Aborted Babies incinerated to heat Hospital!!

semi-pro waster said:
[..]

Could you elaborate? I suppose it may depend on the version but I didn't think the Hippocratic Oath had anything to say on this matter. [..]
Click to expand...

The Hippocratic Oath forbade anyone swearing it to perform an abortion.

Later oaths called the Hippocratic oath despite being different to it could say anything about anything.
 
I must be heartless or just clinically logical.

I think some people need to chill the **** out, not as if it's a live baby. A dead organism, be it human, fish, whatever (and I don't put any extra value on my existence or yours over any other living thing), if it needs to be burnt then why waste it's usefulness.

I'd happily be burnt and provide what little help I can with my useless remains.
 
bitslice said:
You have no idea
google "what do aborted babies look like"

they are fully formed babies.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. After not very long, they have a humanoid shape. That's not the same thing. A fully formed baby can survive independently (with feeding, etc). That's not possible until at least 21 weeks and then only with cutting edge intensive care and even then the chances of survival are minimal.

I can't post a picture because, well, it's a dead human really.
Also Catholics would regard these as people at conception.
Click to expand...

That's relevant to Catholics. Not to anyone else.
 
Brings a whole new meaning to "burn baby burn disco inferno" but seriously what are you supposed to do with these products of conception? Give them the patient back in a jar?
Clinical waste is any waste that can carry an infection risk.
Human body parts are treated differently and go off to be burnt "differently".
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
Well, you're wrong about that, so that part of your argument kind of falls apart. Also that link you've provided says that incineration for foetal tissue is perfectly fine.

Here you go, have it from the horse's mouth:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/588/regulation/1/made
Click to expand...

Umm, I said that it was acceptable to incinerate foetal waste as long as the parents chose (or decline to choose). That link absolutely does not say that a hospital can just throw in it the incinerator with no reference to the parents, which is the argument you (and most of GD) advocate.

Clinical waste vs human tissue is a semantic point I was trying to simplify. Human tissue is subject to more stringent rules and regulated by the Human Tissue Authority. Clinical waste bins in patients rooms (for example) are traceable, but not regulated in the same manner as human tissue.

Clinical waste cannot be thrown in with the general waste. Human tissue cannot normally be thrown in with the clinical waste.
Human Tissue Authority said:
Where practical, it is good practice for human tissue to be bagged separately from clinical waste, but disposed of within the same incinerator.
Click to expand...

This is the main part of the regulations that is being broken:
Women or couples should be made aware that information on disposal options is available, and consulted on, and given the opportunity to express, any personal wishes.
Click to expand...
 
grumpysculler said:
FFS.

Human tissue is not clinical waste as this country defines it. It doesn't matter if it is a kidney or a foetus, it is handled differently.

Abortion doesn't mean "I don't give a damn, just chuck the thing in the bin." Quite often, abortion is a difficult decision and the parents may still mourn.

Current rules REQUIRE that parents be offered a choice. One of those is incineration with other human tissue waste. They have other options such as burial and cremation.

The issue here isn't that foetal remains are incinerated, it is that parents have been denied a choice and that the remains have not been handled as human tissue. It is comparable to the stillborn ashes scandal, I guess.

Full rules here if anyone is interested. Facts may be too much for GD, though.
http://goo.gl/d3RQz7
Click to expand...


115. Fetal tissue from a pregnancy lost before 24 weeks may be incinerated, although how appropriate this is depends on the individual circumstances
Click to expand...

So for abortions, hospital policy might state we incinerate unless specifically requested not to, and job is done.
 
I'm not sure how so many of you are all "huh it's medical waste no biggy".

It's pretty ****ing weird! 'It' being burning discarded fetuses and using them to heat buildings. Obviously putting like that is a crude distillation of the circumstances.
 
The process isn't weird, and do not reflect anyones views on being pro or anti abortion.
Legally it is waste of a clinical type, tissue based, and thus will be disposed of in some fashion suitable to its type.

One of these methods is incineration with the other clinical waste.
Some incinerators have heat reclaim systems which power central heating.
If one goes into the other, a newspaper gets the above headline, whereas anyone reading the process states 'no biggie', this has nothing to do with the source of the material, or how it was generated, as in an abortion, that isn't being discussed at all.
 
EGuitarStar said:
I just can't imagine who would knowingly allow this to happen and let it be.
Click to expand...

you realise most of these will just be a lump of mush?

just gets thrown in the incinerator along with the organs and limbvs of other people.

or is it using the heat from the incinerator instead of wasting it thats wrong?
 
Nitefly said:
I'm not sure how so many of you are all "huh it's medical waste no biggy".

It's pretty ****ing weird! 'It' being burning discarded fetuses and using them to heat buildings. Obviously putting like that is a crude distillation of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

actually it s more "gas used to cremate clinical waste also used to heat water."

i get the feeling a wet foetus represents a net consumption of heat rather than an output.
 
how many hospital radiators can a foreskin heat?



oh christ. sorry. sorry. forgot this was gd. don't want to create another circumcision debate.
 
Angilion said:
The Hippocratic Oath forbade anyone swearing it to perform an abortion.

Later oaths called the Hippocratic oath despite being different to it could say anything about anything.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was aware of the no abortions part although my understanding is the original Oath says no to a pessary to cause an abortion which may or may not forbid all abortions depending on how you interpret it.

I was really asking about how the Hippocratic Oath would be relevant to the disposal of an aborted foetus. I'm taking it as a given that at this point you've already gone beyond the abortion issue where the Hippocratic Oath (possibly) had something explicit to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom