大象传媒

May I remind everyone that the main cause of climate change is man's activities and so as our population increases so will problems grow. May I ask ethical man, how many children have you fathered to satisfy the female biological clock?
Brian

I was the person whom Justin came to to find out about composting, and he wanted his 'Ethical Man' character to be recyled upon his finishing the year's experiment.
I still want to promote the composting of human corpses as an ethical alternative to deep burial or cremation. There is a way which it could be done, a freeze drying and composting method called 'Promession', being developed in Scandinavia. I am not aware that it has been used in the UK or anywhere else yet, however there is a lot of interest, and the Local Authorities which may use it first are Crewe/Nantwich or Corby.
People who want to see how it is developing should look for the Promessa Institute.
John Cossham, York, UK

The answer to this one is simple. If nature takes its course and our bodies are left to their own devices upon our demise, they will simply decompose.

The obvious test - which you are welcome to try with me come the time - is simply to put me out with the rest of the rubbish and see what the council makes of it.

There is a serious side to this though. I am perfectly happy for bits of me to be used for transplantation or research - indeed for any legitimate process. What I object to is paying large sums of money after I am dead to take up unnecessary plots of land or contribute to global warming by having my hydrocarbons converted into greenhouse gasses.

Take what you want and chuck what's left on the compost heap is my philosophy.

The leading UK expert on burial law is John Bradfield he has written books about the subject and the Death Centre always refers to him. For some good information about his work visit WWW.abtrust.info.

Oh and BTW you CAN legally compost a human cadavar.

He has had 2 EDM's raised in the commons supporting his work signed by over 36 MP's. The following is a copy of the last EDM.

That this House calls upon the Government to take urgent steps to fulfil its promise, made in January 2002, to end the wasteful and destructive bureaucracy which is forcing the collapse of the astonishing achievements of the Alice Barker Trust; agrees that the Trust has been a great strength in this country and is the type of voluntary sector organisation celebrated in the last Queen's Speech; calls upon the Government not to create temporary graves in public cemeteries until the Trust's proposal for a new legal framework for voluntary sector burials is in place for permanent graves in permanent nature reserves, without the need for any expansion of Government bureaucracy, but with ultimate power resting with any Secretary of State; notes that the Trust has demonstrated how public services can be joined-up in imaginative and unexpected ways, that emotional well-being can be protected through empowerment during critical times of bereavement and other potential emotional emergencies, and how standards can be driven up in ways which reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and expenditure on our National Health Service and other services; further notes that the Trust cannot survive without the unparalleled expertise on relevant law of John Bradfield, its full-time honourary adviser and researcher since 1990; and urges the Government to put in place a new law as a matter or urgency to prevent him accepting unrelated paid work in this country or abroad, as that would deprive the nation of a free public service which no-one else is capable of providing

Thanks to Mike Foote, for flagging up the work of the Alice Barker Trust, which is the only charity in the UK., providing sound information on funeral and related law. That is based upon my research on law, as stated in Parliament. More than 60 MPs have called for an Emergency Bereavement Service, which would provide free advice on anything and everything connected with dying, death and bereavement.

I agree with Justin, that composting does seem the most environmentally benign way of dealing with bodies.

Justin states above, that it is a serious matter, when Newsnight makes an incorrect statement on law.

I am the person who lodged, on behalf of the above charity, the complaint about that error on law. The final outcome is awaited and I am sure the 大象传媒 will act honourably.

Statute law is unambiguous, as Justin et al are now aware. The law requires that notice be given, when bodies have been dealt with by "burial, cremation or any other means"

This matter is a straightforward complaint and not a "legal battle", in the sense that it is not being pursued through the courts.

My warning about the quality of advice, which might be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, was based on my discovery in the 1990s, that the Home Office, (which had responsibility for such matters over about 150 years up until very recently) had a poor grasp of relevant aspects of law and had routinely acted unlawfully. In true 鈥榊es Minister鈥� style, civil servants and ministers have continued to ignore or avoid my reports of unlawful activities by public services. No attempts have ever been made, to prove those reports to be flawed or misleading.

Perhaps because the HO was unfit for purpose in more ways than was known to the former Secretary of State, John Reed, responsibilities were moved to the new Ministry of Justice. That may have helped to conceal past failings but there is every reason to suppose, that the same inadequate understanding of law will continue, along with the lack of interest within government, to stop unlawful activities.

One example was a coroner who, for about 3 months, unlawfully refused to release the body of a young man. The Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Ministry of Justice, Lord Chancellor or whoever had responsibility, did not bother to write to the coroner, to provide sound information on relevant law. Bereaved relatives needed peace of mind, not least as Christmas was fast approaching. Despite formal requests for help, no-one from central government gave it. Unlawful and oppressive activities of that type, cannot be acceptable in a modern welfare state, which must be sensitive to the acute needs of those facing emotional emergencies, e.g. the newly bereaved.

For about 150 years, former Home Secretaries issued legally binding instructions, about how to carry out exhumations. One instruction was not only pointless (because of a complete failure to understand the basics of microbiology on decomposing bodies) but a potential threat to the health of those doing the work. That routine instruction was almost certainly unlawful, i.e. because it is a fundamental requirement of English law, that all such instructions must be "reasonable" and so on. Enforcing a serious and pointless threat health, cannot be reasonable, so ipso facto it must be unlawful.

Many graves created within living memory have been destroyed, apparently unlawfully, because the HO failed to understand relevant law. Complaints to the Home Office, Lord Chancellor et al, fell on deaf ears. War veterans watched as their relatives, who were buried within living memory, were dug up with a JCB and dumped in a nearby pit.

Clearly, law breaking is acceptable in many areas of public service, because civil servants, MPs and ministers are made aware of the issues but take no decisive action. Only those with deep pockets can use the courts and only if they are willing to expose their profound grief to adversarial questioning. That should not be necessary, in a modern, civilised society.

The most ubiquitous and worrying of all the unlawful activities which I encounter, is hospital staff insisting on one or more preconditions, before releasing the bodies of babies and children to their bereaved parents. That may mean the parents cannot hold their babies or children for some days, especially when bank holidays create staff shortages. One answer is never die in a hospital and always insist whenever possible, on dying at home or in a hospice. However, I do not believe in running away from public services. Although it always seems hopelessly futile, I constantly press for fundamental improvements in public services. Stamping out unlawful activities would be a good place to start.

Hospitals and dentists still refuse to release body parts, so have not learnt the lessons of the national scandal over children's organs, at Alderhey and the Bristol Royal Infirmary. Phil Hammond, GP., comedian and presenter of the TV programmes 'Trust Me I'm A Doctor', exposed that scandal but his important and courageous work, is a long way from being finished.

About two years ago, I lodged a formal complaint with my own local NHS Trust on that issue and it may soon come to a conclusion.

One legal principle which the Ministry of Justice may not have mentioned to Justin, is that it is legal to continue doing something, especially in terms of an ancient English tradition, unless explicitly stopped by the courts or Parliament.

I am sure Justin and the 大象传媒 will readily agree, that the "ultimate authority" on the issue raised, cannot be the Ministry of Justice and that it must be the courts and Parliament. All too often, government departments and local authorities issue unsound information on law. Occasionally it is nothing short of arrant nonsense - see for example Hart District Council's website giving advice on the law of burials in private land. As with other local authorities, that nonsense is being defended by the most senior officials, who bring public services into disrepute.

As illustrated above, it can be very risky, if relying on information from public organisations, not least because their staff may well be unwitting participants in unlawful activities or condoning such activities by their determined silence.

For the avoidance of doubt, the majority of health and welfare staff are doing excellent work. At the other extreme are activities which are grossly incompetent, unlawful and cruel but we need a government which will decisively stamp those out and not simply pledge to do so in election manifestos.

John Bradfield.
Former Medical Social Worker.
Writer on bereavement issues and law.
Alice Barker Trust.
Harrogate
01423 530900 & 8681231

Time and again we are told that there is shortage of organ donors and likewise medical colleges are short of human cadavers required for the training of future medical professionals. Organ donation is, I believe, permitted by law. If I were to donate my cadaver to a teaching hospital for it to use such organs that can save someone else's life and use the rest of the body for medical training and research, would I be in breach of some obscure legislation what punishment will be metted out to me when I am no longer around to be fined, jailed or worst come to worst hanged?