jleonardbc t1_j6k3wh1 wrote
Reply to comment by DevinB333 in The letters of T. S. Eliot to Emily Hale that were kept sealed from 1956 to 2020 have been released for free online by RunDNA
This is more specifically the intrigue-ridden correspondence Eliot had with his longtime muse and mistress, one of the most significant people in his life.
DevinB333 t1_j6kaolk wrote
I understand this context. And it seems they made arrangements for their release. My statement still stands though. I wouldn’t want this type of stuff released after my death.
gloryday23 t1_j6kido8 wrote
>I wouldn’t want this type of stuff released after my death.
I'm fairly certain, once you're dead, you won't care.
necro_kederekt t1_j6ljise wrote
It’s an interesting philosophical question. Should the wishes of dead people be respected?
Let’s say a dying person says “please, my last wish is for all my organs to stay in my body and be buried with me. It’s very important and I won’t get into heaven otherwise.” You say “okay buddy.”
They bleed out. There are five people in the hospital whose lives can be saved by this guy’s organs. Do you let them die according to his wishes? Or do you figure he has no wishes now that he’s dead, so scavenge those organs.
And what if the stakes aren’t so high? What if somebody says “my last wish is for you to keep my flower garden presentable.” Do you have any obligation to do so after they die?
Would you be okay with me fucking your grimacing corpse on live television? Current-you may say no, but by your logic, it doesn’t matter what alive-you wants.
gloryday23 t1_j6locle wrote
>Let’s say a dying person says “please, my last wish is for all my organs to stay in my body and be buried with me. It’s very important and I won’t get into heaven otherwise.” You say “okay buddy.”
Personally, I am 100% in favor of organ donation being neither opt-in, or opt-out, I think it should be mandatory, and there should be no exemptions.
>They bleed out. There are five people in the hospital whose lives can be saved by this guy’s organs. Do you let them die according to his wishes? Or do you figure he has no wishes now that he’s dead, so scavenge those organs.
It is insane to me that people anywhere die, because someone needs to be sure all of the organs decompose into dirt with their corpse.
>And what if the stakes aren’t so high? What if somebody says “my last wish is for you to keep my flower garden presentable.” Do you have any obligation to do so after they die?
To me this is the philosophical question, no on is hurt by the action or inaction, is your commitment to the person valid after their death, I have no idea.
>Would you be okay with me fucking your grimacing corpse on live television? Current-you may say no, but by your logic, it doesn’t matter what alive-you wants.
My friend, if you can get it (my corpse) once I'm dead, and they've taken anything usable from it for organ donation, feel free to go to town, afterlife, or no, I'll be done with it.
necro_kederekt t1_j6lp5l5 wrote
I like your perspective! It seems internally consistent. That’s rare these days.
Do you think there should be exemptions for religious beliefs if, as in my original question, some people truly believe that they need all their pieces together? This isn’t a gotcha, I personally think religion is dumb, if you answered no, I would agree.
gloryday23 t1_j6mzj1r wrote
I'm borderline anti-religious, so no I don't think religious or really any other exemptions shoudl be allowed once you're dead. That being said, if the world insists on it, anyone exempt from donating should be exempt from receiving them as well.
None of this matters because of how far we are from anything like this being a reality, we'll be making organs before anyone considers mandatory donation. What I don't get is why/how a person can be an organ donor, and their family can refuse on their behalf once their dead. That is just crazy to me. If we do have post mortem rights, one would think the decision we made while alive would trump decisions someone else makes for us once we're dead.
Frank_Bigelow t1_j6mdql3 wrote
You've responded more or less exactly the way I meant to. All I'd like to add is that, in the case of the flower garden, there is no obligation created by the fact that the request doesn't hurt anyone. You may wish to care for the flower garden, whether it's because of a choice to honor the dead person's wish, or just because you like flower gardens, but the fundamental question doesn't change just because the request harms no one. A dead person's wishes carry no obligation for the living beyond those the living choose themselves.
turkeygiant t1_j6lplzv wrote
This ties into something that a lot of people don't actually realize, a personal will is a incredibly weak legal document in many jurisdictions that only carries weight until somebody contests it. Lets say you are a perfectly mentally competent person but decide to leave your entire multi-million dollar fortune in a trust to take care of your poodle should you pass away because you don't particularly like your family. Your family can absolutely contest that decision, they don't even have to prove you were incompetent in any way, they can just say "its dumb to use all this money to care for a poodle, we are their kids, we want the money" and if a judge finds this to be a reasonable assertion they can just override your wishes. Any respect given to your wishes after you die are either due to the niceties of your family and friends respecting those wishes, or a judge deciding they are reasonable to follow.
necro_kederekt t1_j6lpwdw wrote
That sounds nearly believable, but… I have a hard time believing any pets would be getting 100 million dollars if it were that easy to disrupt. Right? Like, people get very weird around money. Are you saying that those people’s families just happen to be very nice and not have any problem with the poodle getting all the money? Or just that the judge happened to think it was a reasonable use of the money.
turkeygiant t1_j6lvuu4 wrote
Well the answer to that I think is that stories of these animals with trusts set up in wills are mostly apocryphal, though you could set up a trust while you were still alive if you had the cash and bypass the whole process.
necro_kederekt t1_j6lwvjc wrote
Ah, that makes a lot more sense.
mygreensea t1_j6mix6z wrote
The answer is very simple: do what the owner of the body wishes. Since the owner is dead, the ownership passes to the next of kin. Now it is their body and they can do with it what they want.
Which is probably to fulfil the dead person’s wishes.
Bugawd_McGrubber t1_j6l2hmg wrote
Responses:
- And yet, they're still alive so they care.
- If there is no afterlife, then yes, it doesn't matter. If there is an afterlife, I'm fairly certain they'll still care.
recumbent_mike t1_j6l7lbg wrote
If there's an afterlife where you're in eternal bliss or torture, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't care much about how their correspondence makes them look.
dashrendar t1_j6kciso wrote
You have to do/be something/one of such note that would warrant the public to even want to read your letters.
Have you done anything that would reach that threshold?
Or are you just a nobody like the rest of us and this 'scenario' would never be an actual thing?
Edit: Lots of people be thinking they are the main character at life I guess.
DevinB333 t1_j6kdmfv wrote
I haven’t claimed to be anyone of significance. My statement still stands.
dashrendar t1_j6pdg3w wrote
Iamthemaincharacter
Champion-of-Cyrodiil t1_j6kdwb0 wrote
> I hope I never attain the kind of fame ...
Pretty sure they already answered your questions.
marineman43 t1_j6kgp1b wrote
Are you just generally this abrasive to everyone you meet as a matter of principle?
AlmennDulnefni t1_j6kmy2q wrote
It's to make sure no one cares enough to dig into their personal correspondence after they've kicked the bucket.
marineman43 t1_j6knx6v wrote
What a big brain move loll
AngryTrucker t1_j6kluxw wrote
That context doesn't make invading privacy a justifiable thing.
jleonardbc t1_j6kufp4 wrote
Correct, it merely challenges the other person's suggestion that this event represents "people seek[ing] out any and all correspondence I’ve had with anyone after my death."
This correspondence is notable for its content and recipient; it's not just "any and all with anyone." There aren't teams of researchers trying to track down Eliot's tossed-off thank-you note to his catsitter.
[deleted] t1_j6ku4mn wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments