Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals

I think im gonna puke. What is this baby buchenwald?
Monsters.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Life meant much more then because it was so much harder to maintain. They understood how hard it was both to bring it into the world and to try to keep it here once it was brought into being. Those are things far too many of us take for granted.

why? that's just disrespectful and wasteful, why burn them when they could be used for research to possibly save lives?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Well, I hate to argue the flip side.

But, It could be said this is just one more example of the march of progress, where before we held the human "soul" with reverence, and bodies of the dead to be honored.

Now, a body is just dead matter to be disposed, Superstition is gone, and progress marches forward.


I just fear, we lose the "humanity" when we drop the reverence for one another as anything more than walking meat.

reply to post by benrl


Like rabbits we are breeding too fast and soon or later we will eat ourselves out of house and home and people that think we will somehow stop breeding or come up with ever better ways to keep feeding ourselves have their heads in the sand.

Maybe it's all a big sperm race, it's how we started life so lets hope we are living in a computer simulation after all else we are stuffed, well just 99.999999995% of us

I don't think it's really that surprising people who kill babies would treat their remains this way.

The fact that I see some people defending this, disgusts me. There are no limits anymore I guess, anything goes.

Whats wrong with people....

VirusGuard
reply to post by benrl

 

Like rabbits we are breeding too fast and soon or later we will eat ourselves out of house and home and people that think we will somehow stop breeding or come up with ever better ways to keep feeding ourselves have their heads in the sand.

Maybe it's all a big sperm race, it's how we started life so lets hope we are living in a computer simulation after all else we are stuffed, well just 99.999999995% of us

Eh, debatable.

Under the current scope of our civilization and how we prioritize resources,

Yes, the world can not sustain people living at "western" capacity.

Now, thats not to say the earth could not healthy support a Human population well beyond what is currently trending.

Its just a matter of refocus of what we prioritize.

But yea, Baring a vast "maturing" of peoples attitude toward resources, yea we are screwed.

reply to post by benrl


heh progress huh? silly spoiled humans are deluding themselves and getting arrogant just because they have a little more knowledge but they are still just animals who with civilization are walking toward extinction since they've forgotten what survival is, with their dulled instincts. i almost can't wait for civilization to collapse just so that arrogance will be smashed and we might remember ourselves, that we might prevent our demise.

reply to post by Blundo

I have some experience dealing with fetal remains in a University Hospital. They are considered bi-hazardous waste. Most are in red-biohazard plastic type bags we've all seen with the nuke-death symbol on the sides.

Generally, these bags (not needing to be full) are placed into(but not always), brown yard waste type paper bags separated for distribution: that being with general waste to landfill, or medical waste to incinerate (most med schools have incineration for cadaver parts in the med sci buildings).

These bags can contain blood, dirty bandages, needles, I.V. bags...and yes...even surgical remnants such as body parts ie: tissues, limbs, organs. Limbs, organs, fetal-embryonic-placental remains are triple bagged and sent for incinerations. They are really smaller than your household trash bags we put out for the garbagemen at the average home.

This article is slightly misleading. If one could see how small fetal bagged remains are, and how they are separated then mixed into larger bags of all different bio-waste to be burned, you'd understand there are no bags of just fetal remains waiting at an incinerator to heat some building. That does not happen.

Do some facilities use the energy from incinerations for POWERING facilities? Yes. Of course. But, not to produce heat for medical waste incineration only. That is not an acceptable, and reliable method to heat them at all.

The piles of medical waste bags...as Ive mentioned above, can equal totals of 10-twenty large paper bags for the incinerator. Certainly not filled with fetal remains and just disposed of in the manner and ways suggested by the article.

I have placed bags personally into the incinerators...and even full cadaver-bodies-remains after the medical school is done. Its not known how much or what is in those bags let alone say they are fetus's.

I can only say they arent in general labeled, and they can be extremely heavy at times. And those...I never wanted to know what was in them...

Why is cremation of a corpse, be it a fetus or not, wrong? Is the controversy over using them to heat the hospital? If so, there is no way that is actually happening. If a corpse could generate energy, why do funeral homes have such extreme incinerators? Some reporter is probably taking that out of context. I'm guessing a source mentioned that the incinerator helps heat the hospital, as does any fire.

Cremation Wiki

The box containing the body is placed in the retort and incinerated at a temperature of 760 to 1150 °C (1400 to 2100 °F) ... The process usually takes 90 minutes to two hours, with larger bodies taking longer time.

Obviously a fetus would take less time, but still a lot of energy.


What are some alternatives to cremation? I'm assuming any would-be mother has the right to pay for a proper burial, but I don't imagine that happens too often.

I believe the same process is done with euthanized pets.

reply to post by lemmin


There is a program of the NHS called 'waste-to-energy' where some of their incineration plants use the excess heat to help heat the hospitals. The remains of aborted, stillborn and miscarried babies were burned in those plants by several of the NHS trusts. Some of them even went so far as to bring in remains from other hospitals to burn in their plants for waste-to-energy.

Those who asked after the remains of their children were told simply that they had been cremated.

The NHS has admitted that this has happened and has ordered it to stop.

The broad consensus is that humans don't have souls, they're just pieces of meat, and there is no energy-residue on them. That's what you get in a purely scientific-materialism based society. Welcome to Utopia.

reply to post by ketsuko


So a body can be cremated, but not if it is of the proximity to benefit a hospital? The line I'm seeing here is literally the location of the incinerator. Why is it OK to cremate (anything) for that exclusive purpose, but only if any useful bi-products (heat energy in this case) are wasted.

The order to cease is basically requiring any heat energy from cremation to be disposed of without gain.

Some of you people are absolutely nuts.

THEY ARE CORPSES

Do you honestly expect the hospital to have a funeral for every single unclaimed corpse? Dig a little grave and have a ceremony? Its absolutely crazy how much useless emotion some of you are tacking on to a simple issue. Its meat and bones, get a grip.

stargatetravels
reply to post by Blundo

 

Crazy but unsurprising.
Do you have a link?
I watched something about a dog shelter in the US turning dogs into fertilizer but humans?
What next?

When will we get the Soylent Green story, any day now I bet.

I'm sure someone in D.C. will be reading this. Give it a few months and it will probably be added to ObamaCare.

While a stillborn baby would normally be given a funeral and a proper burial by the family, anything younger than that such as a miscarriage or abortion is considered pathological material; microscopic sections are taken to prove the situation legally and medically and then the tissue is disposed of via normal hospital protocols which generally are burning; it's the safest way to dispose of waste that may be contaminated. If it wasn't done this way, you'd need dozens of cemeteries in every large city to 'bury' the remains, and land and funerals cost money.

When you think about it, it's rather insane for a society to use energy to cremate dead bodies of whatever species instead of using that same energy for a greater purpose. I'm sorry if people are appalled but hospitals see death every minute of every day; they're dealing with it in reality, not in 'what would be nice' terms. Do the math, thousands of patients in a year, times how many years?

You should see what happens in a hospital when an amputation patient refuses to allow 'disposal' of the removed limb, citing that they want it to be buried with them when the time comes...

I've seen the stockpiled limbs held in formalin, and it's not pretty.

lemmin
reply to post by ketsuko

 

So a body can be cremated, but not if it is of the proximity to benefit a hospital? The line I'm seeing here is literally the location of the incinerator. Why is it OK to cremate (anything) for that exclusive purpose, but only if any useful bi-products (heat energy in this case) are wasted.

The order to cease is basically requiring any heat energy from cremation to be disposed of without gain.

Don't ever move downwind from a hospital. Trust me on this. Between the radioactive materials, to the burned plastics, to the perhaps incompletely burned pathogen-contaminated stuff...

lemmin
reply to post by ketsuko

 

So a body can be cremated, but not if it is of the proximity to benefit a hospital? The line I'm seeing here is literally the location of the incinerator. Why is it OK to cremate (anything) for that exclusive purpose, but only if any useful bi-products (heat energy in this case) are wasted.

The order to cease is basically requiring any heat energy from cremation to be disposed of without gain.

More like the body belongs to its kin, and they should be given the option to decide what happens to it. In this case, this was clearly not what happened. Those who asked were simply told their lost child was "cremated" which like implied to them something akin to a burial, not an unceremonious dump into an oven to be used like so much fuel coke. Perhaps, they ought to have been given the option to dispose of the remains themselves or to be told what the "cremation" option would actually entail?

Don't you think that would be the respectful thing to do?

reply to post by Violater1


Hey, they'll probably start giving Planned Parenthood "Green" energy grants and loans.

WHY is this an issue at all?

What else are they gonna do with 15,500 pieces of decaying biological waste material except burn it?

I thought all hospitals discarded such waste in like manner if the "parents" don't want the fetus for burial. It Is waste and has to be dealt with in a way in which will not pollute the environment.

Really, i'm not seeing the issue here. So the guy banns this practice.. how then are these waste products disposed of?