Current Events > mother learns her childs grave is empty, possibly organ harvested by UK doctors

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/27/for-42-years-she-mourned-at-her-sons-grave-turns-out-the-coffin-was-empty

Soon after, a noted forensic anthropologist studied the coffin's contents: baby garments, fragments of the coffin and a little cross. But there were no human remains. No bones. Nothing.

"There was never any child's remains in that coffin," a distraught Reid, 68, told The Washington Post a few days later. "I can't even be sure he's dead now that's the truth of it."

They told me he had traumatic brain damage. They said he couldn't recover."

Gary was put on life support. When they asked to turn it off, she agreed. "I just went along. We were all very ignorant in those days. I was just a young mom."

But later, the hospital did a curious thing: Gary was put on life support again. Soon after, police officers knocked on the door of Reid's home in the middle of the night to tell her that her that Gary was dead. The hospital asked permission to do an autopsy, but Reid flatly refused.

"I went to the undertaker's and was met with resistance," Reid said. "They told me I couldn't see Gary. But I wanted to put my son in his own baby clothes. I insisted."

Eventually, they showed her a baby, "a huge child with blond hair," she said. But Gary, born prematurely, was small and had dark hair. When she told them it wasn't Gary, they told her she was mistaken and had "postnatal depression."

"Everybody told me that," Reid said. "I started doubting myself."

On the day of Gary's burial, she carried his little coffin to the grave herself. Almost immediately, she felt something was wrong. The coffin felt too light to have a baby inside. "I know what it feels like to hold a baby," Reid said.

Her world turned upside-down again in 1999, when a scandal erupted in Britain involving hospitals secretly removing the organs of deceased patients, usually infants, purportedly for medical research. In many instances, this was done without the knowledge or permission of the parents.

In other instances, parents consented to allowing a "tissue sample" thinking pathologists were taking a cell sample or, say, a slice of the liver. When they learned their babies had been gutted and buried without the organs, the public outcry was enormous.

British tabloids called it "organ snatching scandal." It had been going on since at least the 1950s, reports from numerous inquiries said.

The revelations first emerged at Bristol Royal Infirmary in England. In 1999, it was announced that nearly 170 "were buried incomplete" due to unwanted organ removals. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. The numbers grew many times over as it became apparent that the practice was routine at many British hospitals.

Scientists, particularly pathologists, insisted they had acted in good faith, usually for research purposes. But some just couldn't understand the outcry or why people "got so bothered by a corpse."

This is pretty crazy and 1999-2000 is not that long ago. You would think progressive UK scientists today wouldn't be doing things like this. That is more like some 1950s Nazi bs.
Wow
---

That's fucked up
---

That's horrible, but at the same time I wonder how many people realize that the bodies shown at open caskets have been, in many cases, similarly gutted or nearly as much so.
---

well, from a logical point of view, the babies weren't going to use those organs anyway
---

babies go to limbo so why does she care
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

well, from a logical point of view, the babies weren't going to use those organs anyway

so logical!

harvest the dead!
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

well, from a logical point of view, the babies weren't going to use those organs anyway

so logical!

harvest the dead!

I mean, it's a cold sentiment, but how many people die every year that could have been saved with organs from the recently dead simply because the family wants to feel like the body they visit a couple times a year for a few years is "all there"? I don't think any modern religions even have beliefs that body desecration effects the afterlife.
---

Holy crap.
---

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

well, from a logical point of view, the babies weren't going to use those organs anyway

so logical!

harvest the dead!

I mean, it's a cold sentiment, but how many people die every year that could have been saved with organs from the recently dead simply because the family wants to feel like the body they visit a couple times a year for a few years is "all there"? I don't think any modern religions even have beliefs that body desecration effects the afterlife.

it is all going to rot away anyway. might as well get some use out of it
---

Or maybe the child's death was faked
---

The desecrated the body without the families consent but on the other hand those organs can be used to save lives.

In my book you should ask permission but if the organs can save lives and the person is dead then it's something forgivable that they were used to help someone else.

However if the person is still alive and they organ harvest the harvester needs to be put to death. Only take organs from the deceased not the dying, or terminal cause there is a big difference between dying and dead.
---

question

if you can skin a dead body to save a life

should it be done even if the family says no?

like they would have every bit of skin ripped right off
---

@darkphoenix181

If the person is dead then yes, it is not plesent but if it can save a life it should be done. The parents and loved ones should NEVER see it happen though and it should be done by someone who is going to be respectful to the corpse not a butcher.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

If the person is dead then yes, it is not plesent but if it can save a life it should be done. The parents and loved ones should NEVER see it happen though and it should be done by someone who is going to be respectful to the corpse not a butcher.

so why not turn dead bodies into food?

people die of hunger

surely we can filter out proteins or w\e cause brain damage when cannibalizing
---

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

@darkphoenix181
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

That's fucked up

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Offworlder1 posted...

If the person is dead then yes, it is not plesent but if it can save a life it should be done. The parents and loved ones should NEVER see it happen though and it should be done by someone who is going to be respectful to the corpse not a butcher.

so why not turn dead bodies into food?

people die of hunger

surely we can filter out proteins or w\e cause brain damage when cannibalizing

Right? No shit . I love how you expose that slippery slope.

I am Shocked that people are non-chalant about doctors harvesting organs without even notifying the families or asking. It's incredibly disrespectful and unethical. Maybe holding onto stupid human sentiments like honoring the body of our dead loved ones seems silly to these 'logical doctors'. But if we don't get to embrace those beliefs, how much longer will we retain our humanity?

There's a hunger epidemic. Why don't we just grind dead people into burger like tc said? They're dead anyways, and people are hungry. Why not?

If my baby died and they did that to her body without telling me, I would go to the hospital and kill somebody.

Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

@darkphoenix181

If people stealing corpses to harvest organs is cool to save lives, why isn't shipping preserved corpses to areas decimated by famine?
---

Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

@darkphoenix181

It's not a big leap, at all. He is showing you the next logical steps this thinking goes. They're already starting to push euthanasia and aborting children with special needs. I think someone called them 'useless eaters'.

this is fucked up

You guys wait till you have a little baby or imagine your sister laying on a fucking table, getting cut open for the goodies. Without telling you, like they don't even give a fuck. Unacceptable

It's a dead body quit being a drama queen. You don't actually care, just makes you feel special like you're not just a piece of matter.
---

There is a big leap from harvesting organs from a dead person respectfully then butchering a corpse, and cannabalism. People saying that there is not really need to seek mental help.
---

Hopefully thr doctors who did that die soon
---

Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from harvesting organs from a dead person respectfully then butchering a corpse, and cannabalism. People saying that there is not really need to seek mental help.

"harvesting organs from a dead person respectfully" is a funny way to say stealing a corpse and harvesting it's organs.

In fact, at what point does respect come in? When you neglect to inform the family because you know what you're doing is wrong?
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

You guys wait till you have a little baby or imagine your sister laying on a fucking table, getting cut open for the goodies. Without telling you, like they don't even give a fuck. Unacceptable

Ever been to a viewing? You realize that the body you see has been drained, gutted, reconstructed, and filled with embalming fluid, right?
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

There's a hunger epidemic. Why don't we just grind dead people into burger like tc said? They're dead anyways, and people are hungry. Why not?

Because there's enough food in the world right now to cure the hunger epidemic. The problem isn't quantity, it's distribution. If you minced dead bodies into burgers, the problem of distribution would still exist and you would solve nothing.

Meanwhile, while any food could cure hunger equally as well as cannibalism (or better), anything else will not work equally as well for an organ transplant. If you need a liver, you need a liver. A baguette won't do the trick.

All that said, it's still repugnant that doctors went behind parents' backs and harvested organs from their dead children. A one-time case I might understand if you're desperate to save a life, but this was/is systematic. They're doing it for profit, exploiting vulnerable people, and it's corruption, plain and simple.
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

You guys wait till you have a little baby or imagine your sister laying on a fucking table, getting cut open for the goodies. Without telling you, like they don't even give a fuck. Unacceptable

Yeah if it was my kid, after the trauma of actually losing the child, I'd probably be on international news.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Keith_Valentine posted...

You guys wait till you have a little baby or imagine your sister laying on a fucking table, getting cut open for the goodies. Without telling you, like they don't even give a fuck. Unacceptable

Ever been to a viewing? You realize that the body you see has been drained, gutted, reconstructed, and filled with embalming fluid, right?

Yeah, but they still had a body. This woman didn't even get that. If you don't think that is fucked up there is something seriously wrong with you.
---

CarlGrimes posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Keith_Valentine posted...

You guys wait till you have a little baby or imagine your sister laying on a fucking table, getting cut open for the goodies. Without telling you, like they don't even give a fuck. Unacceptable

Ever been to a viewing? You realize that the body you see has been drained, gutted, reconstructed, and filled with embalming fluid, right?

Yeah, but they still had a body. This woman didn't even get that. If you don't think that is fucked up there is something seriously wrong with you.

Oh yea, that's fucked up. My point is the organs themselves aren't anything to freak out over.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Offworlder1 posted...

If the person is dead then yes, it is not plesent but if it can save a life it should be done. The parents and loved ones should NEVER see it happen though and it should be done by someone who is going to be respectful to the corpse not a butcher.

so why not turn dead bodies into food?

people die of hunger

surely we can filter out proteins or w\e cause brain damage when cannibalizing

I already have cadaver bone implanted in my jaw. Eating dead people isn't too much of a leap when I'm already using them to eat.
---

you guys know the body is eaten by microorganisms and you're just left with bones right?
---

@Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

no big leap at all

you think it is fine to use the dead to save lives

people die by hunger do they not?

so why are you opposed to turning the dead into a renewable foodsource?

PROTIP

people who make a good argument YOU cannot logical answer is not trolling

I know people on here immediately see a powerful argument that destroys their position and immediately go

OMG TROLLING I CAN'T BE WRONG

but you shouldn't do that as it makes you look like the real troll

btw, the organs were harvested for research purposes

you might argue it could potentially lead to a breakthrough that maybe could save lives

but I think people are getting the wrong impression

they weren't taking baby hearts to transplant from what I understand
---

TheOnionKnight posted...

Because there's enough food in the world right now to cure the hunger epidemic. The problem isn't quantity, it's distribution. If you minced dead bodies into burgers, the problem of distribution would still exist and you would solve nothing.

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

TheOnionKnight posted...

Because there's enough food in the world right now to cure the hunger epidemic. The problem isn't quantity, it's distribution. If you minced dead bodies into burgers, the problem of distribution would still exist and you would solve nothing.

if distribution is the problem, this can still be quite a fix

people in Africa need food but it hard to transport and distribute food from the USA all the way to there

but in their villages people die

tada
---

This is so messed up.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

no big leap at all

you think it is fine to use the dead to save lives

people die by hunger do they not?

so why are you opposed to turning the dead into a renewable foodsource?

PROTIP

people who make a good argument YOU cannot logical answer is not trolling

I know people on here immediately see a powerful argument that destroys their position and immediately go

OMG TROLLING I CAN'T BE WRONG

but you shouldn't do that as it makes you look like the real troll

btw, the organs were harvested for research purposes

you might argue it could potentially lead to a breakthrough that maybe could save lives

but I think people are getting the wrong impression

they weren't taking baby hearts to transplant from what I understand

the issue with hunger has more to do with distribution than the amount of food

the amount of food that gets produced now is enough for everyone in the world to have enough. with adequate distribution, your point would become irrelevant

edit: TheOnionKnight said it better
---

averagejoel posted...

the issue with hunger has more to do with distribution than the amount of food

the amount of food that gets produced now is enough for everyone in the world to have enough. with adequate distribution, your point would become irrelevant

Don't feed the troll. He can live by his own example and quote himself if he wants a response so badly.
---

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

@Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

no big leap at all

you think it is fine to use the dead to save lives

people die by hunger do they not?

so why are you opposed to turning the dead into a renewable foodsource?

PROTIP

people who make a good argument YOU cannot logical answer is not trolling

I know people on here immediately see a powerful argument that destroys their position and immediately go

OMG TROLLING I CAN'T BE WRONG

but you shouldn't do that as it makes you look like the real troll

btw, the organs were harvested for research purposes

you might argue it could potentially lead to a breakthrough that maybe could save lives

but I think people are getting the wrong impression

they weren't taking baby hearts to transplant from what I understand

the issue with hunger has more to do with distribution than the amount of food

the amount of food that gets produced now is enough for everyone in the world to have enough. with adequate distribution, your point would become irrelevant

But the distribution is not adequate at this time. Perhaps as we try to work towards organizing food distribution more efficiently, we encourage starving people to eat their dead family members? They are just sacks of meat after all.
---

averagejoel posted...

the issue with hunger has more to do with distribution than the amount of food

the amount of food that gets produced now is enough for everyone in the world to have enough. with adequate distribution, your point would become irrelevant

and what life saving research was conducted that need baby organs harvested?
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

well, from a logical point of view, the babies weren't going to use those organs anyway

It seems though like they took the baby off life support in order to get at its organs though and misled the mother to believe it was necessary when it might not have been
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

But the distribution is not adequate at this time. Perhaps as we try to work towards organizing food distribution more efficiently, we encourage starving people to eat their dead family members? They are just sacks of meat after all.

donating the organs to people who need them does more good than eating them for meat
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

But the distribution is not adequate at this time. Perhaps as we try to work towards organizing food distribution more efficiently, we encourage starving people to eat their dead family members? They are just sacks of meat after all.

good point but don't expect an answer from the disingenuous

they cry troll because they don't have an answer to this
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

averagejoel posted...

the issue with hunger has more to do with distribution than the amount of food

the amount of food that gets produced now is enough for everyone in the world to have enough. with adequate distribution, your point would become irrelevant

and what life saving research was conducted that need baby organs harvested?

way to completely ignore my point and bring up something irrelevant
---

@averagejoel posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

But the distribution is not adequate at this time. Perhaps as we try to work towards organizing food distribution more efficiently, we encourage starving people to eat their dead family members? They are just sacks of meat after all.

donating the organs to people who need them does more good than eating them for meat

Her world turned upside-down again in 1999, when a scandal erupted in Britain involving hospitals secretly removing the organs of deceased patients, usually infants, purportedly for medical research. In many instances, this was done without the knowledge or permission of the parents.

donating to people who need them eh?

in your false righteousness you failed to read the article

the organs were actually in storage and many returned to the parents later when this was found out
---

They should eat dead people if it means they don't die.
---

screenshotted for posterity

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@averagejoel posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

But the distribution is not adequate at this time. Perhaps as we try to work towards organizing food distribution more efficiently, we encourage starving people to eat their dead family members? They are just sacks of meat after all.

donating the organs to people who need them does more good than eating them for meat

Her world turned upside-down again in 1999, when a scandal erupted in Britain involving hospitals secretly removing the organs of deceased patients, usually infants, purportedly for medical research. In many instances, this was done without the knowledge or permission of the parents.

donating to people who need them eh?

in your false righteousness you failed to read the article

the organs were actually in storage and many returned to the parents later when this was found out

my point still stands: using the organs for medical research does more good than using them for meat
---

@averagejoel posted...

way to completely ignore my point and bring up something irrelevant

not only is it super relevant in that you don't seem to understand what the article is saying

but your point was not ignored either

infact:averagejoel posted...

donating the organs to people who need them does more good than eating them for meat

1. eating them for meat actually keeps people alive
2. donating organs for research only has potential save a life, it might not even save any life
3. like I said, relevant in that you thought they were using these for transplants and not putting them in storage

still, if eating a dead person saves someones life and prevents them from dying

how can you say that is "less good"

that is illogical
---