Iowa Law Requires Bodies Of Poor Go To Medical Research

[joeglow3]

Des Moines County, Iowa is studying a state law that requires bodies of poor people to be offered to medical schools before being buried at taxpayers' expense.

Assistant County Attorney Amy Beavers turned up the law while reviewing state law to update a county manual.

According to the law, once a college or medical school has finished with the body, it will be properly buried or cremated. There are exceptions for veterans and for those who left a written declaration of what should happen to the body.

Beavers told county supervisors about the law during a workshop last week.

Supervisors want to talk with funeral directors about the law before implementing it. Funeral homes must inform the county when an indigent funeral is required.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/101565293.html


All I can say is "wow."

[Danger Mouse]

1. Are you fucking kidding me?

:banghead:

[Donnachaidh]

2. Next they'll be harvesting organs for the highest bidders, straight from the poor

A sick, sad Monty Python skit. :puke:

[Recursion]

9. This sounds more like a late-1800's thing they just noticed

Iowa didn't just pass this law; a lawyer just realized it's still on the books.

[joeglow3]

11. Agreed. However, why someone would decide to implement it is beyond me.

[Recursion]

15. This was back when factories built chimneys out of orphans

Though frankly we're starting to approach the gilded age in our general cruelty

[Donnachaidh]

16. sure, but what's to stop them from implementing *changes* to add to their budget?

After all, they can cite the *costs* of providing funeral expenses as a reason to take that *extra* step. The poor are the first to see *cuts* -- pun intended.

[smirkymonkey]

10. ...while they're still alive.

:scared:

[HereSince1628]

12. Exceptions for veterans, the cty would know a poor person's corpse was a vet?

Do vets require a subdermal chip in Iowa?

[KansDem]

3. Remember what Tom Joad said in "The Grapes of Wrath" (1940)

Seems like the government's got more interest in a dead man than a live one.

[Alameda]

4. How is this legal?

[BlueIris]

6. Legality? Next, you'll be demanding sanity. Then dignity,

and who knows where things might go from there!

[LiberalFighter]

7. It's legal until it's ruled illegal.

They need to take it to court and repeal the law.

[Recursion]

8. They probably passed it 100 years ago when sensibilities were very different NT

[Bluerthanblue]

5. wow

is right.

:shrug:

[phantom power]

13. Must... stop... fingers....

"I'm afraid it's medical experiments for the lot of ya!"

[Angry Dragon]

14. A poorly written article

[EnlightenedOne]

17. I guess I'm odd man out on this one

I don't see what's wrong with it.

First of all, you're dead, who cares, certainly not the dead person;

Second of all, what's wrong with furthing science especially if it means education, cures, etc.; and

Third of all - doesn't the Bible say - no greater gift can a man give then to lay down his life for another (and the person is already dead, no life to lay down, so that shouldn't fly in the face of religion); and

Fourth - if the person is indigent, homeless, has no one - no service would be held anyway, you can't deprieve their loved ones; and

Fifth - the remains will be buried or cremated (preferably cremated - the green alternative to burial).

Bottom line - the person is dead. I don't get it. If I'm dead, they can do whatever to me, I don't care, I'm not there. I'm not that attached to my body. Take what you want or need.

:hide:

[ThomCat]

19. It is wrong because it sets a precident.

It creates the EXPECTATION that the government owns and/or controls poor people's bodies. If not now, then it's just a matter of time when.

With the expectation that "I'm going to own you soon enough." There is a total lack of respect for the rights of that person to control his or her own life and his or her own body.

The symbolism, the meaning, the importance of being owned by someone else, even if it is going to happen, instead of happening now, is importance. That is Devastating!

[EnlightenedOne]

20. That's the Pro-Choice Argument

which I totally get (and believe in) - the government has no right to control our bodies - WHILE WE'E ALIVE. And yet, we have a large group of people who want to do just that. Force women to carry embroyos regardless of whether they were conceived of incest or rape.

But in this instance, I find that argument weak. It is the responsibility of the government/taxpayers to bury the dead, so since they have that responsibility - they kinda do own the dead body so to speak. So again, why not use them for good? That's like me getting mad that after I'm dead, someone took a good dress of mine and wore it. What do I care then?

[ThomCat]

25. If this was truly value-neutral they would not be making exceptions

for veterans. The fact that they make exceptions for people who have social worth shows that this is a way of devaluing people who have no social worth, and it will devalue those people more.

It will add more social stigma to poor people. It will say to poor people, "We own you."

That's why you should care. Because that stigma matters. That stigma can have a hell of a lot of effect while you are alive.

That stigma can cause you to be even more of a second class citizen than you already are.

[Bluerthanblue]

26. +1

you said what I was trying to say much better than I ever could.

:hi:

[Alameda]

27. It encourages the profit motive...making money off tissues....

It is against some religious laws....I want my body buried. Nothing fancy, but I do not want any part removed.....the whole thing is disgusting, discriminatory, demeaning, dehumanizing....

People think bodies are used for medical research...think again. They are used in many ways.....military...corporate experimentation...and on and on...read "Stiff" for a start.

[Obamanaut]

23. There are two of us. Cadavers must come from somewhere for medical

students to get practice. I think that's a good thing.

Plus everything you said.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. well, why the exception for "Veterans" if all you say is true?

why would they be 'exempt' from this rule in that case?

I'm an organ donor, and wouldn't mind if my body was given to science, but it disturbs me that it is being done to 'select' people. It's almost an admission of the value of some 'remains' being less than others.

:shrug:

[formercia]

18. Bring out your dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs

[Codeine]

21. Donning flamesuit;

I believe that the law should require ALL bodies be given over to research purposes -- rich or poor. Future medical advances trump religious sensibilities and queasiness about what is going to happen to your body once you cease to exist. Lives could be saved.

[Ignis]

22. "I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments."