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.

I'm pretty much totally with Orlanth here. I don't see this as an issue.

As an aborted fetus is medical waste it is treated as such.

Also - Godwinned page one, good job Frazz!

The honor, is to serve.

 Frazzled wrote:

For the record I'm not keen onthe idea of burning people's legs and such to heat the hospital. Again thats just icky on so many levels.

Less icky than letting them rot in a landfill.

I'm not a replicant, I'm far from certain about you though.

Why are you guys talking about ABORTED fetuses when a majority of these (if not all of them) would have been MISCARRIAGES. Hosptial abortions usually happen in a response to medical need, not casual wants.

You don't go to a hospital for an abortion. You go to a clinic for that. Hospitals are usually for late-term miscarriages where they have to birth the fetus or surgically remove them.

There is a distinct difference between incineration and cremation. Considering many mothers who have miscarriages have life long ties to that miscarried baby and sometimes even have named them, some even do burial markers. To tell them that their miscarriage was CREMATED when it was dumped in the trash is not a good thing.

Saying 'Abortion is legal, so aborted babies make all fetuses medical garbage' doesn't fly, especially for wanted babies from mothers who miscarried.

Edit: Also, Burning human remains pollutes and can be toxic due to mercury. Cremation has environmental restrictions to reduce the impact. Cremation also burns specifically to reduce remains quickly and efficiently, incineration is not intended to dispose of human remains which means incineration will do around 1500 Degrees F while Cremation is around 2100 Degrees F. So it is really not a good idea especially when cremation is highly regulated and incineration is less so.

nkelsch wrote:
Hosptial abortions usually happen in a response to medical need, not casual wants.

Not in the UK. There are abortion clinics but they are usually privately run.

nkelsch wrote:
Why are you guys talking about ABORTED fetuses when a majority of these (if not all of them) would have been MISCARRIAGES. Hosptial abortions usually happen in a response to medical need, not casual wants.

You don't go to a hospital for an abortion. You go to a clinic for that. Hospitals are usually for late-term miscarriages where they have to birth the fetus or surgically remove them.

There is a distinct difference between incineration and cremation. Considering many mothers who have miscarriages have life long ties to that miscarried baby and sometimes even have named them, some even do burial markers. To tell them that their miscarriage was CREMATED when it was dumped in the trash is not a good thing.

Saying 'Abortion is legal, so aborted babies make all fetuses medical garbage' doesn't fly, especially for wanted babies from mothers who miscarried.

A very valid point.

The problem with this issue is that it conflicts between medical and ethical reasoning. A funeral of any sort takes an extensive amount of time to prepare, and to prepare a foetus for this is going to be very difficult. We can't leave foetuses, miscarriage or other, around in the warm, clammy environment of a hospital as it presents an infection risk. Flash freezing damages the already weak tissue. Submerging in alcohol will have the same effect. There is no particular way around this.

However, in response to your third paragraph, it isn't exactly dumped in the trash. It is medical waste; it is waste; but it isn't indignantly tossed into a skip and left to fester. Care has been taken. A mother will receive pastoral support as well. Unfortunately, because of the shock of a miscarriage, and the relatively short time period (as with organ donors) in which any sort of decision can be made, a mother may make a decision they regret.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Hosptial abortions usually happen in a response to medical need, not casual wants.

Not in the UK. There are abortion clinics but they are usually privately run.

Yep. You need the approval of two independent doctors; in a clinic, the answer will be yes 99% of the time (money), whereas in the NHS it varies significantly more based on circumstance. It also causes ethical conflicts; a pro-life doctor might refuse all of them, for example.

The failure to communicate and coordinate with the patients is a serious problem. I personal don't have an issue with burning what I too consider medical waste; but I'm sensitive to the fact that many patients. perhaps even most patients, may feel differently and may want some ceremony. Their wishes should be accommodated.

Legally it's correct and there's no problem.
Morally, I have a problem with burning dead babies en masse for fuel.

I don't think I can get behind using human bodies/body parts as heating fuel. The process should accord a little more respect to the 'waste,' whether it comes from an amputation, a miscarriage, an abortion, or any other source.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Legally it's correct and there's no problem.
Morally, I have a problem with burning dead babies en masse for fuel.

This may not be true as there are stricter regulations and higher burning temps and exhaust filtering required for cremating 'Human' Remains because they are toxic. A bloody rag or a mass of flesh has different properties of an entire human body and they need to be treated differently. I would suspect anything which requires regulation and higher standards for 'human remains' probably means that 15000 fetuses would probably need to be disposed of under those same regulations and would be closer to human remains than bloody band-aids and tumors. So I am not sure that this is 'legal' in all circumstances.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

For the record I'm not keen onthe idea of burning people's legs and such to heat the hospital. Again thats just icky on so many levels.

Less icky than letting them rot in a landfill.

I'm not a replicant, I'm far from certain about you though.

Whats amazing is that there's something called a middle ground. Cremation with respect. Jeezz people the whole concept of burning human flesh to heat your home is Hannibal level fething sick.

Authorities might call that a definite sign of insanity. Team Wiener dog does not approve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Legally it's correct and there's no problem.
Morally, I have a problem with burning dead babies en masse for fuel.

Hitler wouldn't. And when you're on the same wavelength as Hitler your brain pan is seriously fethed.

After giving it some more thought, I think that it's acceptable only if the parents are giving their informed consent.
I've known a would-have been mother who miscarried, and I know she'd already become very attached to the unborn child. I imagine that her finding out that what she considered as her baby, was being used as fuel, would have been profoundly upsetting for her.

I think that people should know what's happening, and have the option to say "no".

 Ouze wrote:
The failure to communicate and coordinate with the patients is a serious problem. I personal don't have an issue with burning what I too consider medical waste; but I'm sensitive to the fact that many patients. perhaps even most patients, may feel differently and may want some ceremony. Their wishes should be accommodated.

I agree with this.

Seriously if you need a medical abortion, what person wants the foetus? Not me that's for sure , can't have an open casket funeral . So i say....

Burn them! Burn them all!

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats amazing is that there's something called a middle ground. Cremation with respect. Jeezz people the whole concept of burning human flesh to heat your home is Hannibal level fething sick.

Cremation isn't exactly a cost effective way of dealing with waste.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, 1 in five? Wow, im kina surprised by that

It's a little known fact because most of that 1/5 occurs in the first month. 10 years ago, we didn't even have the technology to detect the mother was pregnant in that first month, so the foetus would fail and leave the mother as nothing more than an unusually heavy period.

Those miscarriages wouldn't be the ones reported in the story mind you. Miscarriages that reach the hospital are much more developed, and also thankfully a lot rarer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
via Telegraph's article:

The parents of those lost or aborted children were not consulted about what was going to happen to those remains. In at least one hospital, mothers of 797 babies lost before 13 weeks of gestation were told the remains had been “cremated.”

Yep. It's the fact that the hospital felt the need to lie that should be the tip off that what the hospital was doing wasn't okay.

It may just be medical waste in a technical sense, but to the mother and father it was what they hoped would be their new child. People just naturally think that such a thing would be dealt with with some respect, and some measure of ceremony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
If society decides that foetus is not a human being prior to a specific stage of term then it helps to be consistent.

If its Ok to abort to begin with its ok to treat the remains as biological waste.

If its not Ok to do this then it raises question as to whwether the foetus should have been aborted to begin with.

You cant really have it both ways, either it's a womans right or its infanticide, there is no way to be on both sides of the fence.

No, feth that line of thought absolutely. Completely, 100% feth that. It is offensive bs, and completely wrong.

And yeah, I happen to be pretty fething fed up with that line of bs, and for very good, very personal reasons. If a couple loses a child before it is born, then they are losing all the hopes and dreams they had about that foetus becoming their child. I don't know if you've got kids, but I can tell you that as soon as you see learn your partner is pregnant then you start thinking forward towards all those great parent moments. And if you lose that pregnancy, then it isn't the same as losing a child, but it is still very natural to grieve.

I mean, go and talk to mothers who've lost a pregnancy. Tell them that you think because we allow women who don't want to have a child to terminate their pregnancy, then miscarriages are just medical waste and what they thought was going to be their child is just medical waste and is going to get thrown in the incinerator.

I mean, fething hell.

 Ouze wrote:
The failure to communicate and coordinate with the patients is a serious problem. I personal don't have an issue with burning what I too consider medical waste; but I'm sensitive to the fact that many patients. perhaps even most patients, may feel differently and may want some ceremony. Their wishes should be accommodated.

This is kinda where I'm sittin on this issue as well. However, I will add the caveat that this should be maintained as time allows and permits. As another poster pointed out, the unformed, underformed or newly formed flesh of a fetus has a very limited shelf life, and if the situation warrants it, they must dispose of what is medical waste, and inform the patient as they can.

nkelsch wrote:

This may not be true as there are stricter regulations and higher burning temps and exhaust filtering required for cremating 'Human' Remains because they are toxic.

We aren't talking about entire human bodies here. Aside from that the clinical waste isn't just chucked onto a furnace, it gets processed first.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Tell them that you think because we allow women who don't want to have a child to terminate their pregnancy, then miscarriages are just medical waste and what they thought was going to be their child is just medical waste and is going to get thrown in the incinerator.
I mean, fething hell.

The majority of miscarriages end up in a toilet. The remains of a fetus are also not likely to be whole unless the miscarriage was very late. Discretely removing the remains, even if that means in clinical waste, is far preferrable to presenting the woman with a little tub of scraped up horror.

Like you this is an area that I also have (too much) experience with.

 Orlanth wrote:
Funerals or formal cremation for aborted foetuses show a very distinct preference for pro-life.

So let me get this straight: wanting a funeral/cremation for something = it was a full human with all the rights that status comes with. So that means that when my dog died the fact that I wanted a proper cremation and funeral instead of just having his body dumped in the trash means that my dog was a full "person"? Or could it possibly be the case that we can have strong feelings about things that are not entitled to "personhood"?

Should medical waste, including human body parts and foetuses be disposed of in the proper manner by hospitals (Incinerated)? Yes,

Should patients get a say in where fetuses go after a termination? I'm not so sure. Compassion is the key and likely an out of sight out of mind scenario is probably the best way to proceed.

Hospitals hould not be lying, though I wonder if it is the hospital administration talking of cremation in these cases or a kindly doctor/nurse easing the burden with a small lie.

I don't see a fundamental problem of using the incinerator for the generation of heat and power.

Fundamentally we are part of the circle of life. If our bits and bodies weren't incinerated they would get buried in the earth or at sea, and turn ultimately into compost, or be exposed to be eaten by vultures. What else are we supposed to do? Shoot bodies into space, or vitrify them like nuclear waste?

There is a difference between aborted foetuses, miscarried foetuses, and amputated limbs, though. Parents who have a miscarriage may well want to bury or cremate the corpse on their own time, as part of the grieving process.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats amazing is that there's something called a middle ground. Cremation with respect. Jeezz people the whole concept of burning human flesh to heat your home is Hannibal level fething sick.

Cremation isn't exactly a cost effective way of dealing with waste.

So what?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats amazing is that there's something called a middle ground. Cremation with respect. Jeezz people the whole concept of burning human flesh to heat your home is Hannibal level fething sick.

Cremation isn't exactly a cost effective way of dealing with waste.

So what?

Well really it is. I can get myself cremated for as little as $350 card board box included, and I'm a big dude. And please keep in mind, that's a funeral parlor charging my wife to make some type of profit.

I still think we should just fling the dead at trees. With a catapult.

Make it a sport.

That's pretty disrespectful, even as a joke.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats amazing is that there's something called a middle ground. Cremation with respect. Jeezz people the whole concept of burning human flesh to heat your home is Hannibal level fething sick.

Cremation isn't exactly a cost effective way of dealing with waste.

So what?

Well really it is. I can get myself cremated for as little as $350 card board box included, and I'm a big dude. And please keep in mind, that's a funeral parlor charging my wife to make some type of profit.

Did you tick off the wife again? Don't tell her about the Texas "he was a low down dirty dog that needed killin your honor" spousal defense.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see a fundamental problem of using the incinerator for the generation of heat and power.

Fundamentally we are part of the circle of life. If our bits and bodies weren't incinerated they would get buried in the earth or at sea, and turn ultimately into compost, or be exposed to be eaten by vultures. What else are we supposed to do? Shoot bodies into space, or vitrify them like nuclear waste?

There is a difference between aborted foetuses, miscarried foetuses, and amputated limbs, though. Parents who have a miscarriage may well want to bury or cremate the corpse on their own time, as part of the grieving process.

I agree with this post.

 KingCracker wrote:
That's pretty disrespectful, even as a joke.

Not if its a bunch of guys in French Midieval armor and bad accents doing the flinging. I think the Brits would appreciate that.

Just don't do it near the Scots. They're pretty twitchy with the haggis launchers, and we all remember what happened back in 1933 the last time it occured.

 KingCracker wrote:
That's pretty disrespectful, even as a joke.

Really?

First off, it's a joke from one of Eddie Izzards old shows.

Secondly, it's dead, who cares. If I die I honestly don't care if they burn me, fling me at a tree, use me as a cow feed. Whatever. I'm dead, I certainly won't give a gak about it.

That said, I've already signed to have my body donated to SCIENCE! if I die. Just for that tiny chance that I become the first robocop.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Funerals or formal cremation for aborted foetuses show a very distinct preference for pro-life.

So let me get this straight: wanting a funeral/cremation for something = it was a full human with all the rights that status comes with. So that means that when my dog died the fact that I wanted a proper cremation and funeral instead of just having his body dumped in the trash means that my dog was a full "person"? Or could it possibly be the case that we can have strong feelings about things that are not entitled to "personhood"?

It depends, did you kill your dog with a drill and a vacuum because you just didn't want it anymore?

Orlanth has the right of this. There's something really idiotic about "Please kill this baby, but don't burn it afterwards! The HORROR!!!!"