Religion & Spirituality0 min ago
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beryllium. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Alder Hay case threw up some interesting legal points still to be resolved.
But given the fact that even if the deceased had made his consent to the use of his organs for transplant known, the next of kin still has to give permission - then it is clearly the next of kin that has the final say and I suppose 'owns' the body.
In the absence of a next of kin - I have no idea. It would be the states responsibility to ensure there was a funeral, but that does not mean ownership.
I suggest you google Alder Hay for the legal arguments.
But given the fact that even if the deceased had made his consent to the use of his organs for transplant known, the next of kin still has to give permission - then it is clearly the next of kin that has the final say and I suppose 'owns' the body.
In the absence of a next of kin - I have no idea. It would be the states responsibility to ensure there was a funeral, but that does not mean ownership.
I suggest you google Alder Hay for the legal arguments.
Unless the law has changed, the answer is probably 'nobody'.
I remember a case where a body was stolen from the Sheffied University mortuary. When those responsible were brought before the courts, they were only charged with stealing the shroud which had covered the body because they could not be charged with stealing something (i.e. the body) which had no owner.
Similarly, when animal rights activists dug up the body of a relative of the owners of Darley Oaks Farm, they were charged with harassment and blackmail but not with the theft of a body.
Chris
I remember a case where a body was stolen from the Sheffied University mortuary. When those responsible were brought before the courts, they were only charged with stealing the shroud which had covered the body because they could not be charged with stealing something (i.e. the body) which had no owner.
Similarly, when animal rights activists dug up the body of a relative of the owners of Darley Oaks Farm, they were charged with harassment and blackmail but not with the theft of a body.
Chris
The little facts I remember are, bodily tissue is not deemed property under the theft act (including wee,poo, blood and sperm samples). I assume therefore, a body is not property.
On a death certificate there are two signatures (certifying death and actual cause of death). If the second isn't signed the body (I believe Public Health Act, but don't quote me!!!) becomes the "property" of the local coroner until it is realeased. The coroner has more power than a High Court Judge.
I believe there is stated law cases where Pikey's have burnt the body within a few hours of it dying.
Good question.
On a death certificate there are two signatures (certifying death and actual cause of death). If the second isn't signed the body (I believe Public Health Act, but don't quote me!!!) becomes the "property" of the local coroner until it is realeased. The coroner has more power than a High Court Judge.
I believe there is stated law cases where Pikey's have burnt the body within a few hours of it dying.
Good question.
Thank You.
Had a good read of the following trials....
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfi les/j2427/ab-v-nhs_trusts.htm
and it reads a breach of human rights. Another one of my favourites.
Fascinating stuff.
Had a good read of the following trials....
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfi les/j2427/ab-v-nhs_trusts.htm
and it reads a breach of human rights. Another one of my favourites.
Fascinating stuff.
1 to 7 of 7
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.