For example, as my own research documented , in parts of Canada, the older parent or the older or eldest sibling has the final decision, while several US states prioritise the person who had the closest personal relationship with the deceased. Exhuming a corpse or interred ashes requires legal permission. But, in England and Wales, the likelihood of securing permission depends on where the remains have been buried.
Unconsecrated ground requires an exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice, but consecrated ground requires a faculty a grant of permission from the Church of England, which is much harder to obtain. And given that many municipal cemeteries often have consecrated and unconsecrated areas, there can be different legal standards for exhuming corpses and ashes buried within a few metres of each other.
Other religions can be opposed to exhumation as well and unwilling to sanction disinterment of remains within their own cemeteries. Gone are the days when the main type of memorial was a headstone or grave-marker in a churchyard or cemetery.
The digital age has also reshaped how the living commemorate their dead, especially with the growth of Facebook memorials. Questions often arise, not just about access, but the accuracy and content of postings. His case exposed irregularities in storage of bodies donated for medial research, and also fuelled public concern about commercial interest - in this case of an artist - in dealing with the dead. The benefits of medical research are undeniable, but the use of human material by pharmaceutical companies sponsoring research is subject to commercial interests - which extend beyond what many would consider "legitimate" medical research to the cosmetic industry.
Dr Ruth Richardson, who has contributed to the Alder Hey inquiry, medical historian and author of Death, Dissection and the Destitute a comprehensive study of the background and consequences of the Anatomy Act , submitted evidence to the recent chief medical officer's summit on organs and consent.
In the new edition of her book, she discusses the "fearful symmetry" of commercial and social conditions prevailing in the late 18th and early 19th centuries which led to sale of stolen corpses to anatomy schools for dissection and conditions surrounding organ transplant and the research industry today. Unless the government acts to ensure that human material will never be bought and sold, we face a return to the kind of conditions which led to the Act where unregulated trade in human corpses put the public at risk.
As Dr Richardson points out, the human corpse again has a commercial value unprecedented since the Act. Dr Richardson advises that we learn the lessons of medical history, and ensure that the human body is never bought or sold, but rather used in fully understood, consenting donation.
However, this question remains: does current law sufficiently cover the question of ownership of the body under contemporary conditions for consent to be effectively protected? Perhaps that is not such a surprising statistic, when we take into account the number of people who have potentially competing claims.
But who does have first right to the body or ashes? Is it the person who paid for the funeral, the next of kin, the person who signed the cremation form, the personal representative, or the coroner? And who decides who has priority? Is it the undertaker, the hospital, the court, or is it the deceased in their will? The basic starting point is that:. Unfortunately, similar to family disputes, funeral disputes are often complex, and many cannot simply be resolved by applying the above three rules.
However, statute permits that a body or part of it may be donated for medicine or science, and whether or not a body can be disposed of in a will is a topic that is up for debate, too.
This, however, has been subject to challenge under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act relating to respect for family life, and is likely to also be open to challenge under Article 9, relating to freedom of conscience, thought and religion. Under the Burial Act , once a person has been buried it is unlawful to disturb or remove the body without lawful authority.
The exhumation of cremation ashes on consecrated ground can only be authorised by a Faculty from the local Diocese. Even on private land which is not a cemetery, under s. Although the application can be completed by anyone, it must be signed by the next of kin and those of equal kinship. Nonetheless, the next of kin do not legally own the ashes. Home Office licences will not be required where other legislation makes removal compulsory, usually in connection with site development.
The Disused Burial Grounds Amendment Act makes it possible for landowners to remove human remains for the purpose of development, but provides that objections from the next of kin of those buried within the preceding 50 years will be fatal to development applications.
0コメント