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.

My moral compas points to "Stop using dead body parts and the unborn to fuel the heating of the hospital", but otherwise has no opinion on the cremation of either.

If someone chooses to have an abortion (which is what he was talking about, not misscarages) they are treating the fetus as being just a part of there body they have a choice to remove. Why should it be treated any diffrently to any other tissue?

There is a gray area, but whilst in theory all abortions in the UK should only be where there is a serious threat to the health of the mother or child it is an open secret that "It would make me realy unhappy" is enough.

 kronk wrote:
My moral compas points to "Stop using dead body parts and the unborn to fuel the heating of the hospital", but otherwise has no opinion on the cremation of either.

Exactly, although I fully support flinging grandma with a catapult (Mom would have loved that). As long as its done with taste.

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
My moral compas points to "Stop using dead body parts and the unborn to fuel the heating of the hospital", but otherwise has no opinion on the cremation of either.

Exactly, although I fully support flinging grandma with a catapult (Mom would have loved that). As long as its done with taste.

Tie on some ribbons and such for extra effects?

There is also the argument of the decomposition factor; almost all energy in nature is returned to nitrogen and oxygen in the soil. Cremation removes this energy; I am all in support of this.

Again, however, there is the issue of preservation; again, you cannot keep a foetus in fresh air for extended periods of time; flash freezing will damage it; and the stress of the decision combined with shock makes this an incredibly difficult subject to discuss with the woman; several people appear to misunderstand the sheer overwhelming shock and lack of time makes this oh so difficult.

 sebster wrote:

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.

Realize that this is the telegraph reporting this... it's sensational.

Unless there's further clarification... this is horrible.

Oh... what Sebster said. Can't add anymore than that.

Efficient use of material - it's weird sure... but I really wouldn't be bothered bt this.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 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!!!!"

Not all abortions (the technical name for a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion) are elective.
It's happened to my wife, and it is entirely devastating
It's upsetting enough for a doctor to tell you that your baby is dead, without the hospital throwing the remains in the trash as if it didn't matter.

 Soladrin wrote:

 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.

I personally plan to be embalmed and lie in state for all eternity.

Failing that, re-animate after death and chase a rag tag group of whining rednecks through the American South.

feeder wrote:
I personally plan to be embalmed and lie in state for all eternity.

That would not be so hard. All you'd need to do for that is starting a succesful communist revolution

Failing that, re-animate after death and chase a rag tag group of whining rednecks through the American South.

Sounds like a plan to me.
I want to be cremated and shot into a list of people that have ticked me off. Its a long list...

There is one fact about all of this that is not in dispute: human tissue and remains (full or partial, whether the result of miscarriage or abortion) is biologically hazardous waste. It is considered infectious and it needs to be disposed of in distinct ways which really only gives you two options:

Long term storage: wasteful and non-sustainable. Stick all tissues and remains in sealed drums and store them in some underground concrete vault hoping that it will never leak. I guess it could count as "burial" but its not exactly a solution.

Incineration: Burn all the tissues and remains, rendering them biologically harmless and destroying all infectious organisms. The most cost effective solution and less risk of exposure to infections.

So incineration is the best option for disposal. As far as the whole "baby heat" discussion: I'm just going to assume that the hospital administrators didn't sit around their desk going "I am cold, I wish I could use dead babies to keep warm. But making a coat of dead babies would be a little bit over the top, maybe we can just install a fireplace in my office and use them as fuel.....I got it, the incinerator!" Harvesting the heat from incinerators is nothing new and it wouldn't be cost effective to install a second non-heating incinerator just for the occasional fetal remains. They are not using fetuses for fuel, they are disposing biological hazardous waste and the system is just set up to recycle all heat generated from incineration.

Now there are a couple of things they can do to make the process more bearable for some of you guys here:

There should be an option for parents to take the remains home. But keep in mind that often the remains are just bits and pieces and not recognizable human. I had the sad opportunity to see a 5 month old fetus during my clinical rotation once. The mother had a miscarriage at home and brought the remains to the hospital with her. The remains ended up in the lab where they will be dissected, examined, and cut to pieces and placed on slides so that they can find out what went wrong and how they can have a healthy child in the future. You might get your fetus back, but it probably won't look human. You also end up with more strains on nature: you can embalm whatever you get back, which is just a different form of hazardous waste you stick in the earth. You can cremate it, which still uses energy and throws waste into the environment. Both options also take up valuable land after burial. Of course you get the benefit of helping with the grieving process leading to closure and healing for the family, and you can argue that this is worth the burden placed on nature.

The hospitals can also change the procedures a bit:

- If there is a way to store the remains you could wait until you get a certain amount or a certain time frame. Place all the remains in a freezer and every 3 months have a small ceremony where a clergy person comes and says a prayer and the box of remains is placed in the incinerator in a dignified way.
- Mass cremations: I think that is the option taken by the hospital where I grew up. They collect the remains for 6 months and then cremate them together. The cemetery has a section where an urn for the 6 months is placed. This still takes up space of course, but you could still harvest the energy from the cremation.

My focus on a sustainable way to get rid of human bodies might be a bit off-putting, but I always thought that the way we are doing burials today is a drain on nature.

You could also just bury it.

 Frazzled wrote:
You could also just bury it.

There are actually a crap-ton of laws that prevent a hospital from just burying medical hazardous waste, same as there are a crap-ton of laws that prevent parents from just burying the remains wherever they want.

Bury it in an approved cemetary. No biggie. Its cheaper than burning.

I think chucking it in the furnace is pretty damn cheap!

But that sounds pretty callous to type!

My moral compass is powered by giveadamnium. Sadly, I have been in a shortage of fuel about this issue. I do agree that allowing people to take their own body wastes home if they want to should be okay, though.

I find this whole argument silly. It's medical waste. You incinerate medical waste; ergo you incinerate them.

 Frazzled wrote:
Bury it in an approved cemetary. No biggie. Its cheaper than burning.

Paying for a plot, paying for a coffin/urn, paying for embalming/cremation, paying for a headstone, paying for transport of the remains from the hospital to the funeral home and then to the cemetery = cheaper than incineration? Frazzled logic is weird. Besides, I also said that every family should be given the option to do that if they want, but it's not something that is cost-effective for a hospital.

And land is not plentiful, not every country in the world is Texas.

 d-usa wrote:

not every country in the world is Texas.

They just wish they could be!

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bury it in an approved cemetary. No biggie. Its cheaper than burning.

Paying for a plot, paying for a coffin/urn, paying for embalming/cremation, paying for a headstone, paying for transport of the remains from the hospital to the funeral home and then to the cemetery = cheaper than incineration? Frazzled logic is weird. Besides, I also said that every family should be given the option to do that if they want, but it's not something that is cost-effective for a hospital.

And land is not plentiful, not every country in the world is Texas.

No no. Get a barrel, throw barrel in hole in ground, drink a lot, close up hole with Bobcat.

 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, this may surprise you but cost efficiency is important in waste management.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I'm pretty sure using the remains to generate heat costs much less than $350 that being said I think they should respect the wishes of the family first before treating it as waste.

 filbert wrote:

Lets be clear here; men in boiler suits aren't heaping babies like coal onto shovels into a furnace - most of the clinical waste arrives in bins and receptacles and are incinerated en masse and anonymously.

I think this bears repeating, but it does put one hellacious mental image in my head...

 kronk wrote:

 filbert wrote:

Lets be clear here; men in boiler suits aren't heaping babies like coal onto shovels into a furnace - most of the clinical waste arrives in bins and receptacles and are incinerated en masse and anonymously.

I think this bears repeating, but it does put one hellacious mental image in my head...

By men in boiler suits heaping them like coal into a furnace...