That was a great breakdown, Scott Allen10. Technically, the law allows it, but in the real world, nobody touches it without getting the family's blessing—even though they don't actually have any legal standing here.
It feels like one of those classic cases where the rulebook says one thing, but the actual practice is something else entirely. If they had just been smart enough to write the law so that consent is assumed to be "no" unless the owner explicitly opted in, everything would be crystal clear. Instead, we’re stuck with this messy, complicated legislation that doesn't actually solve anything.
It’s a pretty straightforward setup: you have two camps—smokers and non-smokers. Both groups share the same public spaces, whether it’s a local diner, a trendy bar, or an airport terminal. Their interests are fundamentally at odds. Smokers want to light up, while non-smokers just want to breathe without inhaling someone else's secondhand smoke. It’s a zero-sum game where only one side can win. For a long time, smokers held the upper hand, but the tide is finally turning.
The whole "we pay more in taxes" argument doesn't hold much water. Even if smokers contribute more through excise taxes, they end up draining more from the healthcare system because of the illnesses linked to smoking. And let's be honest, those cigarette tax dollars don't just go toward healthcare—where they actually belong—they vanish into the federal budget to fund whatever the government needs, maybe even some shiny new black Ford SUVs for high-ranking officials in D.C.
Here is my actual take on the matter: if a smoker is allowed to light a cigarette inside a restaurant, then by that same logic, a non-smoker should be allowed to set fire to a block of Styrofoam or spill some foul-smelling chemical on the floor. It pollutes the air for everyone else and puts their health at risk. It’s functionally the exact same thing as cigarette smoke.
So, that sounds all polite and civil, doesn't it? Almost like saying, "Great work, here’s a little pat on the back," instead of actually handing over real compensation—you know, actual cash, or maybe a steak dinner or something tangible. It just doesn't feel like being paid if it isn't.
I assume patients sign some kind of waiver allowing their body parts to be used for medical training, faculty exhibits, or perhaps even turned into some grotesque sculpture—or god forbid, a deli meat platter...
I once heard this story about someone tossing out the trash; apparently, a guy from a local salad bar was walking by when he saw a stray dog rooting through a garbage bag and pulling out a human hand. Just... yeah. Goosebumps.
I honestly believe there’s always a legal avenue to explore here. From what I understand, assisted suicide is perfectly legal in Switzerland. I’m sure there are other countries out there where you could move a grandmother for further "treatment" at your own expense, and if her condition is truly terminal, they would agree to withdraw life support.
Regarding what fadedtrucker19 mentioned about refusing treatment—that’s technically correct. However, that’s usually when things get messy, like when some self-appointed genius steps in claiming "he isn't competent," trying to play hero for someone who doesn't want to be saved. The real headache starts if a person is in a coma; they can't voice their wishes, accept, or refuse anything. I wonder if a statement like Jamie Clark74's would actually hold up in an American court. (By the way, Jamie Clark74, you had a typo—you wrote "dead" instead of "death." Might want to fix that if it's in the original.) The issue is that a family could show up with a lawyer demanding life support be disconnected, and if the hospital refuses, they could just file a lawsuit.
MangoAnanas Justin Fox said:A "dead" placenta gets sent off to pathology. They run some kind of check. Honestly, I’m not even sure if they make slides out of every single one anymore. If the newborn is healthy, sporting an APGAR score between 8 and 10, and hitting those standard birth weight markers... I just don't see the logic in performing a histological review on every single placenta.
We really need to double-check if the full report has actually been released yet. As for this whole routine histology thing, it strikes me as a pretty useless practice—honestly, just a massive waste of Medicare funds. Unless, of course, we’re talking about verifying whether it's even fit for purpose. If that's the case, then I'd argue the responsibility for funding that specific test should fall squarely on the user of the bed itself.
MangoAnanas Justin Fox said:I won't get bogged down in those other moral dilemmas. Honestly, if they hadn't done the research, we wouldn't have any of these medicines to rely on today. And now... well, that's where things get complicated. 🙏
MangoAnanas, I couldn't agree more. Research like this is absolutely vital, and honestly, seeing these kinds of results is nothing short of a win. No doubt about that. Whatever. There are just a few things here that don't sit right with me: Is this thing being used for actual research, or is it just some setup for mass production? I’m wondering about the specifics here. Did the woman actually gift the bedding, or was it a sale? Or was it just snatched away without any legal ground to stand on?
Research needs support, certainly, but not through this kind of lawlessness. We need systemic organization, not chaos. This practice of seizing a bed without explicit authorization feels less like science and more like a scene from a horror movie where dr. Frankenstein is raiding graves just to scavenge materials for his latest experiment. Or perhaps it’s more akin to those disturbing reports about death row inmates in China being used to supply ingredients for cosmetic products. We really shouldn't lose sight of basic human dignity.
Exactly, the umbilical cord and the placenta are two distinct things. I think the topics got a bit tangled up there. Regardless, the way things work on planet Earth is pretty clear to rustymoose54: taking a piece of someone else's body without consent is just wrong. If someone wants to wrap it up and take it home, that's their prerogative.
rustymoose54 said:The placenta isn't part of the body, Justin Fox 😁—not after the delivery, anyway.
Rustymoose, maybe we can find some middle ground here: the placenta is part of the body right up until birth, when it's expelled. At that point, it becomes a former part of the body, or rather, a biological byproduct. Think of it like blood that’s been drawn. Since it originated from a specific person, that individual should be the one to decide its fate.
I agree that in most cases—much like getting a tooth pulled—the owner would likely consent to having it disposed of as biohazardous waste, since there's no practical use for it. What bothers me is the notion that anyone other than the person the tissue came from gets a say in the matter.
When you look at stem cell blood, there is a clear utility: medical treatment. That’s why it seems perfectly reasonable that whoever wants it (and has the funds) can keep it, have it frozen, and manage it as they see fit. It is a woman's personal decision regarding her own placenta or umbilical cord; no one should be able to seize her blood or cord for some "greater good," like manufacturing cosmetics or treating others, without her explicit consent.
rustymoose54 said:Laws need to change to allow women to fund this themselves; I'm with you on that.
Bravo, rustymoose. It's rare that we actually see eye to eye. 👍
Just so you know: storing umbilical cord blood isn't even a job for hospitals or public health systems, even over in Germany. It's handled by private companies. You pay them, say, $3,000, and they professionally store or freeze the blood for you.
The hospital's only responsibility is to ensure that blood doesn't end up on the floor; they just collect it in a bag and hand it off immediately for freezing. Essentially, the public healthcare role is strictly logistical. The $3,000 is paid by whoever wants the service and has the cash to cover it.
rustymoose54 said:Like you said, they aren't keeping the whole placenta; it’s just the blood from the umbilical cord. So, using it for medical manufacturing shouldn't hurt anyone—if anything, it's actually beneficial.
I disagree. This is about principle. The placenta is part of that woman's body, which means she should have the final say in what happens to it. It’s the same logic as someone not being able to just walk in and take your blood because they need it for a "good cause." Or how nobody can just claim a deceased relative's body because an anatomy class needs it or someone needs an organ transplant. You need consent for all of that.
rustymoose54 said:In the US, storing umbilical cord blood unfortunately isn't possible; one pregnant woman tried recently but didn't have any luck.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if they actually helped her out. I mean, expecting an American hospital to show any real flexibility or compassion? Please. 😲
I’ve heard stories about folks walking into the unemployment office, putting on their best polite face, and asking nicely to be registered. Apparently, some of the clerks there—completely ignoring the actual rulebook—decided to play nice and just processed them anyway.
Can someone please explain to me why piracy is supposedly bad for America?
Here’s my take: say someone here in the States buys a legitimate copy of Windows and Office. They pay Microsoft, and the vast majority of that cash flows straight out of the US and into Microsoft's coffers. America sees absolutely nothing from it, aside from maybe a box, a disc, and some useless paperwork—likely printed in China—while a significant amount of capital just vanishes abroad.
Almost all major software vendors are foreign-owned anyway. For home users, where you can't even get decent technical support (just try getting a helpful response from Microsoft regarding an OEM Windows license at your house), it feels like we're just handing money over to foreigners. And very wealthy foreigners at that.
Sure, a portion of that money goes toward state taxes. But if the computer owner hadn't bought those specific licenses, they could have spent that money on local goods instead—maybe a solid desk or a nice ergonomic office chair. That would support local workers, who might then turn around and spend money elsewhere in the community (something Bill Gates certainly isn't going to do).
The same logic applies to all software, movies, music, and any other copyrighted material. Consuming these products is essentially importing intangible goods, which—under different regulations—could be obtained at a much lower cost. On a global scale, copyright seems to primarily benefit the US; everyone else is just an importer while the US acts as the sole exporter.
So, can someone please explain how the current copyright situation is actually beneficial for America?
Sean Hernandez5, please don't go around claiming med school is the hardest path out there. There are plenty of other gauntlets—law school, mechanical engineering, or electrical engineering, for instance. Honestly, most med students would probably hit a wall in an engineering program because their math skills just aren't up to par. Comparing the difficulty of different majors really comes down to personal preference.
In my experience, the term "doctor" often brings to mind someone who is self-important, rigid, and entirely lacking in empathy. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule.
As for society at large, I believe the single most critical thing we can do is fix our judicial system. Without a functional court system, there are no clear rules of engagement for anything else—and that includes healthcare.
I wouldn't want to let down Susan Martin24: *Spit! Spit! Spit!*
In essence, women have every right to be outraged here. He needs to be punished appropriately just to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not every doctor out there is looking for kickbacks to do their job, but this guy clearly is. I’m honestly worried the chances of a conviction are slim. We really need to tighten up the laws so he can be charged with extortion or abuse of power. Based on an abuse of office charge alone, they should strip him of his medical license at the Mayo Clinic and throw him in jail. By taking public healthcare resources and selling them off for bribes, he essentially robbed the system, harmed patients, and caused unnecessary suffering.
Scott Allen10, if you don't have any empathy for those poor souls spiraling into a terrifying psychological crisis and contemplating suicide, then you shouldn't be talking with such cold indifference—acting like "I'm the hero saving the day while they're just losers."
We're talking about people who need mental health treatment just as much as someone else might need surgery. One group is dealing with illness, the other with an injury, but both deserve help equally.
Why does the FDA approval process for the US market bother you so much? What’s next, are you going to start complaining about needing an American tourist visa just to visit Charleston?
The Dude said:In my view, the American economy just can't sustain a military force of 50,000 people or more right now. Salaries are always the biggest money pit, and as the standard of living goes up, those costs are only going to climb.
You have a point there. Right now, payroll is eating up most of the defense budget. It leaves very little breathing room to actually build patrol boats or buy tanks because you have to pay for a massive crowd of underemployed officers, bureaucrats, and other personnel who aren't exactly adding much value. On the bright side, the Department of the Interior and the US Army have actually managed to trim some of the less essential staff lately. Sure, they lost people who found better jobs elsewhere, but isn't it in the best interest of the country for our top talent to be driving the private sector rather than sitting in government administration?
The Dude said:...implement some kind of periodic mandatory training for everyone, like an intensive two-week course... Instead of having a full barracks of cooks... (adding another 150 thousand)
That sounds a bit like the Swiss model. It would certainly be more efficient in terms of bang for your buck, though in those scenarios, militaries often end up cutting training altogether—something that happened in France. The current leadership, mostly trained under the old Soviet Army mindset, can't wrap their heads around the idea of training someone for just ten days. Their concept of "training" isn't really about teaching equipment proficiency; it’s about breaking a person's spirit, which you simply can't do in ten days. Besides, in their minds, whether it's 10, 20, or 30 days, it all adds up to zero. They're just too slow to be truly efficient.