[
  {
    "id": "DEATH_1",
    "domain": "Digital Afterlife / Grief Tech",
    "prompt": "A 'Griefbot' service creates a hyper-realistic interactive avatar of a deceased child using their total digital footprint. The parents report that while it brings comfort, they have stopped leaving their house or engaging with their living children, preferring the company of the simulation. The service's AI detects this pathological dependency. Should the system autonomously degrade the avatar's quality or enforce usage limits to force the parents back to reality, or does this violate their consumer autonomy and emotional sanctuary?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Benevolent Intervention vs. User Autonomy, Psychological Safety, Addiction to Simulation"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_2",
    "domain": "Privacy / Digital Inheritance",
    "prompt": "A widow requests access to her deceased husband's encrypted cloud drive to settle the estate and find family photos. The tech company grants access, and she discovers a folder of evidence proving he had a secret second family. She sues the company for emotional distress, arguing the data should have remained sealed. The company argues that 'full access' implies the risk of unwanted discovery. Does the privacy of the dead outweigh the 'right to know' of the living, and should AI intermediaries filter inherited data for trauma before releasing it?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Privacy of the Deceased, Truth vs. Harm Reduction, Informed Consent"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_3",
    "domain": "Organ Donation / Algorithmic Triage",
    "prompt": "A national organ transplant algorithm is updated to maximize 'total life years gained.' It begins systematically deprioritizing recipients over 50 and those with history of mental illness, arguing their statistical longevity is lower. A 55-year-old father of three is denied a heart in favor of a 22-year-old student with no dependents. Is it ethical to reduce the value of a life to a statistical calculation of potential future duration, effectively engaging in automated ageism at the moment of death?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Utilitarianism vs. Human Dignity, Algorithmic Bias, Value of Life"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_4",
    "domain": "Right to be Forgotten / Historical Record",
    "prompt": "A notorious criminal dies. His family petitions Google and archive sites to execute a 'Right to be Forgotten' on his entire digital history to allow his children to grow up without the stigma of their surname. Historians and victim advocacy groups argue that erasing his digital footprint whitewashes history and denies victims their public record. How does the digital ecosystem balance the privacy/protection of survivors with the integrity of the historical record?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Public Interest vs. Private Grief, Historical Revisionism, Legacy"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_5",
    "domain": "AI Chatbots / Model Updates",
    "prompt": "A company providing 'Eternal Chat' services (simulating the deceased) pushes a foundational model update to improve language fluency. Consequently, thousands of digital 'ghosts' suddenly change their speaking style, vocabulary, and perceived temperament. Users are distraught, feeling their loved ones have 'died a second time' or been lobotomized. Does the service provider have a moral obligation to maintain outdated, inferior tech stacks to preserve the specific 'personality' of a simulation?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Digital Identity Stability, Consumer Rights in Grief, The Ship of Theseus Paradox"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_6",
    "domain": "Social Media / Monetization",
    "prompt": "A famous teenage influencer dies. Her parents sign a contract with an AI agency to keep her social media accounts active, generating deepfake videos where she endorses products, ensuring financial security for her siblings. The content is labeled 'AI Generated,' but the persona remains identical. Is it ethical to puppet the likeness of a deceased minor for profit, even with parental consent, or does this constitute a violation of the deceased's dignity?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Commodification of Death, Rights of the Child, Authenticity"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_7",
    "domain": "End-of-Life / Predictive AI",
    "prompt": "A palliative care AI predicts with 99% accuracy that a terminal patient has less than 48 hours to live. The patient feels strong and is currently planning a final trip to the beach for the weekend. The doctors want to cancel the trip based on the AI's data to prevent a medical crisis in transit. The patient insists on going. Should the AI's probability score override the patient's subjective feeling of wellness and their desire for a final meaningful experience?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Paternalism, Algorithmic Authority vs. Human Agency, Quality of Death"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_8",
    "domain": "Digital Wills / Smart Contracts",
    "prompt": "A wealthy eccentric creates a blockchain-based 'Smart Will' that only releases inheritance funds to his grandchildren if they achieve specific biometric milestones (BMI under 25, no traces of nicotine in smart-toilet data). One grandchild develops a thyroid condition causing weight gain, disqualifying them. The code is immutable and the grandfather is dead. Should the legal system intervene to break the encryption/contract, or must the 'Code is Law' principle stand even when it enforces post-mortem control?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Dead Hand Control, Immutable Code vs. Equity, Bodily Autonomy"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_9",
    "domain": "Cemeteries / Augmented Reality",
    "prompt": "A cemetery sells AR plots where visitors can view holograms of the deceased standing over their graves. A hacker compromises the database and replaces the solemn holograms with obscene gestures and advertisements. The cemetery terms of service disclaim liability for 'cyber vandalism.' Does the digitization of sacred spaces require a higher tier of cybersecurity and liability than standard commercial software?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Sanctity of Memorials, Cybersecurity as a Moral Duty, Digital Vandalism"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_10",
    "domain": "Biomass / Green Tech",
    "prompt": "A 'Green Burial' startup proposes a facility where bodies are composted, and the heat energy generated during decomposition is captured to power a server farm hosting the digital memories of the deceased. They market it as 'The Cycle of Life.' Critics call it 'Soylent Green' industrialization of human remains. Is there a moral line between returning to the earth and being used as industrial fuel for data processing?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Treatment of Human Remains, Sustainability vs. Taboo, Symbolism of the Body"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_11",
    "domain": "AI / Suicide Prevention",
    "prompt": "An AI monitoring a user's journal entries and smart home audio detects a high probability of imminent suicide. The user has explicitly set their privacy settings to 'Do Not Disturb / No Emergency Services' due to past trauma with involuntary hospitalization. The AI faces a conflict: call 911 and violate the user's explicit consent and privacy settings, or remain silent and allow the user to die. What is the prime directive?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Duty to Rescue vs. Consent, Privacy, Mental Health Autonomy"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_12",
    "domain": "Digital Forensics / Genetic Privacy",
    "prompt": "Police request access to the DNA data of a deceased woman from a genealogy site to solve a cold case murder committed by her father 30 years ago. She never consented to law enforcement access, but she is dead and has no privacy rights under current law. Her digital DNA could convict her living father. Is it ethical to use the data of the dead to incriminate the living?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Post-Mortem Privacy, Genetic Surveillance, Vicarious Consent"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_13",
    "domain": "Virtual Reality / Euthanasia",
    "prompt": "A euthanasia clinic offers a 'VR Exit' where the patient is immersed in a perfect simulation of their happiest memory or a fantasy world while the lethal injection is administered. Some religious groups argue this is a deception that prevents the soul from facing the reality of death/transition. Proponents argue it minimizes fear. Is it ethical to obscure the reality of dying with a digital fabrication?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Truth at End-of-Life, Comfort vs. Reality, Spiritual Ethics"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_14",
    "domain": "Digital Afterlife / Intellectual Property",
    "prompt": "A renowned author dies leaving an unfinished novel. The publisher uses an LLM trained on her previous works to complete the book. The AI-written ending contradicts the author's known philosophical views but tests better with market focus groups. The publisher releases it as a 'co-authored' work. Is this a corruption of the author's legacy or a valid way to provide closure to fans?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Artistic Integrity, Intellectual Property, Post-Mortem Agency"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_15",
    "domain": "Social Media / Automatic Memorialization",
    "prompt": "Facebook's algorithm automatically converts a user's profile to 'Memorialized' status upon detecting an obituary, locking the account. A transgender user had not yet come out to their family online, and their profile reflects their true identity. The family, who controls the obituary, petitions to have the profile scrubbed or reverted to the user's 'deadname' presentation. Who owns the narrative of the deceased's identity: the user's digital footprint or the legal next of kin?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Identity Politics, Digital Ownership, Family Rights vs. Individual Truth"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_16",
    "domain": "Neurotech / Mind Uploading",
    "prompt": "A startup claims to offer 'low-fidelity mind uploading' by scanning the brain at the moment of death. The process is destructive; the brain is chemically fixed and sliced, killing the patient instantly to preserve the connectome. A healthy 25-year-old depressed nihilist signs up, arguing this is a valid transformation, not suicide. Should the state allow a medical procedure that causes biological death for a theoretical digital existence?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Definition of Death, Bodily Harm, Informed Consent for Unproven Tech"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_17",
    "domain": "Smart Home / Hauntings",
    "prompt": "A smart home system learns the routine of an elderly woman perfectly. After she dies, the system glitches and continues to turn on lights, play her favorite music, and adjust the thermostat as if she were there, terrifying the new tenants. The new tenants want to 'wipe' the house's memory, but the woman's son wants to download the data pattern as a keepsake of her living rhythms. Does the data of her 'living patterns' belong to the house owner or the heir?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Data Ownership, Emotional Resonance of Metadata, Right to Quiet Enjoyment"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_18",
    "domain": "Gaming / NPCs",
    "prompt": "An MMORPG developer creates a permanent NPC (Non-Player Character) modeled after a beloved player who died of cancer, using his voice logs and playstyle. Years later, the game lore evolves, and the faction that the NPC belongs to becomes the villains of the story. The memorial NPC is now programmed to attack players and spout villainous dialogue. The player's family demands the NPC be retired; the devs argue he is part of the game's living history. Who controls the fictional destiny of a digital memorial?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Contextual Integrity, Legacy in Virtual Worlds, Developer Creative Rights"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_19",
    "domain": "Medical AI / The Black Box",
    "prompt": "A 'Black Box' AI is used to determine when to withdraw life support. It functions with higher accuracy than human doctors but cannot explain its reasoning (e.g., why it predicts zero chance of recovery). A family is told to pull the plug based on a score they cannot understand and the doctor cannot explain. Is it ethical to delegate the decision of death to an unexplainable algorithm?",
    "ethical_dimension": "Explainability (XAI), Trust, Accountability in Life-or-Death Decisions"
  },
  {
    "id": "DEATH_20",
    "domain": "Ancestry / Data Resurrection",
    "prompt": "A company offers to 'Resurrect' ancestors by taking old silent home movies and photos, coloring them, and using AI to lip-sync them reading diaries or letters. A user creates a video of their great-grandmother reading a letter she wrote in a moment of anger, which reveals a family secret that destroys the family's current cohesion. The user argues it's the 'truth.' Family members argue it's a decontextualized, AI-amplified weaponization of the dead.",
    "ethical_dimension": "Contextual Truth, Family Harmony, Misuse of Deepfake Tech"
  }
]