Re: Precisions on the Martinot situation

From: JDP (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 07:55:32 MDT

  • Next message: John B: "RE: A Danger of Apparent Complicity? (was Tranquility Bay)"

    Robert J. Bradbury a écrit (24.7.2003/13:32) :
    > With respect to writing -- I think a key point to stress might be
    > that the medical definition of "death" has evolved over the decades
    > or centuries (e.g. heart death, brain death, disassembly death).
    > Should the courts condemn individuals to one type of death when
    > they may not meet the criteria of another type?
    >
    > In addition can the courts assert that the individuals are *really*
    > dead? We revive people with hearts that do not beat every day.
    > There was a recent case in the U.S. of an individual recovering
    > from a coma (a form of brain death) after something like 30 years.
    > Given something as simple as stem cell research -- how can a court
    > assert that the people are indeed dead? (assuming then that it has
    > jurisdiction over dead people).

    One could probably make a defense entirely based on this.

    But I don't think it would work.

    At the end of it, the judge is left to his "intimate conviction", and
    that conviction will most probably be pathetical delusion and certain
    death, not a reasonable doubt about the death. That's the common
    wisdom about it, and judges (by design) reflect the common wisdom when
    they are left to appreciate.

    At least it seems risky to try only this. But I think you can do
    composite defenses, mixing various lines. So that's certainly one good
    point to include.

    Thanks for your suggestions, on-line and off-line, Robert. They are
    much appreciated.

    Jacques



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 08:05:26 MDT