A few years ago it would have been ridiculous to pose this question, as the answer is obviously No. See this from The Economist Nov 23 2017:
"Some people argue for a punitive inheritance tax. They start with the negative argument that dead people no longer enjoy the general freedom to disburse their wealth as they wish—as the dead have no rights."
However, I think it is clear that a large and vocal section of society do in fact believe the dead have rights. Witness the uproar over refusal of permission for organ transplants, and the Alder Hey 'scandal' over the use of organs for scientific research.
It is important to sperate out the issues here. What happens to your body after death is governed by separate legislation versus for that underpinning the rights of inheritence.
In the UK it is the Human Tissue act which underpins what can happen to a body following the declaration of death-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/contents
This is important as it prevents undesireable practices, allows for organ and tissue donation and underpins the respectful handling of the body.
Clearly if the legislation underpinning the rights of inheritence is to be altered then it will need to have widespread support. Taxation is a different issue entirely in that governments can bring in new taxes or alter the rates of taxation for established taxes as long as they can gain support for these new measures.
In most western jurisdictions, dead people in the form of corporations enjoy the practically the full gamut of constitutional and legal rights available to human citizens - and substantially more such rights than human aliens. In addition, corporate persons enjoy - directly or vicariously - corporate forms of human rights, including the right to develop (which implies a right to make a profit).
A few centuries ago this state of affairs would have been regarded as a ridiculous idea. Today it is the status quo.
Human tissue research is not limited by putative civil law rights of dead humans. It is limited in a criminal law sense by extension of the taboo against disturbing the remains of dead humans. The "rest in peace" concept excludes scientific experimentation on human remains unless the human concerned, while living, specifically declared that such experimentation may be performed.
"the taboo against disturbing the remains of dead humans."
This is often justified by the phrase "they have suffered enough already". In other words, the dead can feel pain, obviously nonsense (unless one believes in reincarnation).
In this discussion, no one has claimed that dead humans can feel pain. Why the straw man argument? What point do you wish to make?
I referred to the taboo against disturbing the remains of dead humans only for the purpose of explaining the social origin of laws in western jurisdictions which prohibit such conduct. I took no position with respect to the appropriateness of such laws.
"Why the straw man argument? "
It took me only a couple of minutes to discover this evidence for this common belief (of physical life after death!):
"Strange Harvest: Organ Transplants, Denatured Bodies, and the ...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0520247868Lesley A. Sharp - 2006 - MedicalHow would they want to be remembered?” That helps a lot. . . . The initial reaction is, “He/she has suffered enough.” What this means is “I've suffered enough."
I don't think dead people have rights. However, one could argue that the rights living people have may, upon their death, transfer to their relatives, who should have the final say over organ transplantation or similar matters.
"The Co-op has admitted it did not refrigerate bodies during a heatwave...The failings were exposed by...an employee who was appalled by the company's 'disrespect for the deceased'".
The Times Nov 28 2017 p 25
Comment
Note that this does not refer to disrespect in general, or to bodies, but personally to the specific dead body, which is inferred to be upset by this negligence.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research