|
|
This is one of the strangest things I've ever heard of, I would just never even think that such wierdness would be taking place:
| Quote: | SAN MARCOS, Texas (AP) -- Texas State University's plan to build the nation's largest "body farm" of cadavers is on hold over concerns that buzzards could endanger nearby planes.
The university's scrapped its proposed site and began scouting a new location for what would be only the third body farm in the United States. The farms are used by scientists who bury cadavers to study human decomposition to help police better determine the time and manner of death at crime scenes. |
Read more:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/11/body.farm.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us
Sure, I always knew that cadavers were used in medical schools but this just kind of threw me when I first read it. Makes me wonder what other stuff is going on in the name of scientific research, how about you?
i don't see what the problem with this is (aside from the buzzards, i suppose). If you've donated your body to science, forensic science is as good a field as any to be used as a study tool for.
Wouldn't want to live downwind of the place, though.
Theres nothing wrong with it. Understanding of how the human body decomposes is important, when someone finds a decomposed/decomposing body that understanding is needed for both identification of the body and the investigation of the death.
I honestly wasn't trying to point it out as a problem, or making judgement on whether it was right or wrong--just felt this was kind of wierd and thought people would be interested in the article. You have to admit this is quite strange, don't you think?
It's sure something I would not have expected, but I understand the need for the studies and it seems to be ethical. Someone could perhaps object that when the bodies were donated, it was with the understanding that they would be treated with respect.
It appears that many of the bodies are buried in shallow graves or not at all, and thus are exposed to the elements and to predators. That makes the procedure a little questionable, but again I would consider the need for the studies to justify the practice.
| SonLight wrote: | It's sure something I would not have expected, but I understand the need for the studies and it seems to be ethical. Someone could perhaps object that when the bodies were donated, it was with the understanding that they would be treated with respect.
It appears that many of the bodies are buried in shallow graves or not at all, and thus are exposed to the elements and to predators. That makes the procedure a little questionable, but again I would consider the need for the studies to justify the practice. |
If one donates one's body to scientific research while believing one's body will be treated with "respect"... one is a freaking moron.
well, the mainstream medical system is a body farm in its own way....how many people are being used as guinea pigs WITHOUT their knowledge/consent......hmmmmmmmmmm............
| magicalmama wrote: | | well, the mainstream medical system is a body farm in its own way....how many people are being used as guinea pigs WITHOUT their knowledge/consent......hmmmmmmmmmm............ |
Not too many in the UK I hope, but I think your point may be a real issue in certain 'third world' countries. It is pretty certain that organised and ethically deplorable trials have been conducted on populations in some African and Asian countries in the past and it would not shock me to learn it was still happening. Western countries have the safeguard of the medical professionals standing between them and corporations involved in the medical business. This makes such abuses difficult to pull-off unless you believe that the doctors are also in a conspiracy with the pharmaceutical companies. I do not believe that for a minute. There may well be some doctors who rely rather too much on the companies for prescription advice and others who take rather too many freebies from the same companies...I can easily believe that. Organised and widespread though? No..too much of a stretch.
So yes, I agree that this may and probably is happening in countries where the population is vulnerable to such abuse - particularly in the very poor countries - and I would certainly agree that it is unethical and morally deplorable practice that should be punished with long prison terms. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely to happen in our western systems because, frankly, this sort of abuse is standard operating procedure in the west.
Whilst this may be a particularly nasty example, it is morally and legally not much different to many other abuses which are not only common but actually a fundamental part of how our capitalism functions and not only legal but actually assumed.
| magicalmama wrote: | | well, the mainstream medical system is a body farm in its own way....how many people are being used as guinea pigs WITHOUT their knowledge/consent......hmmmmmmmmmm............ |
Some one has been paying attention to too many infomercials.
Medicines and medical procedures are heavily tested. The idea that medicines and medical procedures are dangerous, untested, disease causing things pushed on doctors to prescribe by evil pharmaceutical company's who have the FDA in there pocked is a lie made up by evil people to get people to buy there so called "natural" (Argumentum ad Naturam) products.
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk9.html#prescription
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk8.html#myth3
| Bikerman wrote: | | magicalmama wrote: | | well, the mainstream medical system is a body farm in its own way....how many people are being used as guinea pigs WITHOUT their knowledge/consent......hmmmmmmmmmm............ |
Not too many in the UK I hope, but I think your point may be a real issue in certain 'third world' countries. It is pretty certain that organised and ethically deplorable trials have been conducted on populations in some African and Asian countries in the past and it would not shock me to learn it was still happening. Western countries have the safeguard of the medical professionals standing between them and corporations involved in the medical business. This makes such abuses difficult to pull-off unless you believe that the doctors are also in a conspiracy with the pharmaceutical companies. I do not believe that for a minute. There may well be some doctors who rely rather too much on the companies for prescription advice and others who take rather too many freebies from the same companies...I can easily believe that. Organised and widespread though? No..too much of a stretch.
So yes, I agree that this may and probably is happening in countries where the population is vulnerable to such abuse - particularly in the very poor countries - and I would certainly agree that it is unethical and morally deplorable practice that should be punished with long prison terms. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely to happen in our western systems because, frankly, this sort of abuse is standard operating procedure in the west.
Whilst this may be a particularly nasty example, it is morally and legally not much different to many other abuses which are not only common but actually a fundamental part of how our capitalism functions and not only legal but actually assumed. |
Coerced sterilizations of Native American women seem to have occurred in the United States as recently as the mid-nineties, by Federally funded programs.
Regarding the respect given to experimental cadavers, I believe that most cadavers are treated respectfully by whoever is using them for research or education. The medical community takes this issue seriously, and the med students I've known have given me the impression that disrespect for cadavers is not tolerated.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Coerced sterilizations of Native American women seem to have occurred in the United States as recently as the mid-nineties, by Federally funded programs. |
I didn't know that,,quite shocked me actually. I thought that extreme illiberal/racist undercurrent had started to die-back (or at least be more effectively suppressed or well hidden) since the mid 60's and would have bet that this action couldn;t have happened (certainly not publically) under an admin as late as Ronnie Reagan...you live and learn I guess.....
I bet the worms love it....a person could get some good bait round there.
I don't want to be burried for that reason, the thought of bugs eating my
body creeps me the feck out. instead I think I'll get my ashes put into a
painting...or maybe just make someone taxidermy me. heh.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Coerced sterilizations of Native American women seem to have occurred in the United States as recently as the mid-nineties, by Federally funded programs. |
I didn't know that,,quite shocked me actually. I thought that extreme illiberal/racist undercurrent had started to die-back (or at least be more effectively suppressed or well hidden) since the mid 60's and would have bet that this action couldn;t have happened (certainly not publically) under an admin as late as Ronnie Reagan...you live and learn I guess..... |
I was shocked, as well, when I learned of it about a year ago from my fiancee. She was an anthropology/biology double-major, and took a Native American women's life class in college. There's no official statement condoning the sterilizations, but a lot of doctors in the program, particularly in the 70's had this mindset that these poor, alcoholic, uneducated women didn't need to be having babies (stereotypes breed inhuman behavior, eh?). The doctors wound up trying to coerce the women into sterilizations, or (in a handfull of cases) performed unconsented sterilizations while the women were drugged for some other procedure. This process continued, apparently, into the 90's. To me it seemed like something that would've happened a centruy ago, but not in my lifetime.
Imagine the pressure a woman would feel if her doctor was telling her she needed to be sterilized, or the fear later upon realizing what a mistake it was. Not that those people have any form of legal recourse, anyways 
Why not put settlement of cannibals nearby?
Can conduct more interesting studies ??????
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Coerced sterilizations of Native American women seem to have occurred in the United States as recently as the mid-nineties, by Federally funded programs. |
Which agency funds coercion outside the United States ???
| outofnicks wrote: | | I honestly wasn't trying to point it out as a problem, or making judgement on whether it was right or wrong--just felt this was kind of wierd and thought people would be interested in the article. You have to admit this is quite strange, don't you think? |
I knew abt this.. Once watched it on Discovery
Believe me they do a lotta other stuff with donated bodies, which u wudnt want 2 kno.
| amicalindia wrote: | | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Coerced sterilizations of Native American women seem to have occurred in the United States as recently as the mid-nineties, by Federally funded programs. |
Which agency funds coercion outside the United States ??? |
What is coercion? In the context of states I think a definition would be along these lines:
actions by a state or it's proper agents, directed against another state or instruments/agents thereof, intended to encourage or discourage a particular outcome, action or decision which is being decided by the proper authorities in that state. Usually it will be designed to encourage an outcome which is favourable to the coercive state and likely to be either less positive or even injurious to the coerced state. In the specific case of the US, I'm going to assume that you are asking which US agencies fund acts of coercion against other states? Basically the answer would be most of the ones with the ability to do so. There are too many agencies and bodies in total so I'll just summarise some of the major ones, and remember I'm a Brit so I'm not expert on US black-ops and financial methods of fraud used by your Government - I know some of the ones used by the UK and if they are similar then I would guess that the following departments/agencies would be key players:
Defence department, State department, Houses of Representatives, the Senate, FBI, CIA, the Presidency, all of the mainstream media most of the rest of the media and many average citizens of the US[/b]
Who ultimately pays the bill? The ordinary tax-payer will bear the biggest share of any military budget since the funding is largely federal in nature and comes from the Defence Budget, budgetary 'slight of hand' and creative labelling, extraordinary-budget single payments asked for by the President and passed by the [i]House of Representatives (HoR) and the Senate (Sen).
How often? Very often. The US has been involved in about 70 invasions, destabilisations, infiltrations, support for guerilla and opposition fighters, and other similar illegal and secret operations in countries around the world since WW2. I'll put such activities under the banner 'Foreign Intervention'.
How many of these interventions could be said by an impartial observer to have been intended as altruistic acts or have actually worked out to be positive and beneficial for the country concerned, rather than the US)? My opinion? None. Not a single one.
Can you give some facts to back this up? Yes I can. Below is a link to an extract from a Book covering the whole issue of US foreign policy and attitude in the post WW2 world.
This section of the book is a pretty complete and surprisingly long list of United States interventions in other states from 1945 to the Present. http://bikerman.info/resources/politics/US-Post1945.html
How much does it cost?Huge amounts of money have been spent on black-ops, spying, political and diplomatic services (any or all of which could really be coercive, illegal actions or instigations in other states designed to bring about regime change or a deferential/respectful attitude and position from other heads of state/governments.
The cost of the Iraq crime will be large. Some informed sources are looking at a total figure of between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html
Can you put some current numbers forward? Hmm...let's simply look at US Federal income/expenditure for 2007...as follows:
Federal Budget 2007 - Sources of funds
* $1.1 trillion (+12.1%) - Individual income tax
* $884.1 billion (+7.4%) - Social Security and other payroll taxes
* $260.6 billion (+15.5%) - Corporate income tax
* $74.6 billion (+1.3%) - Excise taxes
* $28.1 billion (+0.7%) - Customs duties
* $23.7 billion (+9.2%) - Estate and gift taxes
* $48.4 billion (+14.0%) - Other
Federal Budget 2007 - Outgoings
* $699 billion (+4.0%) - Defence
* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
* $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
* $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
* $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
* $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
* $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
* $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
* $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
* $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
* $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
* $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
* $1.1 billion (+47.6%) - Energy[/i]
|
