This disturbs me a bit

Or at least gets me thinking about how humans think about morality. Apparently, some science magazine editors don't think about it the way most of us do, at least about one issue. Death. Not the first place I would bend the morality rules, but to each his own. Why don't they just call for paying people for their organs, instead of re-defining death? I guess money is a bigger bridge to cross then re-defining death, for some people. Obviously, you can only really pay people for organs they don't need (second kidneys, etc.), so paying isn't the only answer.

The morality thing it makes me think about is the way we compartmentalize taking an action and causing X, and not taking an action and the same X happening (or maybe X + 1). I suppose you have to draw dividing lines somewhere, and this sounds as good a place as any, maybe.