
In the West, especially in America, we have come to accept the donation of organs as a “gift” of life. If death were to come, what’s the point of keeping an organ that could benefit others? This practice of organ donation is not only an act of humanitarianism or selflessness but also an act of practicality. We tend to associate all we do as “rational” and “progressive,” making our ways seem “right.” If this gift of life seems to be so prevailing in the West and especially in the U.S., then why would some people have second thoughts about organ donation?
In Japan it is assumed that family decisions regarding organ donation can overrule the individual decisions (Lock 9). Perhaps this way of thinking resonates beyond the Japanese practices since many non-western cultures put much more value in the family than the individual. Although this conflicts with the Western ideas about individual rights, does it not make more sense for the people who have to deal with the death of their family members to have control over how they make of the death? Different ways and places of burial bring about different meanings and significance for each culture. If the process of organ donation allowed people to have more contact with their “dying” family members without being in a formal setting in which technology indicates that the organs seem to matter more than the person, then maybe a compromise could be made. Making “brain-dead” people “cadaver-like” with advanced technology commodifies human body part, separating the “personhood” from the body. Despite how “selfless” we may be, it is very difficult to deny that we do have to belittle the human body parts in order to “save” a life.

Many cultures including the West have urban legends that warn people not tamper with the dead. In the case of organ donation-would we say that the persons were already dead when they lost conscious? Lock’s indication that “brain-dead” is not “legally dead,” unless they have signed up to be a donor (3) evokes questions about how being a “donor” could be a ticket to early death in which the body is only preserved for later surgical mutilation. If it is assumed that “personhood” is lost because the mind is no longer able to control the body and use “life” to the fullest, then there is legitimacy in which the body should not go to “waste.” Cartesian dualism which held the mind and the body as separate is at work here, in which the mind "makes" a “person” and the body could be discarded or used as “objects” to be swapped. The value of “personhood” in the mind seems to persist with how we have asylums for the severely mentally unstable persons, in which anything the person desires could be treated as “harmful” to the individual or those around them. This assumption that the person is not “the body and the mind (holistic being)” opposes cultural ideas that are against dismemberment of the body. Cultural beliefs against the dismemberment of bodies is prevalent in beliefs about “life” after “death” in the spirit realm, in which the spirit could be missing a “heart” and the metaphors associated with the organ. This particular “heartless” soul would suffer from not being able to find “warmth” and “care” from other spirits. The “stealing” of an organ is to be condemned since spirits should be free from anxieties and enjoy reunion with other souls. In fact, such sins could be considered very sever because spirits could come to haunt “sinners,” including family members. It is obvious from these beliefs that organ donation seems to be out of question for people trying to make peace with the dead. Once again even this particular belief stresses how death and burial rituals are to be held important for the peace of surviving kin. The fear of being a "sinner" and becoming cursed work as agencies to reinforce this belief. This belief persists in people because the uncertainties about what death is and means actually provides a room for stabilizing the assumed ideas or the invention of what death could mean. Even when a certain view becomes "common sense" or "belief" and other view about the same idea could germinate.
Besides cultural factors, individual choices could hinder people from donating their organs. There is simply that fear that doctors may pull the plug too early. Disturbing issues take the form of not knowing exactly where organs end up from donation. Many more of us may find more appreciation in knowing that our organs helped a needy patient rather than for scientific research. It is arguable though that donating organs to research could be far more beneficial as it is provides more outlet of possibilities in finding cures for the entirety of society than to one individual needing a specific organ. Perhaps our fear lies in not knowing what type of research our organs could help to fuel. If documents were to specify where organs could end up, would people only donate their organs to needy patients? If these speculations were already made, would it not only make sense for official documents to not make discreet options for how organs are to be used? Moral questions regarding the nebulous purpose of research and its implications of “playing” God also cloud discussions on Abortion rights. Does an embryo have as much cognition to be considered a “person” or should they be regarded as a “cadaver” to be commodified? It seems to be that our fear of uncertainty, in which we have to create a belief for our own peace has been recognized by all societal institutions, in which political controls gain be gained with that some relief to individuals. Is this a win-win situation?
In Japan it is assumed that family decisions regarding organ donation can overrule the individual decisions (Lock 9). Perhaps this way of thinking resonates beyond the Japanese practices since many non-western cultures put much more value in the family than the individual. Although this conflicts with the Western ideas about individual rights, does it not make more sense for the people who have to deal with the death of their family members to have control over how they make of the death? Different ways and places of burial bring about different meanings and significance for each culture. If the process of organ donation allowed people to have more contact with their “dying” family members without being in a formal setting in which technology indicates that the organs seem to matter more than the person, then maybe a compromise could be made. Making “brain-dead” people “cadaver-like” with advanced technology commodifies human body part, separating the “personhood” from the body. Despite how “selfless” we may be, it is very difficult to deny that we do have to belittle the human body parts in order to “save” a life.

Many cultures including the West have urban legends that warn people not tamper with the dead. In the case of organ donation-would we say that the persons were already dead when they lost conscious? Lock’s indication that “brain-dead” is not “legally dead,” unless they have signed up to be a donor (3) evokes questions about how being a “donor” could be a ticket to early death in which the body is only preserved for later surgical mutilation. If it is assumed that “personhood” is lost because the mind is no longer able to control the body and use “life” to the fullest, then there is legitimacy in which the body should not go to “waste.” Cartesian dualism which held the mind and the body as separate is at work here, in which the mind "makes" a “person” and the body could be discarded or used as “objects” to be swapped. The value of “personhood” in the mind seems to persist with how we have asylums for the severely mentally unstable persons, in which anything the person desires could be treated as “harmful” to the individual or those around them. This assumption that the person is not “the body and the mind (holistic being)” opposes cultural ideas that are against dismemberment of the body. Cultural beliefs against the dismemberment of bodies is prevalent in beliefs about “life” after “death” in the spirit realm, in which the spirit could be missing a “heart” and the metaphors associated with the organ. This particular “heartless” soul would suffer from not being able to find “warmth” and “care” from other spirits. The “stealing” of an organ is to be condemned since spirits should be free from anxieties and enjoy reunion with other souls. In fact, such sins could be considered very sever because spirits could come to haunt “sinners,” including family members. It is obvious from these beliefs that organ donation seems to be out of question for people trying to make peace with the dead. Once again even this particular belief stresses how death and burial rituals are to be held important for the peace of surviving kin. The fear of being a "sinner" and becoming cursed work as agencies to reinforce this belief. This belief persists in people because the uncertainties about what death is and means actually provides a room for stabilizing the assumed ideas or the invention of what death could mean. Even when a certain view becomes "common sense" or "belief" and other view about the same idea could germinate.
Besides cultural factors, individual choices could hinder people from donating their organs. There is simply that fear that doctors may pull the plug too early. Disturbing issues take the form of not knowing exactly where organs end up from donation. Many more of us may find more appreciation in knowing that our organs helped a needy patient rather than for scientific research. It is arguable though that donating organs to research could be far more beneficial as it is provides more outlet of possibilities in finding cures for the entirety of society than to one individual needing a specific organ. Perhaps our fear lies in not knowing what type of research our organs could help to fuel. If documents were to specify where organs could end up, would people only donate their organs to needy patients? If these speculations were already made, would it not only make sense for official documents to not make discreet options for how organs are to be used? Moral questions regarding the nebulous purpose of research and its implications of “playing” God also cloud discussions on Abortion rights. Does an embryo have as much cognition to be considered a “person” or should they be regarded as a “cadaver” to be commodified? It seems to be that our fear of uncertainty, in which we have to create a belief for our own peace has been recognized by all societal institutions, in which political controls gain be gained with that some relief to individuals. Is this a win-win situation?
It is obvious that this title spurs many questions about whether or not biomedicince is the only authority over the effort to "cure" AIDS. Despite the wealth of knowledge and speculation that Dr. Rath Health Foundation presents in this book, the splintering views about how to approach the spread of AIDS itself contributes to uncertainty. Uncertainty creates a niche for the incorporation of already dominating views to spread to another discipline, in which alternative views bud or get transferred. The transferred views are liable to change and recreation to fit it's new "host."According to Lock “Specialized respiratory care units were established during the 1940’s, largely as a result of polio epidemics… (59).” Despite the obvious and seemingly manipulative process in which scientific institutions must create technology to “make” diseases and treatments before publicly announcing the discovery of a “new” disorder or disease, it is essential to also remember the merits of technology. We have lost thousands of people from polio and tuberculosis. Our technology budded from trying to prevent any more immediate deaths. Although we unanimously agree that technology should be more advanced to prevent outbreaks, where do we place boundaries of how much research is to be done in specific areas of medicine and technology? In today’s context, it is not possible to separate the monetary value of commodification from scientific endeavors to “save” or “bring comfort” to lives unless we learn to not give monetary values to things. With boundaries we have to mull over how much restraint is necessary to uphold ethics and find cures to human diseases we previously thought did not exist. The boundaries have to become fluid to allow changes. Once again this "fluidity" of assertions creates uncertainty that tends to give more meaning to a dominate notion as it is applied to medical science, warranting competition with alternative notions. Once again uncertainty is inevitable with competing assertions. How far are we willing to investigate life and death to cure HIV/AIDS? On a more sentimental note: Why not do all we can to save innocent Children from HIV/AIDS? Given the possibility that each one of us could contract diseases deemed "incurable" wouldn't we want to exert as much effort as possible to save ourselves and family members?
Sources
Lock, Margaret. 2002. Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sources of Images listed in order presented
"one to many people." 2009. Gift of Life. 22 July 2009. <http://www.giftoflife.org/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1>.
"Spirit." SoultoGod.com. 22 July 2009. <http://web.mac.com/soultogod/Soul_to_God/Gods_Transcendent_Soul-Spiritual_Art.html>.
"End AIDS!" 22 July 2009. <http://17thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/>.
















