Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The point is still the same, and one with which I agree. Opt-in.
How is it the same? If you don't want to be a donor, opt out. Its as simple as that.
If you don't want all of your posessions taken and given to strangers after you die, just tell the government, it's as simple as that. I believe that something like this needs explicit permission, not explicit denial.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Lordhat wrote: If you don't want all of your posessions taken and given to strangers after you die, just tell the government, it's as simple as that. I believe that something like this needs explicit permission, not explicit denial.
i don't need to tell the government, I have a will. If people are genuinely bothered then they will opt out, if they are disinterested then at least their apathy won't restrict the supplt of donor organs anymore.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Lordhat wrote: If you don't want all of your posessions taken and given to strangers after you die, just tell the government, it's as simple as that. I believe that something like this needs explicit permission, not explicit denial.
i don't need to tell the government, I have a will. If people are genuinely bothered then they will opt out, if they are disinterested then at least their apathy won't restrict the supplt of donor organs anymore.
That mindset just seems a bit backwards to me.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Lordhat wrote: If you don't want all of your posessions taken and given to strangers after you die, just tell the government, it's as simple as that. I believe that something like this needs explicit permission, not explicit denial.
i don't need to tell the government, I have a will. If people are genuinely bothered then they will opt out, if they are disinterested then at least their apathy won't restrict the supplt of donor organs anymore.
So you say that, by default, your body belongs to everyone? Because I disagree.
Once I'm dead my body, just like everyone elses, belongs to bacteria and various invertibrates. It may as well be put to good use.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Before I explain let me be clear that I am an organ donor and have been since I got my driver's license. I used to donate blood every 56 like clockwork, until the madcow outbreak when they disallowed anyone who lived in the UK past 1980 from donating. I think everyone should do both, donating blood as often as possible.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
Mark this day gentlemen. Someone's post in the intranetzz actually changed my opinion. A true day of days.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Before I explain let me be clear that I am an organ donor and have been since I got my driver's license. I used to donate blood every 56 like clockwork, until the madcow outbreak when they disallowed anyone who lived in the UK past 1980 from donating. I think everyone should do both, donating blood as often as possible.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
Mark this day gentlemen. Someone's post in the intranetzz actually changed my opinion. A true day of days.
Meet Frazzled, who now thinks his dead body belongs to him and the government shouldn't get to just do what they want with it because he is dead. But who also thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their bodies while they are still alive.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
This is my view in a nutshell. If I choose to opt in, that is my affair. The view that the government should effectively forcibly lay claim to all corpses in the land who haven't gotten a special card is one I intensely disagree with. It is not their right any more than it should be their right to decide I should be giving blood once a week. There are people in the world dying of starvation as well as of organ problems. It is no more the right of the government to seize my organs after death, than it is their right to seize my assets and donate them to charity.
You will note that if I die without a will, my possessions belong to my nearest relatives. Not to the tramp under the train platform at London Waterloo East station.
Before I explain let me be clear that I am an organ donor and have been since I got my driver's license. I used to donate blood every 56 like clockwork, until the madcow outbreak when they disallowed anyone who lived in the UK past 1980 from donating. I think everyone should do both, donating blood as often as possible.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
Mark this day gentlemen. Someone's post in the intranetzz actually changed my opinion. A true day of days.
Meet Frazzled, who now thinks his dead body belongs to him and the government shouldn't get to just do what they want with it because he is dead. But who also thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their bodies while they are still alive.
Meet D-USA who evidently has a reading problem. By giving just $.50 a day you can help D-USA to read.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ketara wrote: Not to the tramp under the train platform at London Waterloo East station.
Who would be ineligable for your organs anyway.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Before I explain let me be clear that I am an organ donor and have been since I got my driver's license. I used to donate blood every 56 like clockwork, until the madcow outbreak when they disallowed anyone who lived in the UK past 1980 from donating. I think everyone should do both, donating blood as often as possible.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
Mark this day gentlemen. Someone's post in the intranetzz actually changed my opinion. A true day of days.
Much obliged. Although Im unsure if you mean Ive convinced you to become a donor or convinced you it should be opt-in.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
This is my view in a nutshell. If I choose to opt in, that is my affair. The view that the government should effectively forcibly lay claim to all corpses in the land who haven't gotten a special card is one I intensely disagree with. It is not their right any more than it should be their right to decide I should be giving blood once a week. There are people in the world dying of starvation as well as of organ problems. It is no more the right of the government to seize my organs after death, than it is their right to seize my assets and donate them to charity.
Yep, I'm with Ketara and steamdragon. I'm a donor, but it's my decision - that's precisely as it should be. I'm not religious at all, and don't really care what happens to my corpse once I'm dead, it's just that it isn't anyone else's property but mine.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US there are still sizable segments of the population that just don't trust hospitals and who think that being an organ donor means the doctors won't try as hard to save your life and just say "he's a goner, cut him up and take his stuff".
Because they do do that.... This info is coming to me through an ER nurse in the US.... Basically what it boils down to is chemicals.... IF they do literally everything they can to save you, your body is pumped full of all sorts of nifty drugs to help you through whatever it is that's bringing you to the hospital in the first place (a car wreck, fire, raging stomach pain, etc.) and should you actually die whilst having these chemicals in you, your organs are now useless to any potential donor recipient. If you have the Organ Donor marking on your ID, they will NOT put most of these chemicals into your body, and thereby increase the chances of you dying in the ER... Even with the chemicals, there are still certain body parts that are usable, such as the eyes, but the point is, you just might be worth more to that hospital dead than alive.
I'm not saying they won't do everything they can to save you, but they will do everything they can within a limit.
Hence why this guy's family knows to organ donate everything once I'm done with them, even though it's no where to be seen on an ID.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
This is my view in a nutshell. If I choose to opt in, that is my affair. The view that the government should effectively forcibly lay claim to all corpses in the land who haven't gotten a special card is one I intensely disagree with. It is not their right any more than it should be their right to decide I should be giving blood once a week. There are people in the world dying of starvation as well as of organ problems. It is no more the right of the government to seize my organs after death, than it is their right to seize my assets and donate them to charity.
Yep, I'm with Ketara and steamdragon. I'm a donor, but it's my decision - that's precisely as it should be. I'm not religious at all, and don't really care what happens to my corpse once I'm dead, it's just that it isn't anyone else's property but mine.
You don't 'own' any property when you die, you're dead, your estate all goes to someone else. This need to cling onto supposed ownership of your body after you have died is just illogical. It's not like you have that much control over what happens to your body afterwards either way. The state still demands you are fairly promptly disposed of within a number of restrictions. Why is it okay for the state to demand your remains are buried or burned, but not donate your organs?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/29 22:39:58
Emergency room RN here, as well as a former EMT working for a very busy ambulance service. And I can tell you that this is the biggest load of crap about what really happens in a hospital.
Nobody checks your ID to see if you are a donor when you come into the ER, nobody checks your donor status before they code you. A code is run exactly the same no matter what, and it is only after the code has been called or brain death has been determined that the organ donor organization is even contacted.
Even if the patient is an organ donor we don't know if any of his organs of tissues would even be usable until after we contact the responsible agency. And the responding team has zero input on the medical care of the patient until consent has been given to harvest.
False stories like that are part of the reason why people are dying on the waiting list every day. "The chemicals they pump in you to keep your organs alive while they are inside your body are going to kill your organs outside your body...".
Happygrunt wrote:I would be hesitant to have a cash incentive for organs, as I see that leading to increased crime of the organ-stealing variation.
But why? I would presume that any incentives are organised by a hospital or some national agency and with the donator. We're not talking stuff like a shady guy handing a bag of livers in at a cashier. How can this increase organ-stealing when the incentive is tax cuts for as long as you live, or a bonus paid to the donator upon signing a contract? This would require a criminal holding a pistol to his back and forcing him to sign right in the hospital, and then stealing the money as the doc hands it over.
Or do you think that some secret criminal organisation within the medical system would "hunt down" people who sign up for the incentives, to kill and harvest them one or two weeks later? Because whilst that is a possibility, this is a scheme that does not require any incentives at all to work.
d-usa wrote: Emergency room RN here, as well as a former EMT working for a very busy ambulance service. And I can tell you that this is the biggest load of crap about what really happens in a hospital.
Nobody checks your ID to see if you are a donor when you come into the ER, nobody checks your donor status before they code you. A code is run exactly the same no matter what, and it is only after the code has been called or brain death has been determined that the organ donor organization is even contacted.
Even if the patient is an organ donor we don't know if any of his organs of tissues would even be usable until after we contact the responsible agency. And the responding team has zero input on the medical care of the patient until consent has been given to harvest.
False stories like that are part of the reason why people are dying on the waiting list every day. "The chemicals they pump in you to keep your organs alive while they are inside your body are going to kill your organs outside your body...".
THANK YOU d-usa for doing this... I don't have anything to add...
Happygrunt wrote:I would be hesitant to have a cash incentive for organs, as I see that leading to increased crime of the organ-stealing variation.
But why? I would presume that any incentives are organised by a hospital or some national agency and with the donator. We're not talking stuff like a shady guy handing a bag of livers in at a cashier. How can this increase organ-stealing when the incentive is tax cuts for as long as you live, or a bonus paid to the donator upon signing a contract? This would require a criminal holding a pistol to his back and forcing him to sign right in the hospital, and then stealing the money as the doc hands it over.
Or do you think that some secret criminal organisation within the medical system would "hunt down" people who sign up for the incentives, to kill and harvest them one or two weeks later? Because whilst that is a possibility, this is a scheme that does not require any incentives at all to work.
Here's the deal...
Living donors (kidney, liver, marrow...) are ALWAYS perferred as it's shown that the recipient has a better chance of not-rejecting vs cadaver organs.
So... is there anything you can think of to encourage this monetarily? No fed taxes for one year? Free 4yr tuition for kids?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 02:05:43
About the only incentive I would be in favor off would be requiring an employer to give you paid time off for the surgery and recovery as well as requiring insurance to cover it 100%.
d-usa wrote: About the only incentive I would be in favor off would be requiring an employer to give you paid time off for the surgery and recovery as well as requiring insurance to cover it 100%.
Yeah... I'd go for that...
*psst... where I work at, I got 6 weeks paid. (think I only took 4 weeks tho)
It varies state by state. In WA you elect one or the other when you get your driver's licence. To be honest I've never really figured out how that is actually meaningfully different to an opt-out system, but it must be somehow, because only about 40% are organ donors, despite more than 70% saying they would be happy to give up their organs.
Okay - I just looked this up. Apparently you have to request and fill out a seperate form to become an organ donor when you complete your licence, I had vague memories of just ticking a yes/no box on the form. So that'd explain why a lot of people don't think to ask for the form, or just don't bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Nobody wrote: Opt-out, I wonder how many cases there are of people not being donors just because they didn't bother saying yes or no.
The figures that came around when this was debated here in my home state a couple of years ago said more than 70% of people would be happy to give up their organs, but only 40% were actually registered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote: My fellow citizens have no more claim to my body than the state does. I do not exist to serve them, in life or death.
Again, I am an organ donor. I think eveeyone should choose to be an organ donor. But it remains that:mine a choice.
An absolute defence of property even when a person cannot use it any more.
To continue your will analogy, do you believe a person is within their rights to state in their will 'my house is still mine dammit, and I forbid anyone ever going on it and leave it to no-one so that it rot and decline and go to waste'.
And opt-out is still a choice. For those who care, they can inform government, they can state it in their will, they can tell their family to give no permission for their organs to be used.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 05:22:01
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That said, I still think it should be Opt-In instead of opt-out. The simple fact is that my body is just that: mine. Being born did not give the US or state government any claim to my corpse or to my pieces. This is not something that is really part of their purvue nor should I be required to opt out to basically lay claim to my body. I chose to opt-in and give them that claim; it should not be automatic.
This is my view in a nutshell. If I choose to opt in, that is my affair. The view that the government should effectively forcibly lay claim to all corpses in the land who haven't gotten a special card is one I intensely disagree with. It is not their right any more than it should be their right to decide I should be giving blood once a week. There are people in the world dying of starvation as well as of organ problems. It is no more the right of the government to seize my organs after death, than it is their right to seize my assets and donate them to charity.
Yep, I'm with Ketara and steamdragon. I'm a donor, but it's my decision - that's precisely as it should be. I'm not religious at all, and don't really care what happens to my corpse once I'm dead, it's just that it isn't anyone else's property but mine.
You don't 'own' any property when you die, you're dead, your estate all goes to someone else. This need to cling onto supposed ownership of your body after you have died is just illogical.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I am alive. My body belongs to me now. That means there shouldn't be a presumption that my organs can be harvested upon the event of my death, because I am still alive to make the decision for myself. I've made the choice to be an organ donor. That's my right. I guess I'm just not very keen on the presumption that my corpse is the property of the state.
It's not like you have that much control over what happens to your body afterwards either way. The state still demands you are fairly promptly disposed of within a number of restrictions. Why is it okay for the state to demand your remains are buried or burned, but not donate your organs?
There's nothing inherently wrong with it - I just think we should seek to preserve those freedoms we still have, and not surrender them cheaply.
I don't see the need to start taking liberties with people. Would it not make more sense just to make it a legal requirement to declare whether you give consent or not?
RossDas wrote: I don't see the need to start taking liberties with people. Would it not make more sense just to make it a legal requirement to declare whether you give consent or not?
I don't know if I'd go that far...
Lemme think about it... first gut reaction is that's okay with me as long as it's easy to declare which way (in/out) and without penalty.
It is a well-established principle of law that ‘there is no property in a corpse.’ This means that the law does not regard a corpse as property protected by rights. In other words there can be no ‘ownership’ of a dead body. The only exception is where body parts acquire different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, e.g. dissection and/or preservation techniques.
However even if there is no legal ownership certain people have the right to possess the body. In the first place, anyone who has a duty to bury the deceased has the right to possess the body in order to bury it. In many cases this duty will fall upon the personal representatives of the deceased i.e. the administrator or executor of the deceased’s estate (that is, the deceased’s property). An executor is a person appointed under the deceased’s will to deal with the deceased’s estate. If there is no will an administrator will be appointed by a court for the same purpose. If there is no executor, it is arguable that the person first entitled to a grant of administration of the estate should be also entitled to possession of the body in order to determine how to dispose of it. This is usually the spouse, nearest relative or next of kin or, in the case of a child, the parents.
There are other people who might also be entitled to lawful possession of the body as a result of their duty to dispose of the body. If the body is lying on hospital premises, the hospital authorities will be in lawful possession of the body. If the Coroner has jurisdiction (the power to hold an inquest) (see below: Inquests) he or she has the right to possession of the body for the purposes of his or her enquiries. This same authority is sufficient to permit the pathologist, as the Coroner’s agent, to have the legal right of possession until the Coroner’s inquiry has come to an end.
Hospital Post Mortems and Removal of Tissues and Organs
The right to remove, store and use tissues and organs from the body of a dead person is set out in the Human Tissues Act 2004 (‘HTA’) which applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This Act was introduced by the Government in response to public concern about the use of organs and tissues following inquiries into events at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Royal Liverpool Children’s Hospital (Alder Hey). The HTA also established the Human Tissue Authority, which as well as having a regulatory function, issues codes of practice, which should be referred to for more detailed guidance about proposed removal or use of human tissue, including post mortem.
It is lawful to remove, store and use human tissues from a dead person for the following ‘scheduled purposes,’ but only when the appropriate consent (see below) has been provided: determining the cause of death, establishing after a person’s death the efficacy of any drug or other treatment administered, obtaining medical or scientific information which may be relevant to another person, research about the body or transplantation, education or training related to public health, clinical audit, performance assessment, public health monitoring or quality assurance.
In addition, the HTA requires that a person provide written and witnessed consent before death for the use of his or her body for anatomical examination or public display. A relative cannot provide this consent after the deceased’s death, it must be provided by the deceased before death.
There is an exception for the need to obtain consent where human tissue which has not been obtained with the appropriate consent has already been retained, but only for one of the scheduled purposes above. Consent is also not required where human tissue has been imported or comes from the body of a person who died before the consent regime came into force and at least 100 years have passed since the death. There are also special provisions relating to coroners, whose duty to establish how the deceased died overrides the need for consent in relation to his/her investigation. See further below - Coroners post mortem examinations.
Appropriate consent (which is more than merely an absence of refusal) may be obtained from the deceased prior to death, or from a nominated representative (if appointed by the deceased before death) or from a qualifying relative. The code of practice on consent issued by the Human Tissue Authority recommends that when seeking consent full and clear information should be provided to enable a nominated representative or qualifying relative the ability to make a properly considered decision. This should include the nature of the intended activities and the reason for them.
There are different ways of appointing a nominated representative:
Orally before at least two witnesses present at the same time.
In writing if the document is signed by the deceased or at his/her direction in the presence of at least one witness who witnesses the signature.
Contained in a valid will.
If neither the deceased nor a nominated representative has given or withheld consent, this should be obtained from the person who stood in a qualifying relationship to him or her immediately before he or she died. The qualifying relationships proposed are (ranked in the following order when consent is being sought): (a) spouse or partner, including civil or same sex partner (b) parent or child; (c) brother or sister; (d) grandparent or grandchild; (e) child of a brother or sister; (f) stepfather or stepmother; (g) half-brother or half-sister; longstanding friend.
If there is more than one person in the same ‘rank’ (for example, two children of the deceased) it is lawful to obtain the consent of any one of them for storage or use of tissue for a qualified purpose. In order to analyse DNA from the deceased it is also lawful to obtain the consent of just any qualifying relative and there is no ‘ranking’ of relatives for this purpose.
If the deceased gave clear authorisation for use of their tissues following death, close relatives do not have any right to veto that consent. Similarly close family members cannot override a decision taken by the nominated representative. The code of practice on consent issued by the Human Tissue Authority suggests that a qualifying relative can be omitted from the ranking hierarchy if they cannot be located in reasonable time for the activity in question (for example, organ transplantation) to take place or if a qualifying relative declines to deal with the matter or is unable to do so.
A child who is competent to reach a decision can give consent for one or more of the scheduled purposes to take place after their death. If the child did not make a decision before death appropriate consent should be obtained from a person with parental responsibility for the deceased child.
Although not required under the HTA, the code of practice on consent issued by the Human Tissue Authority recommends that consent be obtained for examination of fetal tissue for scheduled purposes regardless of gestational age.
IIRC, technically the corpse of a murder victim is officially the property of the crown and they're under no legal obligation to hand it over for burial/whatever.
Of course I can't see them refusing to hand it over in anything but the most bizarre of circumstances.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
