Henrietta’s Story

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Henrietta’s Story

Post by Philosophy Now »

Vincent Lotz asks who should have the decisive power over someone’s cells after their death: their family, or the medical community?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/119/Henriettas_Story
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Henrietta’s Story

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Should the law have given control of the cell line to Henrietta’s family?

If the law defines the nature of what constitutes family, then by default they can constitute the definition as to what constitutes property rights as property rights and the familial structure are inherently relationships. It is a cultures ability to determine the appropriate dimensions of relationship which will inherently entail a definition of what it means to "possess".

The greater the degree of cultural boundaries and definitions as to what a relationship entails, the greater the degree of interpretations. The greater the degree of interpretations, the more interpretations will result until their will be to many interpretations and the information flow will render all logic useless as the courts are merely an extension of what the people perceive themselves to be. And what to people percieve themselves to be in the age of information? Relatively powerless, and in case of relative powerlessness instinct prevails as a grab for power.

The problem occurs as the courts are merely an extension of the people; therefore they will acquisition power to the leading authority....the one that establishes definition of what relationships are constituted as: government. However the blurring of relationships results as a bi-product of over-definition the medical community and they most probably will maintain rights.

Now with the over extension of definition of rights comes a paradoxical confusion of "what is right" as the multiplication of perceived axioms multiplies corresponding questions. This in turns causes confusion and the result is a stronger hold of individual powers structures as instinct presumes self preservation in the state of chaos.

My point is a simple one: Asking the people what the law should do simply implies the people have no power, because whoever asks the question is already assuming to have a multitude of opinions expressed. And what is the official to do in such a state of "percieved chaos"? Maintain power. Now is the author in such a state of power? Probably not. But like all good authors, a reflection of society is observed and defined....and when society asks such a question of who should be in charge everyone will instinctively (relative to the number of opinions) say "ME!"

With everyone saying "ME!" whoever is in charge should be in charge, as a culture self-oriented justly gets self-oriented officials.
Post Reply