Nevada’s answer to “I am curious if I missed this detail from the novel. If not I guess it could be a good speculation …” > Likes and Comments
10 likes · Like
The more I think about this book, the more horrifying it becomes.
I watched the movie last night. One of the donors that she cared for was missing an eye, and then movie Tommy had a small incision in his abdomen and then a huge "u" shaped incision on his side under his rib cage. The movie never showed Ruth's incisions.
Wow your comment just gave me goosebumps. Now I really want to read the book.
It makes sense that there could easily be more than four, but that the clones could be in such bad shape that it creates a morale problem to have them in the recovery centers. Plus, what's the use of a carer if the patient is on a respirator, with a feeding tube, ect.
I think there is a specific order to the donations. liver (which regenerates) could be taken first, then kidney, may be even a single eye. someone pointed in one of the threads that may be even both kidneys were harvested and the donor could still be kept viable on dialysis.
Tommy's words (in quotes above) may mean, as i understood after some pondering, that how even when you are brain dead, you are not really dead and he is wondering if there is some form of consciousness left in the body with which all the post death donations could be observed. it makes sense that after the completion of the donor, the full body would be harvested of whatever organs that can be utilized. so may be he is wondering if there is like an out of body experience some donors have in which they can see their bodies being completely harvested. of course this happens at a stage when the donor is not technically alive (say, after a fourth donation) so just the harvesting is done all at once without any need of recovery or carers between donations.
You just made me think of how they "complete" instead of die. It is a peculiar word that unsettled me in the book but I just thought it's a case of using a euphemism. However, there were no other euphemisms and now I'm more convinced that they "completed" their cycle as a conscious donor and were turned into a vegetable on a machine like those poor fellows in a coma.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jimmy
(new)
Feb 17, 2015 06:09PM
The more I think about this book, the more horrifying it becomes.
reply
|
flag
I watched the movie last night. One of the donors that she cared for was missing an eye, and then movie Tommy had a small incision in his abdomen and then a huge "u" shaped incision on his side under his rib cage. The movie never showed Ruth's incisions.
Wow your comment just gave me goosebumps. Now I really want to read the book.
It makes sense that there could easily be more than four, but that the clones could be in such bad shape that it creates a morale problem to have them in the recovery centers. Plus, what's the use of a carer if the patient is on a respirator, with a feeding tube, ect.
I think there is a specific order to the donations. liver (which regenerates) could be taken first, then kidney, may be even a single eye. someone pointed in one of the threads that may be even both kidneys were harvested and the donor could still be kept viable on dialysis. Tommy's words (in quotes above) may mean, as i understood after some pondering, that how even when you are brain dead, you are not really dead and he is wondering if there is some form of consciousness left in the body with which all the post death donations could be observed. it makes sense that after the completion of the donor, the full body would be harvested of whatever organs that can be utilized. so may be he is wondering if there is like an out of body experience some donors have in which they can see their bodies being completely harvested. of course this happens at a stage when the donor is not technically alive (say, after a fourth donation) so just the harvesting is done all at once without any need of recovery or carers between donations.
You just made me think of how they "complete" instead of die. It is a peculiar word that unsettled me in the book but I just thought it's a case of using a euphemism. However, there were no other euphemisms and now I'm more convinced that they "completed" their cycle as a conscious donor and were turned into a vegetable on a machine like those poor fellows in a coma.
