The NHS use discarded foeti to heat hospitals

urabell

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26716924

Don't see what the outrage is about myself, what do people assume ordinarily happens to discarded foeti? Do they expect the NHS to post them off in parcels marked 'heaven'?

darkpagandeath

Do people get outraged with the incinerator out the back of the vets ?

2.10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ6_cRX1HLs

shruikan2553

what do they tend to do with old organs, tissue etc that they want to get rid of?

shruikan2553

shruikan2553 wrote: »

what do they tend to do with old organs, tissue etc that they want to get rid of?

Burn it themselves or give to another crowd to do it off-site. Can be used for research in some circumstances either.

homeless student

in fairness that is disgusting, im shocked they would do that.

wendell borton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWCfpdVtL_o

darkpagandeath

homeless student wrote: »

in fairness that is disgusting, im shocked they would do that.

How is putting a body in a hole in the ground to be eaten by worms any different ? Same with cremation. Just because people associate my 2 examples with religious ceremony's.

The Diabolical Monocle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QfBG3lbbxY

awec

What's the difference between incineration and cremation?

mikom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jzMw9ezE3I

darkpagandeath

awec wrote: »

What's the difference between incineration and cremation?

Some guy in robes

The Backwards Man

awec wrote: »

What's the difference between incineration and cremation?

About £600

The Diabolical Monocle

You're wearing a suit for one and bloodied raincoat for the other.

Sir Osis of Liver.

Aldi firelighters are great value for money






Sorry wrong thread.

mickydoomsux

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Some guy in robes

A wizard?

Guy:Incognito

mickydoomsux wrote: »

A wizard?

If it's a clan cremation, yes. Some of those aren't altogether consensual mind.

Ihatecuddles

awec wrote: »

What's the difference between incineration and cremation?

Dignity?

One is done in a way that's respectful, the other is just lobbing them into a fiery pit.

FurBabyMomma

While I personally find it very sad, in many cases of abortion the foetus isn't considered human as such so why are people surprised it wouldn't be humanised for burial? That said I can't say I'd like to stay in a hospital that considers it an appropriate way to heat the place, that's beyond morbid.

Pessimist

Such an emotive topic. Hurts to read about it. Have tried writing a response to some of the posters before me and to be perfectly honest - write what you want. Try to be flippant or funny or whatever. But just know that it really hurts to read those remarks - for me anyway.

I am positive that I'm opening the biggest ever can of worms here, but I don't really understand how people can think that aborting a foetus is ok (i.e. it is not a baby but a bunch of cells), but disposing of those bunch of cells like any other clinical waste (e.g. tissue samples, biopsies, blood cultures) is not ok.

Pessimist

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am positive that I'm opening the biggest ever can of worms here, but I don't really understand how people can think that aborting a foetus is ok (i.e. it is not a baby but a bunch of cells), but disposing of those bunch of cells like any other clinical waste (e.g. tissue samples, biopsies, blood cultures) is not ok.

I assumed it was including missed or incomplete miscarriages as well? Where there is not a choice made to abort the baby but a miscarriage which wasn't complete?

Muise...

FurBabyMomma wrote: »

While I personally find it very sad, in many cases of abortion the foetus isn't considered human as such so why are people surprised it wouldn't be humanised for burial? That said I can't say I'd like to stay in a hospital that considers it an appropriate way to heat the place, that's beyond morbid.

It's rather clever and resourceful really.

Donkey Oaty

Deleted User wrote: »

I am positive that I'm opening the biggest ever can of worms here, but I don't really understand how people can think that aborting a foetus is ok (i.e. it is not a baby but a bunch of cells), but disposing of those bunch of cells like any other clinical waste (e.g. tissue samples, biopsies, blood cultures) is not ok.

Because one is a potential human - a bunch of cells waiting to happen - with huge emotional resonance.

I say this as someone who is pro-choice.

It's just the way we are - aren't we?

I mean, I can't rationally justify this, but if I had a limb amputated, I don't think I'd be happy with it being sold to a dog food manufacturer.

shruikan2553

Deleted User wrote: »

Burn it themselves or give to another crowd to do it off-site. Can be used for research in some circumstances either.

Thats what I was thinking.

FurBabyMomma wrote: »

While I personally find it very sad, in many cases of abortion the foetus isn't considered human as such so why are people surprised it wouldn't be humanised for burial? That said I can't say I'd like to stay in a hospital that considers it an appropriate way to heat the place, that's beyond morbid.

They heat the place by using the heat that is created by burning medical waste instead of just letting the energy go to waste. Its not them burning the foetus specifically.

Muise...

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Because one is a potential human - a bunch of cells waiting to happen - with huge emotional resonance.

I say this as someone who is pro-choice.

It's just the way we are - aren't we?

I mean, I can't rationally justify this, but if I had a limb amputated, I don't think I'd be happy with it being sold to a dog food manufacturer.

The emotional resonance of an elective abortion tends to be relief, Donkey, not grief and a need for a ceremonial disposal of the 'bunch of cells'.

robman60

Deleted User wrote: »

I am positive that I'm opening the biggest ever can of worms here, but I don't really understand how people can think that aborting a foetus is ok (i.e. it is not a baby but a bunch of cells), but disposing of those bunch of cells like any other clinical waste (e.g. tissue samples, biopsies, blood cultures) is not ok.

My thoughts exactly. If you wanted the foetus/baby/bunch of cells to be treated with dignity, surely you wouldn't kill it in the first place. If it's acceptable to kill it, surely you couldn't consider it a human and thus deserving of normal human dignity. It's strange hypocrisy.

I'm referring only to the abortions btw, not miscarriages.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am positive that I'm opening the biggest ever can of worms here, but I don't really understand how people can think that aborting a foetus is ok (i.e. it is not a baby but a bunch of cells), but disposing of those bunch of cells like any other clinical waste (e.g. tissue samples, biopsies, blood cultures) is not ok.

More times an abortion will be carried out in hospital and the mother won't really have a choice whether she's ok with the procedure or not. Then there are those people who don't believe a foetus is 'just a bunch of cells' but a human life that has a right to dignity in the disposal of the remains, which is why there are guidelines set down that some hospitals didn't follow. That's the issue here -

The HTA has a code of practice for the disposal of human tissue, which includes foetal remains, that hospitals should follow.

It says women who have had an abortion or miscarriage should be informed that there are different options available - burial, cremation and incineration.

It says disposal via incineration should be handled as "sensitive" and therefore should not be done alongside the burning of waste.

In his letter, Prof Keogh says he believes it would be better not to use incineration at all.

"While it is acknowledged that incineration is not illegal across the UK, existing professional guidance makes clear that the practice is inappropriate.

"I share the view that incineration of fetal remains is inappropriate practice and that other methods offer more dignity in these sensitive situations."

Czarcasm

Muise... wrote: »

The emotional resonance of an elective abortion tends to be relief, Donkey, not grief and a need for a ceremonial disposal of the 'bunch of cells'.

It's a bit more complicated than that now in all fairness.

Ihatecuddles

Muise... wrote: »

The emotional resonance of an elective abortion tends to be relief, Donkey, not grief and a need for a ceremonial disposal of the 'bunch of cells'.

Its not just abortions, its miscarriages too. Babies that are very much wanted and seen as babies and not a bunch of cells.

urabell

mauzo! wrote: »

Dignity?

One is done in a way that's respectful, the other is just lobbing them into a fiery pit.

They're not in the body any more, their eternal soul has gone off somewhere else (possibly a fiery pit) so why does it matter how their shell is treated?

wendell borton

"A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an
amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those
granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and-
according to recent experimental evidence-may even be capable of
learning a form of human language. The foetus belongs to our own
species, and is instantly accorded special privileges and rights because of
it."
-Richard Dawkins

FurBabyMomma

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Thats what I was thinking.



They heat the place by using the heat that is created by burning medical waste instead of just letting the energy go to waste. Its not them burning the foetus specifically.

I read the article and am of course aware there's not some sort of foetus incinerator specifically sitting there. The fact is that these foeti are part of the medical waste incinerated and used as an energy source, as you point out. I'm pointing out that is something I would not be comfortable with if I was a patient in such a hospital whatever my views on abortion would be.

Ihatecuddles

urabell wrote: »

They're not in the body any more, their eternal soul has gone off somewhere else (possibly a fiery pit) so why does it matter how their shell is treated?

Why do we bury anyone then?

Of course it matters, some of these babies died in tragic circumstances, parents never knowing anything of them other than the 'shell'.

robman60

urabell wrote: »

They're not in the body any more, their eternal soul has gone off somewhere else (possibly a fiery pit) so why does it matter how their shell is treated?

Not in a religious way, but that comment is kind of horrible I think, even if the part in brackets was just said jokingly.

Czarcasm

urabell wrote: »

They're not in the body any more, their eternal soul has gone off somewhere else (possibly a fiery pit) so why does it matter how their shell is treated?

Clearly it doesn't matter to you, but to a lot of people it does actually matter, to them it's not just 'a shell'.

Muise...

mauzo! wrote: »

Its not just abortions, its miscarriages too. Babies that are very much wanted and seen as babies and not a bunch of cells.

There are plenty of rituals and ceremonies for that, but in the cases where the putative baby looks like a lump of cells with no recognisable human features, you'd have a coffin the size of a matchbox.

Ihatecuddles

Muise... wrote: »

There are plenty of rituals and ceremonies for that, but in the cases where the putative baby looks like a lump of cells with no recognisable human features, you'd have a coffin the size of a matchbox.

Makes zero difference. The parents still see it as their baby.

darkpagandeath

mauzo! wrote: »

Why do we bury anyone then?

Of course it matters, some of these babies died in tragic circumstances, parents never knowing anything of them other than the 'shell'.

Started out to keep predators/disease away from the human encampment. Then along came religion with ceremony's idea of soul and such like. Different cultures treat their dead in different ways. American Indians put them on high pedestals to be picked clean by birds. Some used to bury them in the house so you could be close to your ancestors.

urabell

mauzo! wrote: »

Why do we bury anyone then?

Of course it matters, some of these babies died in tragic circumstances, parents never knowing anything of them other than the 'shell'.

Their soul is gone on to the afterlife though

robman60 wrote: »

Not in a religious way, but that comment is kind of horrible I think, even if the part in brackets was just said jokingly.

Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

Czarcasm wrote: »

Clearly it doesn't matter to you, but to a lot of people it does actually matter, to them it's not just 'a shell'.

Why would I post anything other than my opinion on a forum?

Muise...

mauzo! wrote: »

Makes zero difference. The parents still see it as their baby.

They can see it any way they want, but the usual forms of burial may not be practicable for the unborn. If they are, this could be taken up with the authorities, if not it's not as though they have to watch the incineration.

Femme_Fatale

Are they actually used to "heat" hospitals or is that just a provocative title?

what do people assume ordinarily happens to discarded foeti? Do they expect the NHS to post them off in parcels marked 'heaven'?

No?

Donkey Oaty

Muise... wrote: »

The emotional resonance of an elective abortion tends to be relief, Donkey, not grief and a need for a ceremonial disposal of the 'bunch of cells'.

No doubt.

But you misunderstand me. There are degrees of emotional resonance, and Whoopsie asked why disposing of an aborted foetus could be considered to be any different to other bodily parts.

I'm saying I can understand how people can be upset by these things, not that they should be upset by these things.

Muise...

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Are they actually used to "heat" hospitals or is that just a provocative title?

No?

Really provocative title for a thread linking an article that conflates abortion, miscarriage and stillbirth, and quotes a spokesperson from a charity that helps people cope with stillbirth and neonatal death.

Czarcasm

urabell wrote: »

Why would I post anything other than my opinion on a forum?

I meant that while you as an individual clearly don't agree with the dignified disposal of remains, there are many more people who would want to know that the disposal of the remains of their aborted foetus were handled with dignity. It means something to them, and abortions in hospitals are more times non-elective abortions for medical reasons as opposed to elective abortions carried out in a clinic for non-medical reasons.

The parents rights and beliefs also need to be respected at a time which is already traumatic enough for them. The medical profession may refer to aborted foetuses as clinical or medical waste, but most parents aren't members of the medical profession, and for them the 'shell' you refer to may have had far more significance than simply religious undertones.

Czarcasm

Muise... wrote: »

They can see it any way they want, but the usual forms of burial may not be practicable for the unborn. If they are, this could be taken up with the authorities, if not it's not as though they have to watch the incineration.

That's the whole point of the Dispatches programme and this article, is that parents weren't being offered this choice, but instead the aborted foetuses were simply being discarded by incineration alongside other medical waste.

urabell

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Are they actually used to "heat" hospitals or is that just a provocative title?

No?

''Channel 4 Dispatches programme says 10 NHS trusts have been burning remains alongside rubbish.

It claims two more disposed of bodies in incinerators used to heat hospitals.''

I sampled a quote from the article to make the title, more emotive than provocative

What do you think happens then? Do us a favour and come up with something better than splitting hairs between incineration and cremation

Muise...

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's the whole point of the Dispatches programme and this article, is that parents weren't being offered this choice, but instead the aborted foetuses were simply being discarded by incineration alongside other medical waste.

Fair enough. Living in a choice-free country, I tend to assume that 'abortion' means elective, in which case I'd care about the remains as much as the period I had last week.

Apologies, I did assume also that these were unwanted pregnancies.

Bad assumption on my part.

El Guapo!

urabell wrote: »

''Channel 4 Dispatches programme says 10 NHS trusts have been burning remains alongside rubbish.

It claims two more disposed of bodies in incinerators used to heat hospitals.''

I sampled a quote from the article to make the title, more emotive than provocative

What do you think happens then? Do us a favour and come up with something better than splitting hairs between incineration and cremation

It was a valid question.
The media have a habit of creating provocative titles to articles.

Freddie Dodge

wendell borton wrote: »

"A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an
amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those
granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and-
according to recent experimental evidence-may even be capable of
learning a form of human language. The foetus belongs to our own
species, and is instantly accorded special privileges and rights because of
it."
-Richard Dawkins

With all due respect to your belief in the "Church Of Dawkins", it has no place in this discussion.