Question of the day
Monday, Oct 3, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Illinois slashed its budget for indigent burials last spring, and that decision has led to a gruesome result. Bodies are piling up throughout the state. But Cook County has come up with a solution…
The bodies of those who die in Cook County whose family members can’t pay for burial will be automatically donated to science, according to a new policy implemented by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office.
The new protocol was detailed Sept. 27 and deemed “effective immediately” in a memo from Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Nancy Jones.
If a family of a deceased person claims there is no money for burial, the medical examiner’s office will inform the family that the remains will be released to the Anatomic Gift Assocation within two weeks of the body having being received at the morgue, the memo said. […]
There’s one sticking point. In cases where the remains are decomposed, if the person had AIDS or was HIV positive; or if the person was more than 300 pounds, the cases will not be accepted to the Anatomic Gift Association and the body will be buried by the county in the usual fashion, the memo said.
* The Question: If a family cannot afford to bury a loved one, is Cook County’s solution of automatically donating the body to science OK with you? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
…Adding… Just to be clear, this can be stopped if the deceased has a will which forbids such a thing or directs that something else be done with his/her body.
- Seriously??? - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 12:51 pm:
I don’t think this is OK. What if the family has religious beliefs that do not permit that type of treatment of the deceased? Just because people don’t have money means that they lose their right to practice their relgion the way they choose?
- Das Man - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
No. It presumably gives little consideration to end of life rites often accorded the dead
- Ahoy - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 12:57 pm:
I voted yes, because I think it beats the alternative. However, the State should have never cut the budget for indigent burials. That was a very bad move and the funding should be restored.
- Cheryl44 - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 12:57 pm:
I’m fine with it. If the family’s religion objects, perhaps their place of worship could pay for the burial.
- Nearly Normal - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
Thia becomes a public health issue as well in regards to the bodies. They need to be properly handled.
Burial appears to be the most expensive of the options. How about cremation as an alternative?
- Fed up - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
If they don’t claim the body for two weeks I am ok with the body being donated for science. If they have a religious objection they can take up a collection at the church, mosque or synagogue where they worship.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:05 pm:
Yes, seems like a humane, common sense solution.
Why is burying the indigent deceased in the ground the default position, anyway? What about cremation?
It’s not the state’s duty to subsidize anyone’s religious beliefs or lack thereof.
- Realist - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:09 pm:
I find the 300 pound limit to be interesting. Is this the new demarcation point between normal and not?
- Gregor - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:10 pm:
Science first, then if rejected, cremation. You still need a respectful place to put the cremains, and land cost is the biggest cost in this deal.
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:10 pm:
Yes, but generally there some fees paid by the donors family…who pays that? County?
- AlphaBettor - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:13 pm:
Life is tough for the poor. Now death is tough, too. This just seems like the final indignity for people with no money.
- Mike Huntoon - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:15 pm:
I believe donating the bodies to science is an appropriate solution for individuals unable to pay for burial.
- downstate hack - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:17 pm:
Yes,
It is the most useful use of the bodies, and in many ways more respectful than being “dumped” in an indigent grave site.
- Robert - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:18 pm:
Cheryl44 at 12:57 said it best.
But I wonder what happens when Science says “ok, thanks, we’ve got plenty of dead bodies to study, we aren’t accepting any more donations”
- Tommydanger - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:20 pm:
Just a couple of more steps and we’ll be watching Soylent Green more intently.
- some call me Maurice - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:20 pm:
This what our budget priorities have become? Shame on Governor Quinn”s administration for letting this happen….wow unbelieveable. we are a sick society.
- Comm. John Fritchey - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:20 pm:
Rich, I’ve been working to accomplish this with former Rep. O’Connor, who does work with the Anatomical Gift Association. The alternative is that these bodies wind up buried in unmarked mass graves in conditions that would shock the conscience of most people.
Whatever safeguards that can be taken, are being taken, and this solution makes the best of an unfortunate situation that many of the least fortunate among us find themselves in.
- cover - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:21 pm:
I voted yes, and I agree 100% with Nearly Normal and Wordslinger. I generally agree with Fed Up; but is 2 weeks the appropriate amount of time for the morgue to hold on to the body?
IMHO, Cook County has shown the other 101 counties a reasonable solution to this problem.
- OneMan - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
Seems to me you are treating the dead as a bit of a commodity. Well you can be put into the ground because we can’t afford it so how about we find someone to take em off of our hands.
- cover - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
Just saw the comments from Comm. / former Rep. John Fritchey… this is public service at its best, even if most of the electorate doesn’t see the results.
- shore - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:50 pm:
No. This is something we should pay for no matter what. Not a fan of this idea at all nor not paying for these peoples burials.
- anon - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:54 pm:
Realist - That is the point where shipping charges make in uneconomic.
- ZC - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:59 pm:
As long as we take care to try and put in safeguards for people’s personal and religious beliefs, as all duly and previously noted.
I admit this for a moment threw me back to 1880s Victorian Britain, where one of the concerns of the religious working poor was that they would be unable to afford a funeral, and their bodies would wind up dissected (though it was a concern for everyone, since there were always entrepreneurial grave robbers funneling bodies to unethical physicians). They took the bit about being “resurrected in your own body” rather literally in those days.
- Anon - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:03 pm:
I’m being anonymous for the moment because I don’t want to reveal a lot of personal information all over the internet. If you knew as I do from first hand experience how much respect is shown to the cadavers at this medical school you’d wonder why we dump the indigent in mass graves, as Commissioner Fritchey said.
- Cheswick - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:10 pm:
I voted yes. After you’re dead, you’re dead. It doesn’t matter what they do with you.
- Wumpus - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:16 pm:
Seperation of church and state. THeir religious beliefs should have prevented them for being poor!
In all seriousness, I am not for this, but I do not have an alternative…mass cremation?
- Dead Head - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:23 pm:
It sure makes more sense than taking up real estate. Every member of my family has stipulated that they want there remains donated to medical science. While I don’t believe it’s the same as the Anatomical Gift Association, it’s about the same thing. As far as I’m concerned, I want to be recycled.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:28 pm:
I agree w/ NearNormal and Fritchey. The default should be donation w/ cremation next and burial as a last resort. Societal norms are trending this way and it is the most logical method of disposing of remains. Burial is as archaic as putting the victorian bell on the coffin to prevent being buried alive.
- Alexander cut the knot. - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
They should continue burials for anyone that is a registered organ donor, and then it is ok to donate bodies to science based on indigency . . . anyone remember Soylent Green?
- George - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
I plan on giving my body to science when I die. Why pay $10,000 plus for s funeral and burial. It is still not free to give your body away - you have to pay to have it transported. More information at:
http://www.agaillinois.org/
- Chevy owner/Ford County - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:36 pm:
I have a real problem with the bodies of the indigent being used for scientific research that, ultimately, will inevitably benefit wealthy corporations as they develop more pharmaceuticals and treatments that are priced out of the reach of many Americans….including those whose bodies will likely end up being used for this type of research.
- Responsa - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:43 pm:
Indigent dead have been handled differently for centuries. Did you see Mozart getting unceremoniously dumped in a mass pauper’s grave in the movie Amadeus? For many people who are signed up to be organ donors the idea of having a whole body donated to science is neither icky or disrespectful. This is a very reasonable option in a reasonable time frame for handling bodies which relatives cannot claim from the morgue for burial or cremation– and which otherwise meet the criteria for donation to science.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 2:52 pm:
–anyone remember Soylent Green?–
Yes, what does that have to do with medical science? Research with cadavers has been going on since before Hippocrates.
I don’t know if it still goes on, but there was a practice in the past where you could SELL your body to science before you died. My Dad used to tell me the town drunk used to brag in the taverns that he’d sold his body to medical schools and research hospitals all over the country. Who collected, I don’t know.
- Give Me A Break - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:00 pm:
“This what our budget priorities have become? Shame on Governor Quinn”s administration for letting this happen….wow unbelieveable. we are a sick society.”
There is room for the General Assembly under this bus, the fund in past years has been funded at the $11-$13 MIl, level, this year HB 3717 (the budget) funded it at $1.9 MIL. The Gov. did not do that.
- Aldyth - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:01 pm:
I have an indigent uncle whose remains were donated to science. When they were done with the remains, they cremated him and returned his ashes to the family. There was more dignity and respect accorded him than would have been otherwise.
- Wumpus - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
i plan to donate my body to The Art Institute as there has never been nor will there be a specimen as fine as Wumpus.
- Das Man - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver (citation needed) “Christians believed in the literal raising from the dead. Because the souls of dissected bodies could not go to heaven, people rarely offered their bodies to science” Since nearly 2 out of 3 in Cook County profess religious affiliation of some kind http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Cook-County-IL.html , it would seem that sensitivity to religious affiliation (whether it is or is not in writing) should be required, without raising a stink.
- Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:17 pm:
I said yes. Science. Of course.
Remember, tomorrow is Tuesday.
- Objective Dem - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:19 pm:
I voted no. I think the decision should be left to the next of kin: donate, bury, or cremate.
- mokenavince - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:19 pm:
I though this practice died in the late thirtys
looks like what goes around comes around. Sad that it’s happening in the richest country in the
world. Where a ballplayer who can’t hit his weight
makes $12 millon a year, we can’t afford a simple
burial for our dead.
- dupage person - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:28 pm:
You know, I’m fine with this. Yes, it’s unfortunate that our budget is in such a state that this had to be done but I would definitely spend what money we do have on the living not the dead.
- amalia - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:29 pm:
science is a good thing. spending money government does not have is not.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 4:04 pm:
1-877-BODS for kids. B-O-D-S bods for kids. 1-877-BODS for kids, donate your bod today.
Seriously, this isn’t the worst idea I ever heard, but it’s up there. To a point, yes, medical schools and other scientific institutions have a need for bodies, but I suspect dead poor people outnumber the need for research specimens. Plus, I would think many of the scientific needs for cadavers would also have a need for diversity of specimens, so they’ll have to provure those through the traditional methods, whatever those are. I mean, how many cases of cirrohsis do med students need to see?
Cremation seems more dignified, but yes, there are religious considerations too. What does it say about our society that we won’t fund this simple thing, whether by cremation or burial? This is where we’re drawing the line? Death is now too expensive for government?
Yikes. I better update my will.
- Wensicia - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 4:22 pm:
I don’t believe the dead should be treated in a way that would be abhorrent to many of the indigent, merely because they can’t pay. Instead of expensive burials, offer cremation, unless the family agrees to this.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 4:50 pm:
- Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 3:17 pm:
“Remember, tomorrow is Tuesday.”
Broderick Crawford Day.
- orlkon - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 5:00 pm:
Whether burial, cremation or dissection, “parts is parts” and it all ends as compost!
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 7:28 pm:
Funerals are for the family and friends attending to say their last goodbyes. If no one cares enough to claim the body, there is no point in an empty ritual. At least using the body for science results in some good coming out of a bad situation.
- In the know - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:27 pm:
The 300 pound limit has to do with the size of the coffins. Pine boxes that can only hold so much. The indigent are buried in trenches, standing up, in rows of about 30. The trenches are quite deep. You might have three coffins, stacked on top of each other, standing up. They’re buried standing up because it takes up less room. Many of those who end up at the Cook County ME’s office have no family. Maybe its better to serve science.
- Joe - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 11:32 pm:
I think this speaks to the state’s (collective) inability to prioritize. This is an “absolutely do not cut” option for a lot of people. But enough “do not cut” programs and, well, you see what happens.
- Marty - Tuesday, Oct 4, 11 @ 12:05 am:
Yes, it’s OK because what’s the alternative, just let the bodies pile up forever?
Maybe give ‘em an alternative of cheap cremation? But if they want the ashes, they have to pay—I lost both parents last year and there is a real cost to packaging and handling/ transporting human ashes and I don’t see why the taxpayers should foot the bill.
- soccermom - Tuesday, Oct 4, 11 @ 6:41 am:
I know this is troubling to many, but with funds so tight, I’d rather see the state spend its cash on keeping people alive and well, not on burying those who can no longer be helped.
- ALibertarian - Tuesday, Oct 4, 11 @ 8:00 am:
I voted yes. If government money is paying, then the government gets to decide what to do. To all of you bemoaning that we should pay for burial for the poor, why should the government do it? If that’s the way you feel, start a non-profit and collect donations. Use private money to help the poor. Some commenters came close by saying an individual’s church should pay for it if their religion bars donation to science. That’s a good point also.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 4, 11 @ 8:27 am:
As far as it goes, I think the great writer from Maywood had it about right. Given my Beechwood aging, in my case, it would be “give my stomach to St. Louis if they run out of beer.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lj9dvXzDgQ&noredirect=1