Organs of UK Nuclear Workers Secretly Harvested; Energy Secretary Apologizes 309
fernlyn writes with word of a report detailing a decades-long practice of clandestine post-mortem organ removal from the bodies of dozens of workers in the UK's nuclear energy industry; Britain's Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has apologized to the families of those workers whose organs were taken without consent or even acknowledgement. Many of the organs taken were removed without any apparent forensic purpose in mind. Surviving relatives are understandably upset with what they see as cavalier treatment of their loved ones' bodies (even beyond unauthorized organ removal), such as the replacement of bones with lengths of broomstick.
UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has been remotely connected with the British civil service will understand that, unlike even the United States in an increasingly dwindling number of areas, there is no real sense of government serving the people. The government exists to manage the unwashed masses and knows what is good for you, even while every individual understands that the government is really serving itself. This notion of nanny leadership is even woven into the undergraduate experience at Oxford, where the nation's managers are bred (and probably Cambridge too): if you have any sense of egalitarianism, it is repulsive but difficult to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no sense. Since Spitting image went off the air politicians here have had basically a get out of jail free card for everything short of killing babies.
They have a sense of entitlement to their jobs and half of them have never spent more than a couple of hours in any area they're supposed to represent, instead just jump on top of the latest news story and hope to ride it as far as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no sense. Since Spitting image went off the air politicians here have had basically a get out of jail free card for everything short of killing babies.
Bremner, Bird and Fortune covered a lot of the same territory as Spitting Image, but in a different way. And Private Eye does the job very well in the print medium.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (Score:4, Informative)
Let me correct that for you: "gov "sorry" = gov "we got caught".
Wherever you are, the government is only sorry when it gets caught. If it is cheaper or has some other benefit and doesn't get caught then they don't care. Such is the way of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it is a mess or not is, however, a separate issue from whether it has a feeling of remorse for its actions (or at least pretends to feel remorse for the sake of public image) ;)
Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO the MPs, MePs, or regulators who have signatures on this policy to "harvest organs" should automatically receive a year in jailtime.
Otherwise, there is no motive to stop for current or future gov't functionaries from doing it again. "Sorry" is about as worthless as when the US said "sorry" to Americans democrat president FDR imprisoned during WW2. It is meaningless. There has to be punishment/consequences for their acts.
Re: (Score:2)
True, it probably is just a human thing. I guess it is how affairs and other things happen - the person often won't feel sorry about their actions (at least not substantially sorry) until they get caught. Granted, there'll be exceptions to the rule in that example, but it is generally accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone who has been remotely connected with the British civil service..." Really? I work in it, and I disagree with you. People who generalise are always making this sort of mistake!
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you. Suing "the government" just results in our tax money being shuffled around a bit.
I'm not aware of a statutory bar to bringing a personal suit against a government employee in any UK jurisdiction, although obviously the State has deeper pockets to go after. If the situation is unclear, then it certainly needs tested.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you spent more than a week in Oxford and didn't notice how people are groomed and plucked for civil service then you were probably either not doing a relevant degree or were considered mediocre (in terms of both talent and personal connection). Sorry.
But I think you weren't even paying attention from the first pep talk at an open day. Or haven't noticed how much tutoring/advice is about knowing just the right thing at the right time, while lesser universities (ironically?) try for a broader approach. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what did these carefully groomed Henrys do upon graduating? The majority found work in the city
"For those who can't hack it in the City..." Your group must be atypical because it does not reflect the proportion of civil servants coming from Oxford. I'm not even sure what sample you're using: the whole college? Your circle of friends?
At to my personal qualities, I didn't attend lectures and took an effortless first.
Sure, sure, didn't everyone? You're crossing the line to Internet fantasy, now.
Perhaps the mythical groomers spotted my fundamental laziness.
If you mean headhunters, probably. The institution itself is the major preparation.
I've lived there (Score:3, Informative)
Is your friend an undergraduate or graduate student? I'd lay a small wager that it is the former in your case.
The undergraduate degree I read over a decade ago (BA in Computation - anywhere else this would be a BSc in Computer Science) was indeed a very mediocre course (and there were only two lecturers that were any good, though most of my tutors - those who conducted tutorials consisting of two students at a time - were very good); but to be perfectly honest most undergraduate programmes in CS in existen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also college matters: St Hilda's is no Balliol (in b4...).
But tutors and students, or perhaps those playing one on the Internet, will be quick to dismiss the notion that there is a more than merely meritocratic relationship between studying at Oxford and reaching leadership positions in politics or civil service. Feigned innocence is the cornerstone of the hypocrisy of the British establishment.
Witch bones (Score:4, Funny)
were replaced with lengths of broomstick?
Re: (Score:2)
Two sides (Score:2, Funny)
It's one thing to not care what happens to your own body after death or to not hold any religious dogma to ones demise, it's another thing entirely to not respect anothers religious beliefs or desires. I often read how Christians and other religions are full of zealots that push their beliefs on others but I see just as many Atheists call them idiots for believing such things. Basically, I see the same pushing and forcing from both sides and it's disrespect regardless from which camp it comes from. I believ
I saw a documentary about this. (Score:5, Interesting)
The dark side of the whole thing is that a corpse is worth roughly GBP 200k-300k in spare parts, so ethics are out of the window and organs are harvested without the consent of the deceased nor those who stayed behind.
As usual, money is the driving factor here, so there is something you can do to stop this practice if you have objections to it: Sign up as organ donor. If there are enough organ donors, the law of supply and demand will take care of the rest and make sure this practice is no longer profitable, so it will cease to exist.
Re:I saw a documentary about this. (Score:5, Insightful)
So to prevent people from illegaly using my dead body as an organ buffet, I have to register to let people legally use my dead body as an organ buffet?
Nice one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds fine to me. This minimizes the possibility that your organs go to waste, which is a good thing. Anyone who would withhold functioning organs from people who need them is worse than those taking the organs illegally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Due care is taken for these organs and they're being used to save lives, which is arguably better than just throwing them away. ... ... The dark side of the whole thing is that a corpse is worth roughly GBP 200k-300k in spare parts, so ethics are out of the window ... ... As usual, money is the driving factor here ... ... If there are enough organ donors, the law of supply and demand will take care of the rest and make sure this practice is no longer profitable, so it will cease to exist.
Wow, the kind of apologist attitude here is amazing, as if the whole thing is just some people *doing good* while making some money along the way, and the real bad guys are those selfish people unwilling to donate organs in the first place, cuz they are throwing away perfectly good organs!
Look, if you replace "UK" with "China" in the summary, you will be see TONS of ridicules and flames about how bad China is, how greedy and immoral Chinese generally are, the general unhealthiness of the organs harvested, e
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, money is the driving factor here, so there is something you can do to stop this practice if you have objections to it: Sign up as organ donor. If there are enough organ donors, the law of supply and demand will take care of the rest and make sure this practice is no longer profitable, so it will cease to exist.
Even better, lobby for laws making organ donation opt-out, rather than opt-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't I register for my body to be put up as "commercial" organ donor and have the profit going to relatives or some charity?
Research on the effects of long term exposure (Score:5, Informative)
The summary makes us think that "Many of the organs taken were removed without any apparent forensic purpose in mind."; In fact, "The organs were examined at Sellafield as part of research into the health effects of work in the industry"
To be fair, this wasn't so much "the Government" (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as it was a cabal of ghoulish bodysnatchers with God complexes who thought they were above the law. You know, typical medics. 99.5% of them give the rest a bad name.
And I re-iterate my position: if criminal acts were performed, individuals should be prosecuted. If the relatives are going to sue anyone for anything (what? emotional distress?) then it should be the individuals, not the State. The State doesn't care if it has to rob Peter a bit more to hush up Paul.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, were you talking about medics, lawyers, or politicians there?
Why didn't they just *ask*? (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
Ironically, had they been properly informed some would have agreed to the removal and analysis of the organs.
I would say yes, iIf someone asked me: "We think that staring at a computer screen reading Slashdot all day might be unhealthy. Would you mind if we grab a few of your organs when you die? This might lead us to better protection for Slashdot readers in the future." Harvesting organs without permission is just plain rude, crude and uncalled for. It's just not cricket; whatever happened to the image of the polite English gentleman?
Maybe they didn't ask because they were afraid that it would scare workers away, because of health safety concerns? But if the UK nuclear industry had doubts about health safety, the workers should have been informed about that, as well.
What other shenanigans are going on, which haven't been discovered yet . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you'd end up with people having livers with "Only two careful owners".
Joking aside, I fully agree with everything you said. If you're offering a chance at life to someone, then you should be given the same in return.
Re: (Score:2)
And where is this place with no taxes? Is it full of your fellow sociopaths?
The duality of law (Score:5, Insightful)
When did we start excusing governments and other authority figures from law? The US president is ordered to hand over emails, and he apologizes and "loses" them. The Catholic church is accused of covering up years of sexual child abuse, and the Pope apologizes. The British government steals organs and desecrates corpses, and someone apologizes.
How about giving these people the same consequences as if it was one of us "normal" people doing these acts? Are you trying to imply that we wouldn't have the full weight of the law fall on us? Are you saying we could get away with just saying "I'm sorry?". This has to stop, it's the path to despotism.
Re: (Score:3)
"When did we start excusing governments and other authority figures from law?"
The exact moment people stopped doing anything about it. Now the government just distracts them with other petty endeavors or counts on the fact that most drones care more about doing their little activities than they do freedom or privacy, leaving people who actually would do something if the opportunity presented itself outnumbered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And now, A message from Tony Hayward... (Score:2)
We're sorry... Soooo. Sorrry...
At BP we're committed to environmental protection. That's why we're drilling even deeper than before, right to the bowels of hell to release Cuthulu.
Terminology (Score:2)
The term harvesting when applied to organs usually refers to them being transplanted into other people (who may be paying for them) However this does not seem to be the case here. If you needed a new organ, would you want one that used to be in a nuclear plant worker?
no they found out about the nuclear frankenstein t (Score:2)
no they found out about the nuclear Frankenstein that was being made.
I wonder.... (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:5, Informative)
It makes a difference to a lot of people.
Have you ever seen what they do to bodies in an autopsy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the article, why do people still have any trust left in the goverment, it seems their purpose is to tax the ass of the people while at the same time violating their trust in all possible manners. And then they expect to get away by just going "oops sorry guys!". And often they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you don't need to go al libertarian on this. Some governments fuck up really bad, some are better, some work really well. It's just like any organisation made by man, be it public or private.
Strangely, it's the Anglo-Saxon countries, those of "small goverment", "individualism", "self-initiative", etc. that have the most control-freak, paranoid and incompetent governments in the developed world.
Re: (Score:2)
"Some governments fuck up really bad"
If "some" in this sentence means "all," then yes. The entire world is in a very sad state of affairs, but not because of this.
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:5, Insightful)
Property rights.
Your body is your most important piece of property. If the government can just go around "cavalierly" doing whatever it wants with your body, how can one say that they live in a just society?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, in the UK, I believe that the body does not legally belong to anyone, the previous owner having departed. It is customarily left up to the heirs, if any, to dispose of it in a suitable fashion.
How long, do you think, it will be before human remains, complete or not, are declared hazardous waste and have to be disposed of by operatives in full hazmat suits?
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:5, Funny)
Only three things are certain in life. Death, taxes, and getting your organs harvested by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no premises required (Score:5, Interesting)
My property goes to my heirs at my death. My body is my property. Stealing bits of my body is stealing from my heirs. No mystical crap required.
If the government chooses to take my body at time of death then it's a tax or confiscation of property from the heirs but the government generally has to disclose taxes or confiscations.
Re:No, no premises required (Score:5, Interesting)
My property goes to my heirs at my death. My body is my property.
Slavery is illegal. No-one else can own your body except you.
Slavery isn't illegal (Score:2)
Actually, Slavery is still legal, depending upon where you live.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, what a concept. Demonstrate how much your soul doesn't need your body by donating your heart.....right now. When you're done, you won't be needing your body any more, so it won't really matter that much anyway. While you're at it, maybe you can arrange for a necrophiliac to take what's left of your carcass home with him.....after all, it doesn't really matter that much.....next-of-kin be damned.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Demonstrate how much your soul doesn't need your body by donating your heart.....right now.
I think the point was that once you're dead, your soul doesn't particularly need your body. I don't know if we have an immortal soul or not, but when I'm dead I want to donate my body to science - with the proviso that when medical students have finished practicing on me, they leave bits of my body around as a prank, with the label "Hi, I'm Gordonjcp and I'm dead now - but I am still doing it for the lulz."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you believe in the concept of an immortal soul, then at that point you arn't using your body any more - so it doesn't really matter that much anyway. Body - Soul = Meat.
Tell that to the Ancient Egyptians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But these people are dead. If I'm dead, and the government removes organs from my body, then they're not violating MY rights, simply because *I* don't exist anymore. (You may disagree if you believe in the concept of an immortal soul, of course.)
They violate the rights and feelings of your living family members.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is rude.
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes no difference when your dead if your organs are in a jar, cremated, or rotting in the earth.
Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral? Given what you just wrote you wont object to that right?
It's about the living; and respect; doofus.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral?"
Not really. They're dead, why would I care?
"It's about the living; and respect; doofus."
The dead don't need their bodies any longer. If the living object, well, simply remind them they're talking about a dead body.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral?"
Not really. They're dead, why would I care?
I'm willing to guess you either have never experienced real loss, or have an inability to feel empathy. That, or you're trolling.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
None of the above. It just doesn't make sense to care so much about a dead body. You should care more about the memories of the person, not the body that they can no longer use. Especially since all their body is going to be doing is rotting in the ground or getting burnt when they could be used for something useful (which apparently wasn't the case here).
Re: (Score:2)
"Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral?"
Not really. They're dead, why would I care?
I'm willing to guess you either have never experienced real loss, or have an inability to feel empathy. That, or you're trolling.
It will be an affirmation of my beliefs. You will have to pay your own airfair though
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Empathy is for the living. Feeling empathy for a dead body makes no more sense than feeling empathy for a rock - both have the same level of experience. A cadaver is just a blob of matter that formerly housed a consciousness. It's no more important than the clothes the person wore or the house they lived in.
I've had close friends die, and I treasure their memories, but I have no superstitious respect for their bodies. The important part of them is the consciousness, soul, or software, or however you ch
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm referring to empathy towards people experiencing loss. Just because you don't feel that the body deserves respect, (nor do I, I carry an organ donor card everywhere I go,) that does not mean that it is worthless to respect the wishes of others.
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:5, Insightful)
"Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral?"
Not really. They're dead, why would I care?
With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation. Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death.
Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death
So? Feelings for a person and feelings for their body are very different things. As I said in another post, I've had close friends die and I agree that the feelings that you have towards them don't just vanish, but transferring those feelings to an inanimate lump of dead flesh seems pretty sick to me. Those feelings belong to the memory of the person, not to the body that they left behind.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation."
Nope.
"Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death."
I never said that they did. You should, however, care more about the memories of the person than the persons dead body which they will no longer have a use for. If it could be used to help others rather than just rot in the ground or be burnt into ashes, why not (again, I know that this wasn't the case here)? There's no sense to this
Re: (Score:2)
"Unless, of course, by your twisty trolling logic"
Not "trolling logic," just logic. I'd just rather see the body of someone dead (which means that they no longer need their body) put to better use than just rotting in the ground or being turned into ashes, if possible.
"There is a reason why people here are associating your attitudes with sociopathic behaviour."
Besides the fact that they apparently don't know what that or "trolling" means?
Re: (Score:2)
It is only an empty shell now. Please treat it as such.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thought of people who would rather have bodies rot in the ground or be burnt into ashes than be used for something that could potentially help others (which I know wasn't the case here) is also funny.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
[...]the organs taken were removed without any apparent forensic purpose in mind[...]
Dunno, sounds to me they weren't helping anybody with that...
Re: (Score:2)
"(which I know wasn't the case here)"
Re: (Score:2)
It makes no difference when your dead if your organs are in a jar, cremated, or rotting in the earth.
Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral? Given what you just wrote you wont object to that right?
It's about the living; and respect; doofus.
As long as you don't make a mess that needs to be cleaned up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral? Given what you just wrote you wont object to that right?
Just let me say now that if you want to pee on me when I'm dead, I won't care.
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:5, Funny)
Judging from your name, you don't mind if someone pees on you while you're alive, either.
Not a good analogy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't really mind. If buried, it's going to rot in short order anyway, and if used for science it can be easily cleaned (I figure they probably clean it anyway, I bet a lot of people die in less than pristine conditions). The outcome of any of those things is considerably more disgusting than just a body with some pee on it, but interestingly that doesn't seem to bother you.
Re: (Score:2)
But the dead person didn't mind, he's not going to need his body anymore - and its not like anyone is going to use it.
"How dare you take the organs out, they deserve to rot in the dirt"
or
"How dare you take the organs out, we need them to burn them alight and scatter their ashes".
Still pointless - at least SOME good came from them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The very fact that the government doesn't just openly say "your organs become state property on your death" (and save hundreds of lives of people on transplant lists every year) should demonstrate that, despite your own feelings, there are sufficient people in society who disagree with you to prevent this happening. My own personal feeling is that if you can do some good for someone else after your death, why not, but I also respect other people's opinions differ.
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:4, Insightful)
"How dare you take the organs out, they were supposed to feed the worms".
There may not be a good logical rationale to keep a dead body intact, but there are religious reasons.
For a religious person, a deceased body desecrated might mean a deceased soul spending eternity in hell as opposed to heaven. Which, in their believes, would be a very negative emotional situation.
I'm not religious, like many others on Slashdot, but that does not mean we get to decide how religious people should feel or what they should believe in, just like religious people shouldn't be allowed to tell others what to feel and believe. Even if we could, we wouldn't be very succesfull.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not value the dead, but some do. It is part of their identity and some respect is due.
You may cry when your mother dies and then dump her body into the rubish bin, but others may not want to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not useless. It's biomass. It will return to the earth, as food and fertilizer. Once the overpriced casket rots, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually in the bible it specifies that as much as possible and as intact as possible of the body has to be buried.
For that reason when there is a suicide attack in israel you see orthodox jews arrive to gather all bits of the victims to ensure compliance to the 'law of god'.
And there are certain christian wings that either used to adhere or still do adhere to that biblical stipulation.
But many christian forgot all about it though.
But even when not religious it's a freaking asshole thing to do and unlawful
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in the bible it specifies that as much as possible and as intact as possible of the body has to be buried.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is the fuss about (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes no difference when your dead if your organs are in a jar, cremated, or rotting in the earth.
Maybe it makes no difference to you when you are dead, but a whole lot of people in this world have quite strong feelings about the right way to treat a persons body once they are deceased, and rational or not, those feelings are very real and should be respected.
To take what you said to the ridiculous, if one of your kids died and the doctor cut them into pieces, removed the contents of their head, and used it like a puppet, would you be upset? I would be, and upset is putting it very lightly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a fuck what they do to my body when I'm dead. But the UK government should ask for permission. This is a very sensitive issue to a lot of people.
I wonder what's wrong with the UK. I'm used to see the Brits as very smug for having such an organised and productive society based on merit. But your government and private organisations seem to completely fuck up in a regular basis like it's some 3rd world country. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure no other Nuclear worker held open the eyes of the other Nuclear workers while yelling into the sky...
I can see Homer Simpson doing it if the guy was due to buy a round at Moe's.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a big fan of computer games are we?