UK: Body parts 'stolen for radiation research' / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

UK: Body parts 'stolen for radiation research'

Move Thread

LAN_403

Proud Mary

Tue Nov 16 2010, 11:38PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Body parts 'stolen for radiation research'

By Kim Pilling,
Press Association
Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Families of nuclear workers whose organs were secretly tested for radiation research were wronged, an inquiry found today.

Body parts were taken without consent from 64 former Sellafield employees and provided for analysis by their employers between 1960 and 1991.

Organs were also taken without consent from 12 workers at nuclear sites in Springfields, Capenhurst, Dounreay and Aldermaston to be tested at Sellafield.

Families giving evidence to the inquiry led by Michael Redfern QC - who probed the Alder Hey organ scandal - were said to be shocked their loved ones were buried or cremated without many internal organs.

The report found an "extraordinary range" of organs were removed to gauge any effects of radiation.

The liver was removed in all cases and one or both lungs in all but one incident.

Vertebrae, sternum, ribs, lymph nodes, spleen, kidneys and femur were also stripped in the majority of incidents.

Brains, tongues, hearts and testes were also taken on the advice of the medical officer at Sellafield.

All the organs were later destroyed.

The majority of the post-mortems were undertaken by pathologists at West Cumberland Hospital in which an "informal arrangement" existed whereby the Sellafield medical officer would be notified.

Once stripped, organs were taken by car in a coolbox to Sellafield.

When coroners were involved in deaths, some failed to even read post-mortem reports while some knew organs were removed without consent but failed to act.

Mr Redfern concluded the relationship between pathologists, coroners and Sellafield medical officers "became too close" with failures to adhere to professional standards.

He said: "In most of the cases, families have been wronged. Organs were removed at post mortem and provided for analysis despite being of no possible relevance to the cause of death.

"The blame lies mainly at the door of pathologists who performed the post mortem examinations. Ignorant of the law, they removed organs for analysis without satisfying themselves that the relatives' consent had been obtained.

"Relatives were seldom asked for their consent. As a result, families buried or cremated incomplete bodies and many of those who have discovered the truth, years later, have been greatly distressed."

He continued: "In coronial cases, proper supervision would have prevented the abuse and allowed the bodies to be treated with dignity and respect."

Under the provisions of the Human Tissue Act 1961, since superseded by the Human Tissue Act 2004, body parts may be removed at post mortem for medical education, treatment or research if permission was given by the deceased or their relatives.

Body parts may be removed on the direction of a coroner if a pathologist believes the examination may shed light on the cause of death.

Mr Redfern conducted the inquiry into the removal of body organs from 800 children at the Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, which concluded a pathologist "systematically stripped" organs from dead children.

Mike Clancy, deputy general secretary for engineers' union, Prospect, said: "Nobody would question the value of medical research into potential health risks to the industry's employees and close neighbours.

"Such research is clearly in the public interest but that does not in any way justify the removal of tissue without appropriate consent.

"Our thoughts are with the affected families, for whom this is difficult and upsetting."

Steve Gibbons, regional officer responsible for GMB members at Sellafield, added: "This has been an extremely distressing period for the families involved in this ordeal and this union shares their concerns.

"GMB believe that we have played our part in trying to eradicate, completely, levels of radiation exposure in order that workers are protected from industrial disease."

Mr Redfern said it was the view of the families that the bodies were treated as a "commodity".

Bones were even replaced with broomstick handles so no-one would become suspicious at the funerals.

He said: "One family member described his reaction to finding out that his father was involved in this inquiry 20 years after what he had always regarded as a dignified and respected funeral.

"He said 'my family and I have been absolutely devastated as a result of what has gone on.

'I believe that they showed severe disrespect to my father's body and I find this mutilation very disturbing'."

Adam Munich

Wed Nov 17 2010, 02:39AM

Registered Member #2893 Joined: Tue Jun 01 2010, 09:25PM
Location: Cali-forn. i. a.
Posts: 2242

I hope they died of natural causes...

Arcstarter

Wed Nov 17 2010, 04:07AM

Registered Member #1225 Joined: Sat Jan 12 2008, 01:24AM
Location: Beaumont, Texas, USA
Posts: 2253

If this was done to a family member, i would want revenge.

But, that being said, read my signature quote for how i feel.

Proud Mary

Wed Nov 17 2010, 08:50AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

This story illustrates very well the means by which public enquiries in Britain are stage managed by the Establishment. The government appointed lawyer, Michael Redfern QC - leader of the enquiry - explains away criminal conduct by government officials as the result of 'ignorance of the law'

"The blame lies mainly at the door of pathologists who performed the post mortem examinations. Ignorant of the law, they removed organs for analysis without satisfying themselves that the relatives' consent had been obtained.

Had they been ignorant of the law, as Redfern says, why would they have replaced bones with broomstick handles to avoid suspicion at funerals?

stop4stuff

Wed Nov 24 2010, 07:06PM

Registered Member #64 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:25AM
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 68

For anyone affected reading this thread who have been affected by any sort of unscrupulous activity involving the retention of organs/body parts contact Mervin Fudge of Clarke Willmot solicitors (

) for further advice.

My wife and I have been on the wrong end of the shitty stick after our son's brain was retained without our consent after 'the hospital' screwed up and killed him... Mervin is one of the Good Guys!

Bored Chemist

Fri Nov 26 2010, 12:06PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

"Had they been ignorant of the law, as Redfern says, why would they have replaced bones with broomstick handles to avoid suspicion at funerals?"
Part of the grim business of dealing with dead bodies is to make them look as "presentable" as possible for funerals. There's nothing suspicious about them doing so in this case. The bodies are plumped up, painted and dyed pink to make the body look frankly, less dead, for the benefit of the grieving relatives.

Obviously, the upset caused to the families by this action has been considerable but, when it comes down to it, dead people are dead.

Also, the actions concerned too place 20 years ago and more.
Things have changed (post Alder hey etc).
Did the relatives really gain anything from finding about about this?
They were happy; now they are not.
If the corpse of one of my family had been involved in this I would be glad. I could take some satisfaction that my loss was in some small way compensated by the fact that the information gained might help others in the future.
I realise that others might not feel as I do, but I bet that those involved in the study would and I imagine that may have influenced how they behaved.

Proud Mary

Fri Nov 26 2010, 12:41PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Bored Chemist wrote ...

"Had they been ignorant of the law, as Redfern says, why would they have replaced bones with broomstick handles to avoid suspicion at funerals?"
Part of the grim business of dealing with dead bodies is to make them look as "presentable" as possible for funerals. There's nothing suspicious about them doing so in this case. The bodies are plumped up, painted and dyed pink to make the body look frankly, less dead, for the benefit of the grieving relatives.

I wonder if your post does not confound the procedure of the pathologist with the cosmesis of the mortician. Moreover, you seem to imply some kind of statute of limitation on scientific misconduct of twenty years ago.

Bjørn

Fri Nov 26 2010, 01:13PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

It is important that scientists are very careful when it comes to moral issues. History is littered with grotesque experiments done in the name of science. Even if it has become better there is still enough fuel for people to be sceptical of scientific "facts".

Scientists will often ignore everything that does not affect the result of what they are working on. Many will applaud this, but in addition to making them bad humans it also makes them bad scientists. Many of the greatest scientists have a good moral foundation because it is helpful in avoiding the largest pitfall in science, self delusion.

People are prone to relative failure. They will break absolute limits by doing it in many small steps. One example is mixing larger and larger batches of chemicals until it explodes or pulling wings off flies and gradually working their way up the chain to humans. It is a problem that affects most people but scientists and people with a long technical education are more likely to ignore limits that can't easily be measured like pain, suffering and death.

Bored Chemist

Sun Nov 28 2010, 04:45PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

"I wonder if your post does not confound the procedure of the pathologist with the cosmesis of the mortician."
It may, but there's enough common ground to make the point valid, after all, it's the pathologist (or their assistant) who sews up the hole left by the PM exam and that's a cosmetic matter.
It's not a statute of limitations; it's that you can't judge the actions of half a century ago by the morals of today.
Back then it was more widely accepted that "the establishment" could do things for the greater common good and science was generally seen as a good thing.
Those are less widely held beliefs today.

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob