It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Google Video Link
The Methuselah Mouse Prize (Mprize) competition encourages and rewards scientific research that accelerates the development of life extension therapies. Cash prizes are awarded to the research team that breaks successive lifespan records for the world’s oldest-ever mouse by whatever means, and for extending lifespan in mice that are already in late middle age when anti-aging treatments begin.
January 20, 2009
The Bioethics Drive to Kill for Organs Grows
The agitation to increase the pool of potential organ donors by allowing people who are unquestionably not dead, but who have profound cognitive disabilities, to be killed for their organs continues. An article in the American Medical News, primarily concerned with organ procurement after “heart death,” is the latest example. From the story:
Other critics said the concept of transplanting a heart after cardiac death isn’t logical. “If someone is pronounced dead on the basis of irreversible loss of heart function, after all, it would not be possible for heart function to be restored in another body,” wrote Robert M. Veatch, PhD, a Georgetown University medical ethics professor, in an Aug. 14, 2008, NEJM essay. “One cannot say a heart is irreversibly stopped if, in fact, it will be
This is to sow intentional confusion. The heart can beat outside the body because it has its own nerve clusters, and no one would say that the body from which it came was not dead. The issue is whether the heart could spontaneously restart beating, not whether the heart itself is so degraded it can no longer function.
Here’s the advocacy part:
Veatch said the dead-donor rule should be changed to allow patients or their families to opt for a standard that takes a loss of functioning consciousness (short of brain death) as another kind of death. Physicians could then procure hearts “in the absence of irreversible heart stoppage.”
Robert D. Truog, MD, said the Denver cases illustrate the underlying problem in how death is defined to facilitate organ donation and transplantation. He said it is time to reconsider the dead-donor rule. “The existing paradigm, built around the dead-donor rule, has increasingly pushed us into more and more implausible definitions of death, until eventually we end up with such a tortured definition that nobody’s going to believe it,” said Dr. Truog, professor of medical ethics and anesthesia at Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts.
This is known in the trade as “redefining death,” and if it ever comes to pass–people like Terri Schiavo could be called dead instead of unconscious and harvested to death. Moreover, we are not being “pushed” into this. Some want to choose it. It is our job to make sure it doesn’t happen.
Posted by Wesley J. Smith
Posted in Clinical / Medical, Organ Donation / Transplantation
Originally posted by americandingbat
I'm curious to know if any of the people who would choose to live forever believe in life after death?
And if so, why you would give up the opportunity to experience that?
My answer is that I would not want to live forever, even though I do not believe that consciousness extends beyond physical death. There are the obvious reasons, like how overpopulated the world would become, and the issues surrounding what would be necessary to support a mind and body that were only designed for a century or so of life through millenia (how many knee and hip replacements would that require, for instance?)
But I also think that dying is really a part of living, even if it's the last part of living. And I think the focus that we have in our culture on avoiding it at all costs causes us to lose sight of its meaning.
And for the record, I would definitely go see a movie about a millionaire in love with himself who became a jellyfish to gain eternal life but ended up suicidal in a prison mental ward.
Louis Armstrong What a Wonderful World
I hear babies cryin', I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll ever know
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world
Originally posted by prevenge
'one would think.. that with the advent of immortality available for anybody..
then paired with it would come all of the issues bring up.. and thus their forecasted solutions.
you don't think that top scientists work for decades on immortality .. generation after generation.. finally accomplishing it.. and out of all of those nobel prize winning scinetists.. not ONE of them.. or their contemporaries thoght of the issues you just brought up?
i think that's a bit dull minded to think that.
of course they thoght of overpopulation.. and thats where responsible reproduction come in.. not rampant, un planned, irresponsible animalistic "rutting"..
it's just that simple.. if you have people that live forever.. then you use an iron fist to prevent more people from coming into the world.. whatever it takes.. if you can't accomplish that.. then you dont let people be immortal.
on the idea of "death" ...
i know biological immortality is possible.. sometime..
but i know that you'd be able to die if you wanted...
you just would have the "Exact" amount of time desirable in life..
with no slowly ramped down end-time where your body decays while living in it.