Cover Image: January 2011 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Readers Respond to "The End" and Other Articles

Letters to the editor from the September 2010 issue of Scientific American















Share on Tumblr



Image:

End of Life
I agree with Robert D. Truog—quoted in Robin Marantz Henig’s “When Does Life Belong to the Living?”—that the dead-donor rule, which says that organs can be taken only from donors who have already been declared dead, is eyewash and should be scrapped. The rule is horrible and medically counterproductive and is merely a sop to the most skittish, and probably least informed, members of society. And Arthur L. Caplan’s caution in “What Comes Next” about having to consider these people notwithstanding—constantly looking over one’s shoulder, asking what Jim Public would say about any given rule or action—is excessive, potentially to the point of paralysis.

If I thought it would carry any weight, I would be more than willing to sign a waiver of the rule right now, when I am presumably of sound mind, and reaffirm it whenever necessary. Further, I would be willing to sign whatever was necessary to exclude family members from any end-of-life and dead-donor decisions. I have seen such family decisions made that ended up merely being destructive, potentially denying someone perfectly good organs. I do not want to be in that situation, as donor or receiver getting a rotting organ. Understandably the receiver has no control over the situation, but denying the donor the right to make the decision is an outrage.
K. A. Boriskin
Bellingham, Mass.

End of Death
Of course, it would be wonderful if—as Thomas Kirkwood writes in “Why Can’t We Live Forever?”—we could “identify novel drugs able to combat age-related diseases in completely new ways and thereby shorten the period of chronic illness experienced at the end of life.”

But we should not lose sight of the fact that many sick old people want to prolong their lives even if they cannot be cured. Health is better than illness, but illness is not necessarily worse than death. Ask Stephen Hawking.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Department of Philosophy
Brown University

End of Trash
Christopher Mims’s “Landfills” [“Good Rid­dance”] really missed the mark when it wished the end of landfills. Modern, state-of the-art landfills are carefully regulated facilities, managed to reduce air pollution, control leachate and minimize odors. They are also an important source of clean, renewable energy. Landfill operators are increasingly turning to technology that captures methane emissions and converts them into clean fuel.

More than 500 of these landfill-gas-to-energy projects are operating across 46 states, generating enough energy to supply more than 1.6 million homes and businesses, including major companies such as Honeywell and Dell. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the use of landfill-gas-to-energy projects reduces greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 16 million passenger cars off the road.

Solid-waste companies fully support zero-waste initiatives and are working closely with local governments, manufacturers, consumers and other partners to achieve this goal. But the volume of trash that Am­­er­icans continue to generate means we must rely on traditional means of disposal for some time.

Fortunately, today’s solid-waste industry is ready to meet this challenge with science-based solutions, including waste-based energy, more efficient and sophisticated recycling facilities, and modern land­fill technology.
Bruce J. Parker
President and CEO
National Solid Wastes
Management Association



2 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. promytius 09:11 AM 12/31/10

    5 comments... five comments? Only five comments? This reminds me of a Seinfeld episode, where George is handcuffed to the bed...
    Go ahead, SciAm, keep the suit!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. kimgyr 01:19 PM 12/31/10

    Throughout history humans have predicted the end, of everything? Is that because our lives appear to have beginnings and ends? Actually, if we look at the components of our genes that combine and recombine with each new generation, those components have been here as long as life has, therefore are they "eternal"?

    They continue past us in our children and in the women who give us our children, yet those 2 groups are the most abused on the planet! Is there something wrong with this picture?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Readers Respond to "The End" and Other Articles: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X