Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Organs of UK Nuclear Workers Secretly Harvested; Energy Secretary Apologizes

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the surplus-to-requirements dept.

United Kingdom 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.

cancel ×

309 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What the hell is the fuss about (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252624)

What the hell is the fuss about. Has the UK suddenly taken to the ancient Egyptian religion or something. It makes no difference when your dead if your organs are in a jar, cremated, or rotting in the earth.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252640)

It makes a difference to a lot of people.

Have you ever seen what they do to bodies in an autopsy?

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Interesting)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252738)

For those who haven't, go to youtube, search autopsy, should be the first hit with 7 mil views.

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:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253130)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252644)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252668)

See also: national service.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (3, Interesting)

game0ver (554915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252706)

the dead cannot own property.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (3, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252974)

If the dead voted, they would be able to own property.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253092)

If the dead voted, they would be able to own property.

Apparently you never heard of Chicago politics.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0, Flamebait)

elkstoy (930915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253138)

They frequently do...How do you think Obama got where he is?

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252772)

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?

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.)

There are certain protections that the living enjoy that should indeed be extended to the dead. For example, libel and slander are illegal when the victim is alive, but they should also be illegal for the recently-deceased (for a different reason: the point there is not to protect the person, but to protect society from falsehoods and lies.)

I actually agree that this is not acceptable on the part of the government, but "they can't take my organs because my organs belong to me" doesn't hold water if you're dead.

And I think that intent matters, too: for example, if the government had said "we need these organs because there's a shortage of donor organs, because people in hospitals are dying due to the lack of new kidneys, livers, hearts etc.", and if the government had been open about this... would it have been unacceptable, too? I think not; respecting the religious feelings of a dead guy is less important in my book than allowing someone else to live who would otherwise have died.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252990)

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.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

elkstoy (930915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253210)

This is true, and personally I would give anyone anything I am no longer using in the way of body parts after death, but respect should be given to someones wishes. And what about the families? This is devastating to certain belief systems. Where do their rights come in?

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

elkstoy (930915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253172)

Well then where do internment arrangements and contracts come into play in your scenerio? We pre-plan for our deaths and certain assumptions are made when we make arrangements to be interned. One of those is that when we are buried, it is with all of our parts (that are available of course). How do company or government rights trump that?

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252804)

Only three things are certain in life. Death, taxes, and getting your organs harvested by the government.

You've got interesting hidden premises (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252842)

The argument that property rights transcend death requires the supposition that (a) it is the soul that is the human person rather than the body and (b) the human soul survives the death of the body.

There are other latent assumptions in there as well, such as the body being property of any sort. But, for the present discussion, I think the presupposition of imortality is the most interesting.

No, no premises required (5, Interesting)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252938)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252936)

It's not the rights of the previous owner (they're dead, what do they care?), but whether the rights are inherited by next-of-kin.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252670)

It is rude.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (3, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252690)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252756)

"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:What the hell is the fuss about (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252808)

Sociopaths are funny ^_^

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252828)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252900)

On a completely unrelated subject did you hear that the Soylent Corporation will soon be introducing a new product called Soylent Green?

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Interesting)

gnola14 (1764100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253102)

[...]the organs taken were removed without any apparent forensic purpose in mind[...]

Dunno, sounds to me they weren't helping anybody with that...

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252902)

The superstitious are funnier.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252810)

"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:What the hell is the fuss about (1, Troll)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252818)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252926)

being all logical doesn't quite work with mourning people. Correction being all logical does not work with humans, emotions tend to mess everything up.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252820)

"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:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252942)

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 choose to describe it, and that's no longer resident in their bodies.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (5, Insightful)

nomad-9 (1423689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252848)

"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:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252950)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

jellyfrog (1645619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252968)

I won't pretend to speak for the GP, but I feel I should point out that a loved one and a corpse are different things. If you really believe that the person you loved is gone when they die, there is no real reason to have feelings about the shell left behind.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253004)

I do have rather strong feelings about the rotting corpse stinking up my dining room.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252976)

"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.

"Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance."

I suppose being different is always a possibility, but I don't really fit into this criteria.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0, Redundant)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253088)

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

Unless, of course, by your twisty trolling logic, those memories include the memory of their body being desecrated?
There is a reason why people here are associating your attitudes with sociopathic behaviour.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252784)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252814)

Fuck off to the bridge you live under.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252826)

Yes, because a lump of dead meat deserves respect. I won't object to you urinating on my corpse, my relatives however may.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252854)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252918)

Judging from your name, you don't mind if someone pees on you while you're alive, either.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252862)

actually that's my fetish.... can you do it to me now?

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

sempir (1916194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252888)

To the families of those who were to be cremated I advise asking for a discount on the grounds that the bodies had been "pre burned "and therefore created a smaller carbon footprint . For other forms of body disposal I have no advise.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252930)

This is a fallacious argument. The real question should be "When you die, would you mind if someone came along and urinated on your body?".

I certainly wouldn't, if all that's left for my body is to rot in the ground. Now, if I had other plans for my body after death, then I would mind. Not that dead people are in a position to object.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252722)

I agree with this. Allright, I'm sure relatives will be angry for some reason...

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:What the hell is the fuss about (0, Troll)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252764)

How dare the organs be used for anything other than rotting in the ground!

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (2, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252994)

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 (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252726)

Under the same argument, what more is life than a bucket of chemicals ?
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:What the hell is the fuss about (0, Troll)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252770)

"but others may not want to."

No, they'd rather the body rot in the ground (or be burnt), making it completely useless to absolutely everything.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

cherokee158 (701472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252840)

It's not useless. It's biomass. It will return to the earth, as food and fertilizer. Once the overpriced casket rots, anyway.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252850)

Circle of life, dude, think of the worms.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (3, Informative)

Nabbler (1683858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252728)

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 to boot, and there is the question why they would remove organs and bones and then destroy them, from workers in nuclear facilities.. you do the math.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252894)

"Actually in the bible it specifies that as much as possible and as intact as possible of the body has to be buried."

If you would point out where the bible says this, I'd be much obliged.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (3, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252830)

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:What the hell is the fuss about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252914)

While that's all true, if I leave instructions to do X with my body, I'd like to think those instructions would be followed after I'm dead, and that the body won't be used for other purposes without a very good reason. It's my body. I specify what should happen to it. And after I'm dead I assume that my family inherits the right to control what happens to it and hopefully will do their best to follow those instructions -- within practical limits.

For me there aren't a lot of emotions tied up in the issue. It's not a religious issue. I've already indicated my body should be donated to the local university's medical department for use in their medical training program after I'm dead. Somebody may as well get some use out of it when I don't need it anymore. The point is: it's *my* decision to make.

If I was in the UK and any of my family had been subjected to this I'd be outraged too. It would be as if the government broke into my house and stole something. On the other had, had I been asked, I probably would have agreed to it if it looked like a real scientific study would be done. For me, the "fuss" is entirely over the failure to ask permission to do any of this. I mean, sheesh, this is the government stealing bits of the one piece of property that I am born with.

Re:What the hell is the fuss about (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253100)

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?

Klingons do not problems with body's (1, Offtopic)

Shadow-Wing (140086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252628)

A dead body is only an empty shell(Klingon Death Ritual)

Re:Klingons do not problems with body's (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252710)

I'm pretty sure no other Nuclear worker held open the eyes of the other Nuclear workers while yelling into the sky...

Re:Klingons do not problems with body's (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252832)

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.

UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (5, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252630)

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:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252712)

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:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253022)

I wish we had some sort of Daily Show and Jon Stewart, really

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (3, Informative)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252742)

UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught"

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:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252996)

UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught"

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.

Unfortunately, you statements do not apply only to the government. A large majority of people function this way. If you can get away with something, you don't have to be sorry.

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253024)

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:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253048)

There are some who would say that government is a sorry mess whether it is caught or not.

Just make them pay (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252750)

Yeah but crying about it & asking for 'sorry' changes nothing. The families involved should just sue their government for damages. That way any time a public servant steps on citizens' rights (and gets caught), there would be a significant pricetag attached. For a government that's low on funds, that might be a lot harder to ignore than a pile of damaging news reports.

And when possible those responsible should be kicked out of their jobs, perhaps even out of their profession.

Re:Just make them pay (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252822)

The families involved should just sue the individuals who did it and ordered it to be done for damages.

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:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252798)

I agree that the British government instinctively nannies but, as a former undergraduate, with respect to Oxford I have to ask wtf are you talking about?

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (2, Interesting)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252878)

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 institution is about making it easy for you to take particular traditional paths. Disagree?

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253112)

I attended Worcester college which had (and probably still has) one of the highest proportions of public school educated undergraduates in Oxford. There was no shortage of wealthy, well connected students reading relevant subjects like PPE, law and classics. It was practically an Eton, Harrow and Winchester old boys' club.

So what did these carefully groomed Henrys do upon graduating? The majority found work in the city (and some have become stinking rich). A few stayed in academia, one joined the army, one's an eco-warrior, another a builder, a couple are published novelists and there are various professionals and middle managers. The only civil servant joined the foreign office.

At to my personal qualities, I didn't attend lectures and took an effortless first. Then I worked hard for a decade and retired. Perhaps the mythical groomers spotted my fundamental laziness.

Anyway, I really don't recognise your picture. What is it based on?

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252886)

I agree. As a tutor at Oxford, I am appalled to think I have for so long been neglecting my duty to indoctrinate the young to be leaders of the nanny state.

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252964)

Are you teaching PPE or a related subject? If not, the grandparent post probably doesn't apply to you.

Re:UK gov "sorry" = UK gov "we got caught" (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253038)

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 (3, Funny)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252656)

were replaced with lengths of broomstick?

Re:Witch bones (1)

Jack Malmostoso (899729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252686)

I see what you did there. *squints*

nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252694)

you're dismembering people's corpses for no good fucking reason

stay classy, britain

Re:nice (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252744)

Not a big fan of computer games are we?

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253000)

somehow i doubt the corpses dropped good loot

or maybe i'm missing some reference you're making, here

Two sides (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252734)

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 believe in a prime mover for a couple reasons, mostly cause i think it's nieve to believe that just because I cant perceive something with my 5 senses that it doesn't exist. I also believe that with technology comes the ability to perceive things we as a human race couldn't before. Germs are a good example of this. The other reason comes from the premise that mathematics was a discovery more than an invention. There was an invention by us humans within the concept of math, but that invention was the use of symbols to quantify something that inherently exists in the universe. I expect to be reamed by those who've been burned by religious constructs. Just remember, religion as an organization was a human invention that's run by humans and we're all flawed in some way therefore so are our creations. So how is it that the underlying principles that allow math to exist as a concept isn't flawed? Sure the concepts WE determine that exist within it can be, but that's OUR perception in practice..and we're flawed...

I saw a documentary about this. (4, Interesting)

mrjb (547783) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252816)

Organs and bones are harvested (and bones replaced by lengths of broomstick or pvc pipe). 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 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. (5, Insightful)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252864)

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:I saw a documentary about this. (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253052)

Well not necessarily. The alternative is we make the system opt-out instead of opt-in - have a system where everyone's organs can be used unless they expressly request otherwise. At the moment most organs go to waste not because people care one way or the other about what happens to them after death, but because they're too apathetic to go register, or they can't be bothered because there's nothing really in it for them, or perhaps they've even just never thought about it. Switch the system and those who care enough to fill out a simple form can still remain intact while everyone else can give something back, problem solved.

Re:I saw a documentary about this. (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252904)

"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." Yes, curing the problem, always much better than preventing it.

Re:I saw a documentary about this. (1)

khchung (462899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253124)

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, etc, etc. ALL Chinese are to blame and entire China is brushed in the same stroke.

BUT, since this the our beloved 1st world country involved, it became just a few misguided souls making mistakes due to external influences, and they are helping to save lives, too!

Let's be honest here. I thought these kind of things only happen in China and other 3rd world countries! Shouldn't you be OUTRAGED that a 1st world country like UK let these things happen and nobody is criminally prosecuted for it?!

Tomorrow is bring your daughter to work day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252852)

They just forgot to metion they are doing this for a good cause. The self esteem fund for girls!

Research on the effects of long term exposure (4, Informative)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252856)

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" (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252858)

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:To be fair, this wasn't so much "the Government (2, Interesting)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252916)

Wait, were you talking about medics, lawyers, or politicians there?

Why didn't they just *ask*? (4, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252860)

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:Why didn't they just *ask*? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253044)

Percieved danger and actual danger are very different things - as anyone who has seen a concerned parent worrying their child will be abducted off the street should realise. Death by radiation poisoning is an interesting way to die, which means people will worry about it happening even of the risk is only one in ten million. Boring deaths just don't get the same attention.

Makes me think of Monty Python (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253028)

Or: How about harvesting the Secretaries' liver, Monty Python style?

This is the law in Belgium (5, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253040)

Nice use of the word 'harvesting' to set the mood.

Unless specified otherwise, in Belgium each person is a donor of his body parts after he or she dies.
Next of kin do not have to be forewarned that some or even all of the body is used as donor, but sometimes are.

So all bodies are 'harvested' by default.

I personally do not care what happens to my body after I died. It's not my problem anymore. Let people who care at that moment do whatever they feel will help them to mourn or celebrate.

I do like the 'harvest by default' idea, as long as it easy to opt out AND if opting out would mean that you would opt out of receiving any donor organ as well. You will NOT be placed on any list. This would give people who ARE willing to be donor a better chance of receiving in case of need.

The duality of law (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253046)

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:The duality of law (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253066)

"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:The duality of law (2, Insightful)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253136)

Indeed. Someone needs to go to prison for this.

thom mcfadden (0, Offtopic)

thom Mcfaddden (1942086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253160)

how sad, human body should be respected at all times. http://www.lifestand.com/ [lifestand.com]

China playing catch up again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253180)

What?! I thought these things only happen in EVIL China??? Seems like China is just playing catch up to the western world, again.

Monty Python predicted this too. (1)

OITLinebacker (1799770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253200)

Where is the live organ donation sketch? Oh wait he actually checked it off on a card in that sketch. I find this area of the law (dealing with dead people) to be exceedingly odd.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?