Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

Consent, death, and organ harvesting.

Recently there has been a big scandal in NZ regarding dead babies body parts (mainly heart and lungs) being used for medical research. The stink is over the fact that no parental consent was ever given for this.

There is some debate over whether the hospital (greenlane) should notify the parents of the children whose organs were used. A number of the babies were actually abortions.

Do you think there is an obligation to gain consent from the parents for this sort of thing? What about consent from the people who have chosen to abort?

Do you think there is a difference between keeping organs for the sake of science, and removing and disposing of organs for the sake of embalment/ any other funeral preparations?

If so, do you think Morticians/embalmers should have the same obligations as medical practicioners regarding the handling of dead people? (Medical practicioners in NZ are answerable to a code, where as there is no statutory authority governing the practice of funeral directors etc..)

Is a patient/client/health consumer still a patient/client/health consumer when they die? Is a baby ever a patient/client/health consumer or is it the mother who is the patient? Is money a factor in any of this?

Share your thoughts with me please - I'm brainstorming for my latest research project....
Any other issues you think are relevant in the area of rights of dead people/consent/organ harvesting etc...?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 4501

quote:

---

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
Recently there has been a big scandal in NZ regarding dead babies body parts (mainly heart and lungs) being used for medical research. The stink is over the fact that no parental consent was ever given for this.

There is some debate over whether the hospital (greenlane) should notify the parents of the children whose organs were used. A number of the babies were actually abortions.

Do you think there is an obligation to gain consent from the parents for this sort of thing? What about consent from the people who have chosen to abort?


---> I do think consent should be asked of miscarriages or stillbirths. I don't agree with the concept of a burial, a stuffed body in a casket, that sort of thing, but their rights to grieve should be respected. It's their loss. I would hope that they would be able to donate the baby so that others may be helped. Even a death can provide life. Aborted babies, on the other hand...hmm, tough one. I don't agree with them being used, because it's a double profit on a nasty procedure; also, I think the parents involved kinda lose their right to decide what happens to the baby (not their own right to sanitary and safe health care, since they did opt for the procedure in the first place).

Do you think there is a difference between keeping organs for the sake of science, and removing and disposing of organs for the sake of embalment/ any other funeral preparations?

---> Yes. One provides a benefit for society; the other is wasteful.

If so, do you think Morticians/embalmers should have the same obligations as medical practicioners regarding the handling of dead people? (Medical practicioners in NZ are answerable to a code, where as there is no statutory authority governing the practice of funeral directors etc..)

---> I'm not really sure how to answer this, since I have no clue what they do with the bodies. More details?

Is a patient/client/health consumer still a patient/client/health consumer when they die?

---> No, unless they've signed a contract ahead of time about what is to be done with their bodies.

Is a baby ever a patient/client/health consumer or is it the mother who is the patient? Is money a factor in any of this?

---> The baby is a patient/client/health consumer. Too many people forget about this. If that weren't the case, then why would we be upset after an abortion? After a miscarriage? I believe in life at conception, so my perception will be skewed.

The money factor is too vague a question for me to form a reasoned reply.

Share your thoughts with me please - I'm brainstorming for my latest research project....
Any other issues you think are relevant in the area of rights of dead people/consent/organ harvesting etc...?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkum
(re: mortician responsibility) I'm not really sure how to answer this, since I have no clue what they do with the bodies. More details?

---

What I am wondering is - there is such a stink about Dr's not gaining consent to use dead peoples parts - yet morticians (or the like) throw away parts of the body (blood, eyes, guts etc) simply because it alows the body to preserve better. If people have objections to organ snatching for religious purposes (like those who believe the body should go to god whole) then dosn't this extend to blood and guts as well? There is implied consent for this to happen when you leave the body with the mortician, but I think that there is still a bit of a double standard between the two professions - I was wondering what others thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkum
The money factor is too vague a question for me to form a reasoned reply.

---

I brought up the money issue due to privatization of health care. In NZ there seems to be a distinction between private and public health. Public health sees the person being treated as the patient/client, where as private health sees the person paying the bills as the client. Clients have the rights, thus, if you are not footing your bill, your benefactor may have more rights than you, which seems really fucking odd to me....

Cheers for the response - I LOVE hearing how others view these issues

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: the heart of an awl
Posts: 3692

the professional defilement of corpses is exactly the reason i would prefer to decompose out in the woods somewhere, where my corpse will be eaten by scavengers. Beats having new orifices created to remove organs, or having bits of hair and teeth washed down the drain.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 4501

---> We hear all the time in the media what doctors are up to, but we don't have daily press releases on morticians. At least not in America. Don't know about NZ. Out of sight, out of mind, perhaps? There's a misplaced superstition about parts being used in medical experiments, organ donations, things like that. Consider that embalming practices are centuries old, while only recently (last 100 years or so) have people accepted the fact that cadavers could provide useful medical knowledge.

---> Well, a bill was just passed in my state (last year or so, Illinois) that said that unborn or stillborn children were pretty low on the priority scale. This means public health care, for the most part, of course. If it comes down to fighting for the life of a 40-year old who's just had a heart attack and a baby who stopped breathing upon birth, they allocate their resources to the 40-year old. It is cost; it costs much more to keep a preemie alive, or to care for an infant in ICU than it does an adult. It's also more likely that an infant resuscitation is doomed to failure. While they're inside their moms, and until a certain age in their first year (not sure when), the organs aren't in the same places that ours are. It makes it difficult for doctors to operate. Plus, I hate to say it, but public hospitals are more likely to deal with crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, low-birth rate problems, and mothers who ain't exactly the greatest mothers. When they calculate the risks, it makes sense to them. I don't particularly care for the practice myself.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged