etc do.
I understand a human body is worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars,
if used properly. And we burn them!
"So a system should be in place where
by default a dead body is given to science, unless the (previous) owner has
opted out; consideration shall also be given to relatives, who may bring
religious and cultural issues into play. But, again, they also should be
obliged to opt-out from the default position.
"This system in place would solve so
many problems; not least the one of there never being enough organ donors. Furthermore,
the state then can recover some of the exorbitant health costs it is burdened
with. A no-brainer, really."
Carsten Burmeister Cremorne
