TobyCoulson Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Never really thought about this before my sister told me about it but to me this seems like a very good idea. Disposing of the body costs can be considerable and going to a funeral is not exactly the most enjoyable of activities so I think this is a far better option. Body used to teach people about human anatomy and a good piss up at my local with the money saved from using a funeral director seems preferable to the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed White Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I believe you actually also get paid in advance? Jonathan? As the son of an undertaker, don't dismiss the closure aspect that a funeral can bring to friends and family though. Cheers, ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TobyCoulson Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 The wake will give them closure and hopefully a hangover 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 If we carry on breeding at the current rate then it won't be long before bodies are taken away to make food..... On a more serious note I quite fancy being cremated, and having my ashes either shot into a low earth orbit, to burn up on re-entry, or transported up to 80000 ft+ by balloon and then released to scatter on the wind. Alternatively the idea of a natural burial sounds quite nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Kay Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 There isn't a national system. The HTA has a page on this, and it links to contacts at the individual medical schools. Not all donated bodies or body parts are used for teaching anatomy, think about what you'd like in advance and discuss it with the medical school. This also seems like a convenient time to suggest that we all think about blood donation and organ donation. Jonathan PS: The tradition was for new medical students, typically in a group of four, to dissect an entire body over 2 or 3 terms. There is now a wide range of practice from this through studying prepared regions to digital images and simulation. PPS: The history of this is fascinating, closely connected to the Enlightenment and involves many great scientists, artists and writers, and body snatching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blokko Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Quoting Mort: On a more serious note I quite fancy being cremated, and having my ashes either shot into a low earth orbit, to burn up on re-entry, or transported up to 80000 ft+ by balloon and then released to scatter on the wind. As I understand it, all of the deceased are cremated together at the end of the day rather than individually - so the ashes presented to your living relatives are not exclusively from your body 🙅🏻♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete - W.Sussex Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 No, I don't think so. This is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug phillips Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 true, the ashes from each burner are removed and placed in a box. At this point anything like gold fillings are removed, and given to the family along with the ashes (if wanted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ford Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 What difference would it make if it was true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Wrightpayne Posted July 10, 2014 Area Representative Share Posted July 10, 2014 I'm going to be stuffed and mounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ford Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Sounds good - but what about when you're dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TobyCoulson Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englishmaninwales Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Quoting Jonathan Kay: PS: The tradition was for new medical students, typically in a group of four, to dissect an entire body over 2 or 3 terms........... Anatomy session as a first year medical student in 1977 was an all day session on Fridays. Best time of the week by far. Also the 8 of us were randomly selected to one dissection table on the first day, all from different backgrounds, have remained lifelong friends since. Mind you some us were less diligent than others, and often failed to make the afternoon session after an orange squash or two at lunch time (probably forbidden in this day and age). This of course required an Autumn re-sit for some. If it feels right to you to donate, then do it Edited by - Englishmaninwales on 10 Jul 2014 13:13:04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed White Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 As I understand it, all of the deceased are cremated together at the end of the day rather than individually - so the ashes presented to your living relatives are not exclusively from your body 🙅🏻♂️ Utter rubbish. The remains are removed from the chamber, and generally still include quite large bone lumps. The remains go into a bone grinder to basically turn the remains into what you commonly think of as ashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I was told that they don't accept a lot of the donated bodies. The relatives are then still left to organise a funeral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandmaster Flatcap Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I want to be composted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Quoting Jonathan Kay: This also seems like a convenient time to suggest that we all think about blood donation and organ donation. Jonathan Do you know if there are any plans to allow donors to specify who may or may not receive their organs, or is it likely to remain the case that the person at the top of the list automatically gets the organ(s)? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Kay Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 *arrowup*I don't know, but I'll find out. Donating while alive (eg a kidney) or after death? It looks as if there is a category called directed altruistic donation. Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 After death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ford Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Why would you want to do that? To avoid it going to a Tory MP? Or an asylum seeker? I suppose you could set up a Facebook voting system "Who gets my son's kidney?" and give it to the person who gets the most votes. Seems a pretty dodgy idea to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Quoting Roger Ford: Why would you want to do that? To avoid it going to a Tory MP? Or an asylum seeker? I suppose you could set up a Facebook voting system "Who gets my son's kidney?" and give it to the person who gets the most votes. Seems a pretty dodgy idea to me. To avoid it going to anyone with a criminal record. When kidney donor cards first arrived in the 1970s I picked one up as soon as they were available. As the donation service became increasingly comprehensive I made a point of updating my card each time. I was a donation evangelist. Then I became aware that criminals, including those serving life sentences, we're given the same priority as everyone else, and that struck me as wrong. I don't want my organs to go to a convicted rapist or child murderer, and I don't think the state should be expected to pick up the tab to carry out such transplants, and then continue to cover the costs of incarceration. That is madness, particularly when there are plenty of good, deserving people on the list. You could have a situation where a victim of rape dies for want of a kidney, and a convicted rapist gets one. How could that ever be justifiable? Sorry it that's too extreme for you, but I should have a say on matters like that, and until I do I shan't be carrying a donor card again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Well said. I think that's an entirely reasonable point of view And you also wouldn't want your bits going to hopeless cases either. Like George Best for instance! Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ford Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I can sort-of see your argument, but surely it's counter-productive? By not carrying your card, you're not helping the rape victim get a kidney, you're just making sure neither she nor the rapist gets it. If you had the chance to shoot both the rapist and his victim, would you do so? There's clearly a valid argument that some people should have priority over others, but that decision should be made by whatever committee gets to make the decision (and of course they could be guided by legislation). Allowing the donors to choose opens the door to some pretty nasty or sharp practices. Could you, for example, choose to give it to the person who makes the biggest contribution to a charity of your choice? Could you choose not to give it to a black person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 All valid points, but easily resolved by having a tick box on the donor card stating that the event of my death my organs should not go to anyone who has a criminal record. If that happened then I would immediately start carrying a donor card again, and everyone would be happy - except for criminals, because I suspect most people would tick that box. Then again that could have a positive effect, and might make people think twice before carrying out a crime. I take your point about sharp practices, but racial / ethnic/ religious discrimination is illegal, and rightly so. Therefore discrimination pertaining to organ donation on those grounds would also be illegal. I don't see a problem with excluding people who do not follow our laws, and who live outside our society, from benefiting from the generosity of those of us who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team Golf Juliet Tango Posted July 10, 2014 Leadership Team Share Posted July 10, 2014 Sorry, Nick, I wholly disagree. Donation should be altruistic. I would not dream of trying to determine which poor soul gets my blood, which I donate regularly. The same applies to any bits of my body which are useful after I have died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now