Discussion:
Govt to introduce presumption in favour of organ donation
(too old to reply)
James Hammerton
2017-10-05 20:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From May's recent conference speech (via
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2017/10/renewing-the-british-dream-mays-speech-in-full.html):

``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.

That’s what I’m in this for.''

So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.

I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?

Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-05 20:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
I would have thought that it would increase supply so much that demand
would be satisfied.

IMO, albeit without knowing much about the issue, presumed consent is
probably a good idea and will save lives. I would definitely object to
compulsory donation, though.
--
James Harris
Ned Latham
2017-10-05 22:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
IMO, albeit without knowing much about the issue, presumed consent is
probably a good idea and will save lives. I would definitely object to
compulsory donation, though.
Sounds a little too much like a resumption of the kingly power of life
and death, to me.
abelard
2017-10-05 21:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:12:42 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?
we could solve the housing shortage that way...

assume anyone who doesn't make a will meant
the state to have the house
--
www.abelard.org
James Harris
2017-10-06 09:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:12:42 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?
we could solve the housing shortage that way...
assume anyone who doesn't make a will meant
the state to have the house
Maybe the children should have first dibs on the organs.... ;-)
--
James Harris
Vidcapper
2017-10-06 07:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?
I wonder how much the supply would really increase though?

Most people die when they are elderly, from illnesses & diseases which
might well make their organs unsuitable for transplant.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-10-06 08:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available.
No! They died because they were terminally ill.

There are a number of objections to over reliance upon transplants not least that usually in order to benefit a recipient a donor has to die. In that sense therefore there is no net benefit.

The question of organ rejection by recipients is really no nearer to a solution. This means that recipients have to resign themselves to a regime of imuno - suppressants for the rest of their lives. This can become just as debilitating.

The real break through will come through stem cell research which offers more than a mere promise of a real cure of the condition that makes transplants necessary.

https://phys.org/news/2014-04-scientists-barrier-stem-cells.html
Incubus
2017-10-06 08:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...) Suppose I want to be buried in a forest somewhere with no
embalming taking place? Not possible.
abelard
2017-10-06 09:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...) Suppose I want to be buried in a forest somewhere with no
embalming taking place? Not possible.
is that also 'illegal' now?

looks like a good opening for burke and hare....
have the government gotten your details on a database yet...

fear not, as a famous poster said, if you have nothing to fear
from government, you have nothing to fear

hurry along there now...
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2017-10-06 10:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Incubus
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...) Suppose I want to be buried in a forest somewhere with no
embalming taking place? Not possible.
is that also 'illegal' now?
I believe it is.
Post by abelard
looks like a good opening for burke and hare....
have the government gotten your details on a database yet...
I imagine I am on a number of different DBs.
Post by abelard
fear not, as a famous poster said, if you have nothing to fear
from government, you have nothing to fear
Government is looking after our best interests. Government wants to
protect us. Government wants to help us and steer us away from harm.

It really is like a Big Brother.
abelard
2017-10-06 11:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by abelard
Post by Incubus
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...) Suppose I want to be buried in a forest somewhere with no
embalming taking place? Not possible.
is that also 'illegal' now?
I believe it is.
Post by abelard
looks like a good opening for burke and hare....
have the government gotten your details on a database yet...
I imagine I am on a number of different DBs.
but do they yet have the necessary dna profiles to match you
up with potential millionaire's recipient market
Post by Incubus
Post by abelard
fear not, as a famous poster said, if you have nothing to fear
from government, you have nothing to fear
Government is looking after our best interests. Government wants to
protect us. Government wants to help us and steer us away from harm.
It really is like a Big Brother.
--
www.abelard.org
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-10-06 11:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...) Suppose I want to be buried in a forest somewhere with no
embalming taking place? Not possible.
It is with the permission of the landowner! There are several people buried in the forest where we live including a rally driver who was killed there during competition. In fact the grave is still tended but only annually on the anniversary of the death back in the 80's The only thing one can't do is erect a headstone. Relatives can get round this by donating a seat with a memorial plaque screwed onto it.

AIUI there is no law to prevent you from being planted in your own back garden but caution s advised since your executors might have difficulty in selling your house afterwards. I understand estate agents have difficulty selling houses built on old grave and church yards.
Incubus
2017-10-06 11:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by James Hammerton
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year
500 people died because a suitable organ was not available. And
there are 6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this
challenge that affects all communities in our country, we will
change that system. Shifting the balance of presumption in favour
of organ donation. Working on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being
something one actively chooses, it will be something one has to
opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this
then mean that campaigners in future can point to people who
would have got an organ were it not for those opting out of organ
donation as an argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of
those who need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a
choice in this matter?
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we
die? It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack
of burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved
for Moslems...) Suppose I want to be buried in a forest somewhere
with no embalming taking place? Not possible.
It is with the permission of the landowner!
Without autopsy and embalming fluid?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are several people
buried in the forest where we live including a rally driver who was
killed there during competition.
Which driver?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In fact the grave is still tended
but only annually on the anniversary of the death back in the 80's
Group B Rally?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
AIUI there is no law to prevent you from being planted in your own
back garden but caution s advised since your executors might have
difficulty in selling your house afterwards. I understand estate
agents have difficulty selling houses built on old grave and church
yards.
I blame Stephen Spielberg.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-10-06 15:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is with the permission of the landowner!
Without autopsy and embalming fluid?
Autopsies are carried out at the discretion of the doctor(s)responsible for signing the death certificate or on the instructions of a coroner.
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are several people
buried in the forest where we live including a rally driver who was
killed there during competition.
Which driver?
Some Icelander who I have never heard of. Apparently he was the co-driver and was killed before the 80's in 1976.
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In fact the grave is still tended
but only annually on the anniversary of the death back in the 80's
Group B Rally?
I wouldn't know what a Group B rally is. I'm not that interested in the sport.

The driver in question was the one mentioned in this report on a second accident in 2004 as having been killed in 1976.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/rally-driver-s-sister-died-in-forest-crash-1-2547701

I remember the 2004 incident though I wasn't there. Rallies kick up a hell of a lot of noise and I remember this one going quiet and saying to the wife. "They've finished early haven't they? Later that evening, we were told why.

Contrary to what you read there, rallies still take place 2 or times a year in the forest. This goes back to the days before the forest was open to the general public as an amenity (at £8-00 per car!) The forest can hardly be open to cyclists, hikers, assailers, horse riders and God knows who with cars tearing round stone roads at near 100 m.p.h. so it is closed to all other than rally spectators (and we residents of course). I understand that the Forestry Commission would be glad to get shot of rallies for obvious reasons. To close the forest on a nice summer day costs them about £10000 to £15000 in takings.

They haven't managed to get rid of the rally cars yet!
Incubus
2017-10-10 11:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are several people buried in the forest where we live
including a rally driver who was killed there during
competition.
Which driver?
Some Icelander who I have never heard of. Apparently he was the
co-driver and was killed before the 80's in 1976.
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In fact the grave is still tended but only annually on the
anniversary of the death back in the 80's
Group B Rally?
I wouldn't know what a Group B rally is. I'm not that interested in the sport.
It didn't last long, largely thanks to the Portuguese spectators.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The driver in question was the one mentioned in this report on a
second accident in 2004 as having been killed in 1976.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/rally-driver-s-sister-died-in-forest-crash-1-2547701
Thanks.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
I remember the 2004 incident though I wasn't there. Rallies kick up
a hell of a lot of noise and I remember this one going quiet and
saying to the wife. "They've finished early haven't they? Later that
evening, we were told why.
Contrary to what you read there, rallies still take place 2 or times
a year in the forest.
I think the objection wasn't to the forest being used but rather to that
particular section.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
This goes back to the days before the forest
was open to the general public as an amenity (at £8-00 per car!) The
forest can hardly be open to cyclists, hikers, assailers, horse
riders and God knows who with cars tearing round stone roads at near
100 m.p.h. so it is closed to all other than rally spectators (and we
residents of course). I understand that the Forestry Commission would
be glad to get shot of rallies for obvious reasons. To close the
forest on a nice summer day costs them about £10000 to £15000 in
takings.
That much?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
They haven't managed to get rid of the rally cars yet!
Good. It's much better than Formula One.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-10-06 11:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
Legally none ! Your remains become part of your estate and as such the temporary property of your executor or next of kin. I suppose that you could make provision in your will for its disposal but doubt whether many do.
Post by Incubus
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...)
That's rubbish! Graves are recycled and always have been. A grave is normally bought on a lease that expires 100 years after the last interment in it. After the lease expires the grave is then available for re-use. Similar arrangements apply to graves in council run cemeteries. Any ancient human remains that are unearthed when a 'New' grave is dug are re-interred in a special plot kept for the purpose. Old churches occasionally incorporate a charnel house for this same purpose.

How do you think a church several centuries old with about 1 acre of churchyard can still offer grave plots when, over the years, this yard might have accommodated 1000 funerals or more?


With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Incubus
2017-10-06 12:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
Legally none ! Your remains become part of your estate and as such
the temporary property of your executor or next of kin. I suppose
that you could make provision in your will for its disposal but doubt
whether many do.
Didn't you answer this already?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...)
That's rubbish! Graves are recycled and always have been. A grave is
normally bought on a lease that expires 100 years after the last
interment in it. After the lease expires the grave is then available
for re-use. Similar arrangements apply to graves in council run
cemeteries. Any ancient human remains that are unearthed when a 'New'
grave is dug are re-interred in a special plot kept for the purpose.
Old churches occasionally incorporate a charnel house for this same
purpose.
I think I'd prefer to rot rather than be incinerated. Unfortunately, I
don't attend church so I'm probably out of luck.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
How do you think a church several centuries old with about 1 acre of
churchyard can still offer grave plots when, over the years, this
yard might have accommodated 1000 funerals or more?
Some headstones are centuries old, though.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Ophelia
2017-10-07 18:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
How much choice do we have over what happens to our bodies after we die?
Legally none ! Your remains become part of your estate and as such
the temporary property of your executor or next of kin. I suppose
that you could make provision in your will for its disposal but doubt
whether many do.
Didn't you answer this already?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
It's difficult enough to be buried if you want to due to lack of
burial plots (evidence suggests that they are being reserved for
Moslems...)
That's rubbish! Graves are recycled and always have been. A grave is
normally bought on a lease that expires 100 years after the last
interment in it. After the lease expires the grave is then available
for re-use. Similar arrangements apply to graves in council run
cemeteries. Any ancient human remains that are unearthed when a 'New'
grave is dug are re-interred in a special plot kept for the purpose.
Old churches occasionally incorporate a charnel house for this same
purpose.
I think I'd prefer to rot rather than be incinerated. Unfortunately, I
don't attend church so I'm probably out of luck.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
How do you think a church several centuries old with about 1 acre of
churchyard can still offer grave plots when, over the years, this
yard might have accommodated 1000 funerals or more?
Some headstones are centuries old, though.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
==

Why do you think that?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Incubus
2017-10-09 12:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
Ophelia
2017-10-09 20:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.

===

I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Incubus
2017-10-10 08:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
That's because of the current fashion for cremation.
Ophelia
2017-10-11 14:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
That's because of the current fashion for cremation.
==

Ah!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
ssos@bungay.com
2017-10-11 15:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
That's because of the current fashion for cremation.
==
Ah!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
My mother was cremated, and I felt a sudden sense of loss - in that they were about to set fire to the person who had brought me into this world.

Now this might be some form of mental affliction, but it was enough for me. I have subsequently bought my burial plot in a woodland cemetary a few miles up the road; and have even met the young tree whose roots are probably going to extract chemicals from around me as I decompose.

It all seems far more natural than being burned to a pile of cinders.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Incubus
2017-10-11 15:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bungay.com
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not
the demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the
grave to torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the
heart, beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
That's because of the current fashion for cremation. ==
Ah!
-- http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
My mother was cremated, and I felt a sudden sense of loss - in that
they were about to set fire to the person who had brought me into
this world.
Now this might be some form of mental affliction, but it was enough
for me. I have subsequently bought my burial plot in a woodland
cemetary a few miles up the road; and have even met the young tree
whose roots are probably going to extract chemicals from around me as
I decompose.
It all seems far more natural than being burned to a pile of
cinders.
I think it's understandable. I find cremation rather distasteful (hence
why I prefer to call it incineration - 'cremation' seems euphemistic).
At funerals where cremation is involved, the whole idea of burning the
body makes me angry for some reason. Perhaps it's a coping mechanism.
Ophelia
2017-10-12 14:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bungay.com
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not
the demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the
grave to torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the
heart, beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
That's because of the current fashion for cremation. ==
Ah!
-- http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
My mother was cremated, and I felt a sudden sense of loss - in that
they were about to set fire to the person who had brought me into
this world.
Now this might be some form of mental affliction, but it was enough
for me. I have subsequently bought my burial plot in a woodland
cemetary a few miles up the road; and have even met the young tree
whose roots are probably going to extract chemicals from around me as
I decompose.
It all seems far more natural than being burned to a pile of
cinders.
I think it's understandable. I find cremation rather distasteful (hence
why I prefer to call it incineration - 'cremation' seems euphemistic).
At funerals where cremation is involved, the whole idea of burning the
body makes me angry for some reason. Perhaps it's a coping mechanism.

===

We won't be having a funeral.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Ophelia
2017-10-12 14:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
With modern fashion tending towards cremations, there is not the
demand for graves that there once was anyway.
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
That's because of the current fashion for cremation.
==
Ah!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
My mother was cremated, and I felt a sudden sense of loss - in that they
were about to set fire to the person who had brought me into this world.

Now this might be some form of mental affliction, but it was enough for me.
I have subsequently bought my burial plot in a woodland cemetary a few miles
up the road; and have even met the young tree whose roots are probably going
to extract chemicals from around me as I decompose.

It all seems far more natural than being burned to a pile of cinders.

===

I guess it depends on how each of us feels. We have decided to be cremated
and our ashes scattered together in a favourite place.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-10-10 09:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
Shows how successful it is then dunnit?
Ophelia
2017-10-11 14:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Incubus
Burning the body runs the risk that one won't rise from the grave to
torment the living.
Why do you think that?
Traditional means of destroying a vampire - stake through the heart,
beheading and fire.
===
I must say, I haven't come across any recently ...
Shows how successful it is then dunnit?
==

Could be ;-)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Omega
2017-10-06 08:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
From May's recent conference speech (via
``But our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the
number of organ donors that come forward. That is why last year 500
people died because a suitable organ was not available. And there are
6,500 on the transplant list today. So to address this challenge that
affects all communities in our country, we will change that system.
Shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation. Working
on behalf of the most vulnerable.
That’s what I’m in this for.''
So presumably this means that instead of organ donation being something
one actively chooses, it will be something one has to opt out of.
I expect this will increase the supply of organs, but won't this then
mean that campaigners in future can point to people who would have got
an organ were it not for those opting out of organ donation as an
argument in favour of compulsory donation?
Does increasing the supply of organs and thus enabling more of those who
need a transplant to get one trump the right to have a choice in this
matter?
Regards,
James
This will pacify the, "my little boy would be alive today, had some
selfish bastard given up his kidney following a fatal road accident",
brigade and sets a dreadful precedence! Fill between the inverted
commas with whatever sickeningly emotional crap you feel will make you
feel better, of course.

Firstly, 'live organs', cannot be gotten from dead bodies. Viable live
organs can only come from viable live bodies! Oh yes!

Secondly, many here will probably have no knowledge, the whole of Wales
was the pilot for this scheme about two years ago, when every citizen
eligible to have his organs removed by the State would have to apply to
the Welsh Government if he so wished not to be in this scheme. Fair
enough, we were all informed, okay, so no skullduggery there. Simply
make ones application then he is off the list, *forever*. Fuck off, let
me tell you my tale!

On receipt of my letter, I made an immediate application to remove
myself from this Permission Presumed list. Good, status quo, resumed!

Two weeks later, I have no idea why, I received yet another invite to
remove myself from the list if I so wished. On making inquiries, there
was no record whatsoever I had made an application in the first place!
I made another application to be assured they had all this information
'on the screen', how the fuck does that give it more credence, I
wondered, and was assured, once again, I was off the list.

Doubting Thomas paid me a visit about a month later. I contacted the
body snatcher team, explained my concerns because of past history with
them and asked, was I still off the list. We are very sorry, Mr.
******, but we can't find you on the data base even though I had now
given them my NHS number. I was fucking livid!

I told them, they will take me off this list or I was happy to go
public. I will also demand the boss, A Doctor in Swansea overseeing
this mire of ineptitude, personally contact me to inform me I was off
the list.

Three weeks later I received a snail mail letter from Doctor *****,
apologising for the mix up and that I was finally taken off the Consent
Presumed list. Cheeky cow even inviting me back onto the list if I
changed my mind.

It even crossed my mind at one stage, these bastards had been set
targets and if a couple of applications left the trail to get the
numbers up to stay with the list, then let it be. One for the
conspiracy theorists!

Thirdly. Could it ever happen when a near death is hurried along for
the few good organs I have?

The problem I have with Ethics Committees is that they are geared for
those of us who would adhere to an ethical code, assuming, of course, we
each and all understand where the thin line of this abstract ideal,
starts or ends!

If that is your choice, to give up body parts, that is fine with me but
to devise a procedure, whereby your State grave robbers help themselves
to mine, unless I make a convoluted fuss to keep them intact, is loathsome.

I discovered along the way, your GP will have this information, as to
whether you opt out, so a quick word when you meet, might save you a lot
of stress if you don't want to get involved with the Swansea team.

omega
Loading...