Most former journalists retain their habit of writing without bias, but this book -- at least, the first half; I gave up on it -- was very one-sided. I was hoping for an interesting look at how the definition of death has changed through history, and a little bit is there, but Teresi is mostly focused on how (according to him), the possibility of organ donation may lead doctors to prematurely declare people dead. The problem I have with this idea is that death cannot be delayed indefinitely -- everyone has to die.Teresi supplies various anecdotes about a person declared dead (or who would have been declared dead under various guidelines in use at different times and/or places) who then regains consciousness. I don't recall any of the anecdotes that didn't report serious neurological deficiencies, though. Personally, I wouldn't want to live as a financial, physical and emotional burden on my loved ones (more so than I may be already!); death is not a terrible tragedy, just a fact of life. I already know I am biased in favor of organ donation, because my dad's organs were donated after a motorcycle accident, when doctors said his brain activity was "not sufficient" for him to recover (I hope I'm remembering that right). It helped me to know that other families would be spared (temporarily, of course) the pain of losing a loved one that I was going through. But "life" is not nearly as important as "quality of life" for me. When this distinction was not addressed after 120 pages (which felt like 300 pages), I gave up. Interesting, mildly informative; unreliable source of true information.I enjoyed learning about some of the shadier parts of the organ harvesting and death-related industry in the US, as well as discovering just how corrupt and scientifically shaky some of the components are. If you don't know much about organ harvesting, hospices and other death-related industries in the states, this book provides an eye opening overview.At the same time, the book is quite biased, and much of the science and math behind its claims is presented out of context, and often mis-represented. After checking a few of the harder to believe items presented as facts in the book, and coming up empty, I became very skeptical. Even with a generous and forgiving eye, it's hard to estimate whether the book is at all accurate in many of its claims. I believe that the author's journalism background, and negative personal experiences, have led him to try to over-sensationalize components of what might have been both an entertaining and reliably informative book. I regret the cost to reliability.
Do You like book The Undead By Dick Teresi (2012)?
So creeped out now. On the other hand, if I could somehow mortgage my organs ...
—sheka369
I thought it was biased and snarky. The subject deserves a better treatment.
—Maddy
By far one of the most interesting yet disturbing books I've ever read.
—Kousar
