Hypocrisy is a core component of the capitalist machine.
post
Meanwhile 99% of America would be fired, lose their benefits and be unplugged because they are dead anyway
Or he's getting none because he's dead
He's not dead.
Comatose, non-responsive, vegetable? Probably.
But the hospotal isn't going to keep a rotting corpse for a month.
Shit, it's Kentucky hospital too...
They're not exactly the best at making that whole "alive or dead" call.
Natasha Miller says she was getting ready to do her job preserving donated organs for transplantation when the nurses wheeled the donor into the operating room.
She quickly realized something wasn't right. Though the donor had been declared dead, he seemed to her very much alive.
"He was moving around — kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed," Miller told NPR in an interview. "And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was crying visibly."
The donor's condition alarmed everyone in the operating room at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Ky., including the two doctors, who refused to participate in the organ retrieval, she says.
"The procuring surgeon, he was like, 'I'm out of it. I don't want to have anything to do with it,' " Miller says. "It was very chaotic. Everyone was just very upset."
Miller says she overheard the case coordinator at the hospital for her employer, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA), call her supervisor for advice.
"So the coordinator calls the supervisor at the time. And she was saying that he was telling her that she needed to 'find another doctor to do it' – that, 'We were going to do this case. She needs to find someone else,' " Miller says. "And she's like, 'There is no one else.' She's crying — the coordinator — because she's getting yelled at."
I guess we should be surprised Mitch isn't an organ donor tho...
Disagree. They made a corpse deliver a baby against the family’s wishes. The people in charge are pure evil
That's not physically possable.
I think you have a different idea what corpse is.
Disagree. Disgusting fascist take but ok Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Smith_pregnancy_case
How does this have upvotes? Calling someone fascist for thinking a living body isn’t a corpse? Man this place is such a shit hole sometimes.
I understand the fascist comment earlier, this time not sure how you define it?
Good, bad, fascist, whatever, doesn't matter, to a disagreement on nomenclature. A biologically functioning body with a working ATP cycle, isn't a corpse. Ethics and morality are irrelevant.
brain dead is considered dead.
no matter if cells still have atp.
it's a corpse.
there's no biological definition for human death. besides a vague "is it curable"
death used to be cardiac death, but we figured out how to save people who had cardiac death, so we move the goalpost to brain death.
It's literally not a corpse, it's a brain-dead person / body.
You started this debate with Steve by using sensationalizing language, and I'm here to provide definitions and lay this discussion to rest:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/brain-dead?q=Braindead
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/corpse?q=Corpse
We can all agree that what they've done is horrible, there's no need to distort language to make a point.
A corpse can not carry a pregnancy, a brain-dead body apparently can if assisted.
I'll see myself out.
That's simply not correct. A corpse would have more rights to autonomy. You can't force a corpse to donate life saving organs, but you can make a woman.
If brain dead is dead bacteria are dead.
A brain dead body isn't a person, but that doesn't make it a corpse. All the biological functions continue. The ATP cycle continues. The body takes in nutrients and uses them to maintain their normal biological functions. Corpses don't do that.
that isn't biology, it's philosophy.
we don't have a good definition of What's alive either
Actually we do have a pretty solid biological definition for life.
That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products. Anything that dose those things is life. That's why viruses aren't considered alive. They don't do those things.
The person part you're right, is more philosophical. I only mention it because it seems to better fit what people are calling "dead" in this case.
OK, spores aren't alive. dissecated watebears aren't alive
the highschool definition isnt used by biologists because it's oversimplified and doesn't hold up to the diversity of life.
All of that is true.
None if it refutes anything I'm saying.
the things I mentioned have no metabolism, don't absorb nutrients, and don't excrete.
by your definition they are dead.
Right. So?
which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products.
Is fire alive? it takes in nutrients (Hydro carbons+oxygens), reacts them to support itself, and expells waste products (CO2+water), in fact, that's the same input and output as many organisms. Is fire a living organisms?
you missed growth (also fire)
and reproduction (also fire, but also problematic as it means a single rabbit isn't alive but a couple are)
BTW, not an appeal to authority, just a notice that I might know what I'm talking about. I have a PhD in biology.
there are more interesting candidates for life definition, Dawkins considered that maybe the question is a waste of time and what matters is the genetic unit, "living things" are just things that spread genetic material.
Others theories are based on chaos theory, thermodynamic cascades,matter/energy waves...
Fire can be thought of as alive, in a sense. I'd hesitate to say it isn't. But realy, it's more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn't a 'thing', it's not a system of repeatitively interacting parts. That said, I have no problem extending the label "Life" to non-biological systems. A machine that can maintain and repair itself is certainly alive.
Reproduction also isn't necessary. DNA or other form of heritable instructions aren't necessary. Muels and Ligers are genetic dead ends, but very much alive themselves.
fire, isn't alive. it isn't biologically.
and we aren't a thing, we replace our matter constantly, hence the matter wave idea.
The point is that basically every definition will fail in some edge cases.
and it ends up being more about philosophy than biology,
the whole point is that there's no biological definition for life. we have one for medical context (brain dead, but mostly depending if it can be reversed, as soon as/if we figure how to resuscitate a brain dead person, we will have another threshold for the definition).
I think there's a really good infinite monkey cage episode about this, one of their best episodes, I think it's "what is death" from series 8. not 100% sure. but it's a great listen anyways
there, you're getting too philosophical and abstract.
fire isn't alive, isn't cannot evolve, no evolution... and you're definitely failing biology.
point is that the highschool definition is bs, no biologist uses it, yet you're stubbornly stick to it like a contrarian.
Again. Alive isn't biological.
You're very hung up on only biological things being alive. Which is strange when you yourself said biology has not good definition.
Biology is the study is life.
If it is alive, it is under the purview of Biology.
what you're doing, is trying to fit anything that fits the Highschool definition as alive. and you end up with chemistry rather than life.
You are very hunged up on highschool oversimplifications.
if fire is alive, would using a lighter count as abiogenesis?
there's no biological definition for life.
Biology is the study of life.
Do you see how that doesn't work?
Biologists called themselves "The Study of Life", some 200 years ago. They did so with very little knowledge, and lots of ambition. Also known as hubris.
And fire is clearly chemistry and not biology.
We just study life and don't bother with the definition, its a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing
its a “you know it when you see it” kind of thing
I'm not sure you're a good advocate for the sciences.
I also think you might have reading comprehension issues. I did explain, I think four times, how fire isn't technically alive, but in certain circumstances it can be a useful analogy. I don't know why you keep banging on that drum.
'how fire isn’t technically alive'
Why not?
It fits all the high school definition?
I explained that.
See. You didn't actually read what I wrote. You're not good at this.
you just said it can be considered alive, but then you say isn't
my point is simple, ask anyone with a biology degree,. that highschool definition is oversimplified and not useful. there is no working definition of life
You really don't know how to read do you?
But really, it’s more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn’t a ‘thing’, it’s not a system of repetitively interacting parts.
Fire is not a thing, because it is not a system of reusable parts that interact with each other multiple times. It’s better described as a chemical chain reaction. Every molecule is used exactly once.
I never mentioned high school. I never took biology in high school. I took physics instead. I gave you my specific definition. You thought it sounded like something you remember from high school, and ignored what I actually said.
That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expels waste products.
Fire doesn't actually support itself. Each flame is gone in an instant, unique to the molecule it came from.
But is creates the illusion of continuity, which can make life a useful analogy for it sometimes.
If you still don't understand. I don't know how better I can explain it for you. I've already given you too much credit. I'm done.
Fire 100% supports itself, each flame dies but that is like saying each of your proteins get denatured and recycled, the carbon you eat eventually turns into CO2, all your matter changes at some point.
That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expels waste products. It is not a good definition of life, as it also excludes spores or many creatures in stasis, where they have absolutely no metabolism, wont take nutrients, process them or expel anything.
Brain death is death. He’s dead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
If brain death is dead, single cell organisms are dead.
Yeah the current definition pretty much says a lot of dead stuff together is making one living being
We’re not single called organisms
Of course not. But the definition of death you gave, doesn't distinguish between forms of life.
The conversation is about human death. The question is at what point is a human being considered dead. If cellular function is brought into it, then a rotting corpse is teeming with bacterial life.
You are right that biological functions of the human body can continue well past the point that someone would be broadly considered dead. I just think that a lack of brain function is a good classification of when to consider that someone has died.
They will if they're getting leaned on politically, but you are right in that he's not sitting in a bed, they'll just shove him into the morge if they have one.
Nothing political about it...
He can be "alive" like Terry Schiavo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
And they can likely keep him like that for years, because it's machines doing all the work.
No one can pressure the hospital to do anything, as long as the checks keep clearing, they'll keep the machines running.
What can (and is) being done, is the Governor requesting proof that McConnell is capable of fulfilling his duties from McConnell's office
They want to stall till August 4th, because if McConnell is declared incompetent before then, it triggers a special election which allows Maise to run as an independent after losing the Republican primary.
On 8/4/26 they can say McConnell is incompetent to hold office, and the normal election will happen which Maise can't run in.
This entire show is because Trump doesn't want Maise to run, because if he does a Dem will likely win and if not it'll be Maise.
But Beshar (KY governor) asking for Mitch's status is what prompted all the Republicans to spend 20 minutes talking at his unresponsive body over a phone. That's why they reacted
Every hospital has a morgue. They deal with too many dead people daily, they aren't going to be moving them out every time someone dies.
Besides, they won't leave bodies sitting in beds they could use for living, paying, patients.
They aren't going to let him rot. That isn't connected to the possibility of him ever regaining consciousness whether a replacement is called for.
I don't think anyone here thinks he's literally just sitting out on a hospital bed flat lined.
They could lie about him being there
Those realy are the same thing. You're right 🙄
Yeah, isn't there some law about social security and brain death...
Stop being like a maga that spins lies.
Keep pushing back. Don't let these disingenuous, self-righteous Lemmy users skate by without addressing the actual argument.
For the record, I don't support the Republican Party, MAGA, or Mitch McConnell.
I just find this kind of rhetoric frustrating because it gets reflexively upvoted. It gives people the warm feeling that they're standing up to oppression without requiring them to engage with whether the claim is actually true. It's more about reinforcing the group's narrative than critically examining the argument.
Clearly their problem isn't with good wages or quality healthcare, it's the "universal" part they have a problem with. And I don't think it's necessarily because they want some people to go without (although that could be the case for at least some of them), it's just that they realize that for everyone to have enough, they have to have less, and that's unacceptable to them.
They believe everything is zero-sum, so they have to be getting less of others are getting more.
The reality is that they don't actually have to have less of these things for everyone to have more. It just has to be done more efficiently, something the current system is terrible at by design so there can be 5 unnecessary middlemen taking their cut.
I think for a lot of those kinds of people it's pathological. For example, I remember reading in Careless People (a memoir by a former Facebook/Meta employee) about some of the things the author witnessed about Mark Zuckerberg made it seem like he only wanted to do things because no one else could, not because he personally derived any enjoyment out of it. I've seen this personally with philanthropists too. They don't actually like the disadvantaged kids they're helping (I'm talking literal racists), but they like the idea that they're the only ones that these kids can turn to. Basically I'm saying I don't think they believe life is zero-sum, but they have a pathological need to create zero-sum circumstances where they are the "winners" and the rest of us losers.
They believe everything is zero-sum
Well, they're right about that. The Earth, and all the resources on it, are finite. The more any one person owns, the less everyone else can own. Now, I would agree that the Earth's resources are abundant, and that there's more than enough for everyone on Earth (at our current population level, at least) to not only survive but thrive. But, because the Earth's resources are finite, it's not possible for any one person to own an infinite amount of resources, let alone for that person to own infinite resources and there still be resources leftover for everyone else.
They want to have healthcare tied to your job. It gives the owning class control. In other nations we can change jobs for whatever reason and still get healthcare. If they treat us like shit we can quit and not have to worry about medical bills. People label it as corporate feudalism for a reason.
Even though if you didn't tell them about the part they're missing, they wouldn't realize because it's so little of the whole. But they have to have every damn cent they can grab.
The American people should sue if we’re paying for his benefits. They can keep a corpse alive but deny us for every medical procedure
Considering no one knows what hospital he's in. There is absolutely no way that all the RNs, CNAs, APPs, and MD involved that NOTHING would have leaked. HIPAA doesn't do anything about an unknown anonymous tip.
With all that said. He is absolutely being kept at the house of someone involved in the cover up. Either alive or dead. Most likely dead. Watch for news on August 3rd that he suddenly died.
Socialism for me, not for thee. Politicians who vote against social services are more than happy to receive them themselves. You see the same with military members. They are provided so many services from the state they are more than happy to receive but will vote every single time to decrease social services for others.
it's called "rules for thee, not for me" for a reason
Idea's true but can't help but push back on this "middle class" as an existing group. There is no such thing just the bourgeois and the proletariat.
In my experience in my own country as well as living in other countries (none of which the US, but I believe it equally applies), leftwing policies (such as universal schooling and worker rights) built the middle class and the Neoliberals (which are generally the two major parties in a country) have been destroying it since Reagan's days.
For me this was especially obvious in the UK were almost every single pro-people thing (National Health Service, Social Security, Public Housing) dated back to the years of Labour Party government immediatelly after WWII and every single one of then had been under attack in some way since Thatcher's day, including during governments of New Labour (the Labour party after the Neoliberal faction took it over, most obviously with Tony Blair whom Thatcher called "my greatest achievement").
I think the UK is especially applicable here because it's the country in Europe that, at least for the last 2 or 3 decades most apes the US (in the bad things, rather than good things).
All this to say that I don't expect ANY American politician who has managed to hold to power for so long as Mitch Mcconnell to be anything else than a middle class destroying Neoliberal, no matter what political party they come from.
Is why conservatives love Ayn Rand. Rail against it then die taking advantage of it.
Note that he doesn't need any of these things even if he is alive.
top 100 comments