Viswanathan K's Thoughts

From my school days, I remember a chapter on the man who did the first heart transplant: Christiaan Barnard. Bill Bryson’s excellent book, The Body: A Guide for Occupants , brings up an interesting point that was instrumental in why a doctor in South Africa got there first, as opposed to the regular haunts of Europe and America. It had to do with (hold your breath) the definition of death in Europe and the US! “A person could not be declared dead until his heart had been stopped for a specified period, but that was all but certain to render the heart unusable for transplant. To remove a beating heart, no matter how far gone the owner was in all other respects, was to risk prosecution for murder.” But in South Africa, the definition of death was based on brain inactivity, which meant the heart could still be active. And that, apart from his skills, was key to why Dr.Barnard from South Africa was the first man to do a heart transplant. Not surprisingly then, after Barnard’s success, ...

There was this news about a sculptor, Hussaini, who made a sculpture of Jayalalithaa, using 11 litres of frozen blood . The morbidity and stupidity of it aside, why couldn’t this guy (and the others who donated a part of that blood) have donated to a blood bank instead and possibly saved several people’s lives? You could, of course, argue that it’s their blood and they can do what they wish. But considering that this guy isn’t some AIADMK bigshot, can’t Jayalalithaa speak out and suggest that people donate to blood banks instead? You know, act like a leader by converting this idiotic act into something positive for society? After all, blood isn’t money: if she asked people to donate money, she would be accused of hypocrisy. But blood, that’s free and voluntary… Why is it our politicians never try to bring about a positive change even when the cost to them is zero?