Organ donation, I think it's great that it is a choice that each person gets to make. We are not forced or bullied into organ donation in our country (USA). I have read horror stories like KidRaw has.
There are also great stories of people having a second chance at life because of an organ donation. I think the Golden Rule would also cover respectfully allowing people to make such a personal,private and emotional decision based on what they believe.

I agree that everyone should do what they are comfortable with but I can't help but be baffled at some of the reasoning. Simply not wanting to is enough, no need to build an outrageous and improbably horrific scenario to justify that choice.

Horsea, I can't say that I think what other people behave like has any bearing on what I choose to behave like. There's a lot of horrible action in this world, that doesn't change how I want to act. I don't have to run around being a Mother Theresa or anything but I also don't feel good about stoppering up my own inclinations for kindness just because not everybody is also kind.

coco says:

<<Ver, I do believe that giving a gift or taking any action with expectation of the result of that action is the root of all personal suffering. That sort of attachment is the Very thing the enlightened suggest we seek to let go of. Byron Katie would call that being over there in somebody else's business while nobody is over here taking care of yours winking smiley.>>

I actually would never take any action without at least entertaining its result. It is true that I don't have much control over results. This doesn't mean that I don't think about the possibilities of those results prior to making informed decisions. This doesn't cause suffering. It causes a sense of peace that I gleaned over all possibilities, weighed its pros and cons and decided that the pros outweighed the cons and went for it irregardless of all my "what ifs".

If the result is not what I expected, at least I have the satisfaction of having gone through every outcome ( expectation) and made an informed decision. If I give a gift to someone and I don't expect anything in return, that is also an expectation in and of itself.

To surrender desire is no more enlightened than to possess desire. Both are opposite extremes. It is absolutely laughable to consider surrendering more "awakened" than the concept of desire. There is great enlightenment within desire. One can be desirous of an expectation while simultaneously letting go as well. It makes me laugh to the ends of the earth when I hear about people trying to let go of their desires and expectations. This is simply a front, a facade for the fear of being hurt when the object of their desire is no longer present. So what? What is so wrong with breaking down and crying and feeling sad and then letting those feelings wash over you and be done with you? I will absolutely have desires. I will absolutely have expectations. I absolutely know that I have very little control over results... that I can only do my best and let go. I will STILL feel sad if someone I love dies. I'm proud of that. I would never try to not feel that. I would then move on.

Is it true that you shouldn't suffer?
How do you feel when you think that and you are still suffering?
What is the opposite of that?

Answer: I should suffer because I sometimes do.

Turn it around. People should suffer until they don't.

The absence of suffering is not an absence of compassion or moral action. Detachment doesn't mean not feeling. It's a freedom to feel genuine emotion in the moment without attachment to what may or may not happen in the next moment. It's neither avoidance not anticipation, it's not an aversion to our full range of emotions, it's simply acceptance of what is.
There isn't any way to project the end result of action beyond the very simplistic. If I throw a stone at a window, chances are very good that it will smash. If I drive drunk I may crash, or I may not. That's a lousy basis for driving under the influence but again, a simple choice. If I donate blood it may go to someone who creates evil in this world. Now that I simply can't know, it's beyond my range of knowledge, so far out of it that it's out of my hands and trying to control it or guess about it is futile. That's the meaningless attachment I'm referring to. It's not the basis of choice for me.


It's funny that my questions about this were the polar opposite of yours. Having spent a great deal of my earlier life suffering and having grown to think of it as "normal", when I examined my beliefs I asked:

Is it true that you should suffer?
How do you feel when you think that thought?
What is the opposite of that?

You should experience suffering if you do, because you ARE. Until you're not.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Horsea, I can't say that I think what other people
> behave like has any bearing on what I choose to
> behave like. There's a lot of horrible action in
> this world, that doesn't change how I want to act.
> I don't have to run around being a Mother Theresa
> or anything but I also don't feel good about
> stoppering up my own inclinations for kindness
> just because not everybody is also kind.

Would you (if you had any say in the matter) choose to donate one of your organs (or even more!) to someone who holds a personal, philosophical, political or religious opinion, and who acts on that, which you find abhorrent? Do you think that they deserve a 2nd chance, too? I know I don't. I'm not going to be kind to someone who either wants to do me and mine serious damage, or who actually has!

"But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." said the Christ. Well, I may fry in hell but this advice is a 4-star recipe for becoming unhinged. Which is where Christian-based western civilization is, right now, and headed south.

Horsea,

You can't usually get to know the donee before you tick off the box on your drivers license; it's all hypothetical at that point, well, until you are on the slab, actually. Because this isn't a decision one can influence it is thus one not morally problematic, IMO. If that's what you're saying. In any case, what is "abhorrent" is relative; Pol Pot probably loved kittens and puppies, etc. . . .

I'll only add that you never know what a person will go on to become, what they will do or not do. It's not going to influence my decision to be an organ donor, that choice is really about me. Who gets those organs is up to G_d, whatever that means, and how they act in this world is up to them, none of my business either way.

Tamukha Wrote:

> In any case, what is "abhorrent" is relative; Pol
> Pot probably loved kittens and puppies, etc. . . .

I know what you mean, but your above stmt isn't the best example. Pol Pot being a far easterner, he probably "loved" eating those kittens & puppies.

I'm going to assume the best here and believe that's not meant to be as racist as it sounds.

I don't see my statement as racist. It is a fact that far easterners have no compunctions about consuming cats and dogs. I appreciate, though, that you "assume the best" about my intent. I used to get mailings from an animal rights organization filled with details and photos of what the Koreans, in particular, liked to do to the family dog on picnics. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
Recently there were stories about "herbal" pills actually containing powdered baby flesh. (Am I a racist yet? How far do I have to go with this kind of information before you stop assuming I'm really a well-meaning person?)

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

"Hospitals and abortion clinics in China reportedly pass the remains onto drugs companies when a baby is stillborn or aborted, the South Korean SBS documentary team reported last year.

"The San Francisco Times reported that tests carried out on the pills confirmed they were made up of 99.7 per cent human remains."

Nearly HALF of organ donors still show signs of life according to Harvard standards when harvested:

[artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com]

That's a HUGE percentage. Huge!

Is it right to take an invalid's organs and rob them the right of a peaceful passage into the next realm because they can't speak to defend themselves? Because they are disposable in the eyes of this temporal society?

One of the things that came up again and again on this forum that always made me think was the concept of "vegan" and "not taking something that isn't yours."

When does your desire for life supercede someone else's right to a complete death process? I suppose signing the donation card waives that right.

Maybe if we lived on Starship Enterprise and a replication of our own organ was only a computer-click away, donation would be a bit different. But it's a sketchy science at best with a lot of silent suffering.

A clear passage from this world into the next is #1 on my priority list. Clarity of consciousness, through and through and through. That's my opinion. I guess you really have to consider how deeply you'd consider waiving your opinions when you sign that organ donation card. I'd love to help if I could, but I literally *would not bet my life* on the current level of technology available to us, because, push come to shove, that's exactly what it comes down to.

People who receive implants often suffer complications. Maybe that extended bit of time is great for them, but again, I ask the very important question: at what price?

I'll also never be put under anaesthetic, if I can help it. But those are my weird opinions, some of them based on my own experiences, some of them likely based on too much Crowley and Monroe. It's not a kind of fear...

For an interesting perspective on the science of a fractal environment (raw food included) on DNA, and extension of consciousness beyond the body, check out Dan Winter on YouTube.

I do think the science of a proper death (and proper birth, for heaven's sake!) needs to be seriously considered. Ancient cultures didn't write The Book of the Dead for nothing. I think swarming a dying person like vultures to harvest their organs is incredibly disrespectful of a sacred process taking place.

Because it's almost the flip of a coin whether or not that person being harvested is truly dead...

As for cremation, I'll never forget the day I went to pick up my mother's ashes. They were put in a cardboard box. No bag, nothing to contain them. And they leaked out of the box on the way home. Great job, whoever handled that one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2012 07:27AM by phantom.

Uh, Horsea, Pol Pot was vegan. Raised in a strict Buddhist family. Cambodeans aren't Koreans, and most Koreans don't eat house pets, anymore, anyway, so . . . yes, your statement could, possibly, maybe, be construed as a touch, a bit, a skosh, racist.

But I am going to assume you were just trying to make a joke or rebut glibly

phantom,

The standards of assessing brain death you mention date back to 1968, and another set to 1981. For obvious reasons--better diagnostic equipment, por ejemplo-- the standards should be updated. To me, brain stem death is death. Whether death has occurred if something in the brain's prefrontal cortex is showing awareness is a spiritual conundrum, but for biological purposes, if the basic centers that operate the autonomic nervous system are irretrievably gone, that's death. For the time being, those patients that show some primitive brain activity and some frontal brain activity shouldn't be considered valid donors.

Glad the Chinese government is no longer harvesting organs from political prisoners that have died.*

*met with unfortunate "accidents" down in the prison mines.

Tamukha...where have you read/heard in korea they don't eat dogs anymore? I thought they still did, but would love to know it's lessened or not happening.

[animalrightskorea.org]

(btw, I don't mean this as to say they are worse than what we do here to in terms of enslaving animals and treating them as commodities. The life (and death) of factory farm animals is an amount of suffering i can hardly imagine.)

My opinions are much the same as yours, Phantom. We all need & deserve a complete death process.

As to cremation, there's nothing remotely green or ecologial about it. Read up on the energy it takes. And, somehow, it is just plain ugly. Bodies are dense and wet. Burning them is stupid.

Tamukha said to me,

"
Uh, Horsea, Pol Pot was vegan. Raised in a strict Buddhist family. Cambodeans aren't Koreans, and most Koreans don't eat house pets, anymore, anyway, so . . . yes, your statement could, possibly, maybe, be construed as a touch, a bit, a skosh, racist.

But I am going to assume you were just trying to make a joke or rebut glibly smiling smiley"

Unlike 99.9% of white folk, I do not lose sleep over the fact that someone will consider me "racist". I know what I think and feel and what's in my heart and more important, so does my Creator. I don't think I am better than anyone because I am white. I wish I could say the same thing about certain other races' attitudes toward me and my kind. Wait til we are a minority here, and you will find out right quick.

Anyhow, I didn't know that Pol Pot was vegan. I found a site called vegetariansareevil.

Horsea,

That's a weird site! I am thinking it cannot be for real!

Yes, I'm sick of the whole racist labeling modus operandi. If you're white, southern, Republican/Conservative, you're automatically a 'racist'. Even if you state a fact, you're a racist.

Oh yes, us white people sure have been hard done by. Boo hoo hoo.

Reminds me a bit of this

xxxxxxxxxxxxx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2012 04:55PM by pborst.

Horsea

pm sent

Paul

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm going to assume the best here and believe
> that's not meant to be as racist as it sounds.


I think calling people 'rednecks' is Racist and Elitist. Why is calling people 'rednecks' acceptable?

It's perfectly OK by me since I come from a family of white trash rednecks who refer to themselves as such, lol. Of course, anything can be said in an offensive manner, the intention is as important as the words sometimes.
I try to avoid using the word "retarded" as it is very offensive to some. I also refrain from saying 'oh my god' as that's also quite offensive to some. Language has power. I think it's good to be aware of these things. We live in a multi-cultural society, using generalizations can get a point across but sometimes it's unnecessary and cruel to boot.
We had a mayor when I lived in TO, Mel Lastman, who when invited to a gathering in Africa was quoted as making remarks about being eaten by cannibals. I'm sure he thought it was very funny but he's remembered as being an embarrassment to the city as well as the country with his casual racism. It's just plain ugly, is what it is. There's a level of awareness missing, a level of compassionate connection with the rest of humanity that I anticipate in otherwise intelligent people that's shocking, positively shocking to find absent.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said recently in a report that there are new fears the illegal organ trade may once again be rising.

[www.naturalnews.com]

My case in point... right there in the headlines. =\

Surgeon: Remove Kidneys for Transplant Before Donor's Death
[gma.yahoo.com]

Hi,
I just want to add other countries do eat dogs, and, unfortunately, they believe dogs will taste better if you torture them before you kill them It's really bad. (Honestly, I forget the specific country, but I thought it was China. I could be wrong.) I think you can easily find an AR video about it on youtube. Of course, we treat many species terribly in the U.S. too.

P.S. The reason I know it's currently done is because I read about it in current news from In Defense of Animals and PETA.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2012 11:46PM by RawPlease.

Hi,

All the above are reasons why I'm not a donor. Years ago I watched an old movie called 'OR 9' or operating theature 9, where people were killed during a minor operation solely for the purpose fo securing organs. The people responsible were making tons of money, and there was also a movie about people going in for minor problems and being put into, and kept in a coma. When a specific time had passed, the family would be asked to consider taking them off life support for the purpose of harvesting their organs.

We all would like to save a life, and I have done that without giving up my organs. I found a neighbour who has locked themselves in their garage with their car running and the CD player going. I could hear the music and the car running from where my unit is. I couldn't sleep and went down to see if anything was wrong.

I had to break into their garage and pull her out. She wasn't breathing, so I administered CPR which got her breathing, though she remained unconscious. I carried her up to my unit and called 000, which is 911 in the US.

She was taken to hospital where she actually died three times before she was stable. The hospital staff told me that if I'd waited a half hour longer, she wouldn't have made it.

I felt pretty good about what I did, though had to have counselling because this women hated me for saving her. Would you believe it???

She would have left two lovely children without a mother, yet she didn't want to live for various reasons.

Anyway, I know most people don't have the opportunity to save a life in this way. But for me, I don't feel bad about not donating my organs after I die, especially since I'll only have to be considered 'brain dead' for them to start cutting into me. I've heard of people waking up after being buried too.

Cheers, jalan

So, really, the best solution to all of these problems would to be go all out and have a neo-raw-Viking-Lord burial: lie down in a boat and have someone ship you out to sea on a mountain of fruit (and maybe some signal flares or something).

Just in case... you do wake up.

I think there is also something really poetic about being put in the dirt and eaten by trees. Yes, they feed us, but that fruit is a loan, which they will reclaim later.

Profit can twist the most noble intentions.

Living by example, sharing raw food and knowledge for those who asking, trying to live as to inspire others... Even if it leads a few away from disease that would otherwise end badly, I think it's worth it.

There are so many positive ways we can invest our energies to promote life... save life... great and small.

@phantom, I want to be put back into the earth for worms and everything else. Also, I read it saves animals' lives to donate one's body to science after death. I think there would be less chance of someone eagerly considering the body dead while still alive.