
In the rush to harvest body parts, death investigations have been upended - pseudolus
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-13/body-parts-harvesting-hinders-coroner-autopsies
======
silencio
For those of you in CA similarly disturbed by this story, a side link in this
story talks about how to put limitations on your organ donor status. I did not
know this was an option.

I don't know how helpful this will be - for example, there's an option to
restrict donations to only non-profits, but OneLegacy (from the story) is one
of the four nonprofits in CA that procure organs and runs the registry.

There's also limitations per organ/tissue option, and for research. Also for
"life-saving and reconstructive purposes" only.

[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/about/donatelife/do...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/about/donatelife/donatelife)

~~~
eth0up
+1

Good work! This is important information and I hope it stays at the top of the
comments. I'll be looking for a FL version.

Edit note: With privacy and security in mind, I'm not 100% sure how
comfortable I am with enrollment and modification ability thereof occurring
directly through the internet.

~~~
silencio
Short of saying no to heart valve/skin/bone donations, I find it unclear how
this will play out in practice though. Like, OneLegacy is a nonprofit so if I
select the nonprofit-only box, what happens? Or, how do you determine that a
heart valve donation isn't life-saving?

This is really frustrating to me, even as my dad is on a transplant waiting
list. The Donate Life page does give me an idea though: I can specify directed
donations through an advance healthcare directive. I'm pretty tempted to leave
my kidneys to my father and then find a way to explicitly donate my body to an
organization that won't leave me with as many questions as these organ
procurement nonprofits do.

~~~
the_pwner224
From the research I did as an Illinois resident: Your body is divided into
organs (heart, kidneys, liver, etc.) and tissues (skin, cornea, tendons,
etc.). Organs are the real life-saving donations and they must be transplanted
fresh within a few hours of death. Tissues like skin and bones get ground
up/processed and sold - occasionally for really great purposes like helping
burn victims or people with torn ligaments/tendons or cornea transplants, but
also for things like making penises & lips bigger. Dunno where heart valves
fit into this... maybe the entire heart is an organ but if they cut it up and
only take the valves those count as tissues?

The chart in the article with prices of body parts only lists tissues -
probably because it is illegal in the US to buy/sell organs; organs go to a
match through the central first-come-first-serve registry. It does mention
instances of organs also being harvested and the negative externalities of
that, but at least those organs had a large effect on someone else's life. The
same often can't be said about tissues.

I have taken myself off of the state's 'organ donor' list, which is actually
for both organs and tissues. IL also seems to have a harvesting racket like
CA; there are two harvesting ('procurement') organizations that have
computerized access to morgues and coroners. I'm going to find a way to
specify that I only want organs to be donated, and perhaps tissues but only to
an organization that I trust.

~~~
silencio
This is the CA donation limitation list:
[https://i.imgur.com/T6mWt3g.png](https://i.imgur.com/T6mWt3g.png)

The valves are broken out separately from the heart for purposes of donation,
and the story also discusses a case of valve harvesting causing a problem.

I'm struggling to figure out where to draw the line until I can update my
advance healthcare directive... all these tissues, as you say, can still be
valuable. I mostly just hate the lack of transparency in these relationships,
and that these organizations seem to be hiding this tissue use behind the
actual process of organ donations...

------
dreamcompiler
Call me naive but I was unaware that there were companies benefiting from
harvesting my organs. I signed up to help people in need, not to help
corporations. Especially corporations with a too-cozy relationship with the
coroner's office. I'm revoking my organ donor status until this changes.

~~~
throwaway66920
I wouldn’t overindex on this. I think this article is talking about
biorepositories, which have a fair bit of work to do in storing organs in good
condition and matching the donor data to clinical trials. More critical organs
like hearts or kidneys are probably being sent to patients without much of a
middleman

------
frankharv
The exemption for celebrities is especially troublesome. Who determines if you
are a celebrity or media interest.

What if a celebrity had an organ donor citation on their drivers license. Do
they still exempt them?

I might remove my organ donation status after reading this. It is a distortion
of what I assumed occurred.

It would have been helpful to list the states where this is allowed.
"California and many other states" is not very informative.

Harvesting body parts for profit is obscene.

~~~
bostik
> _The exemption for celebrities is especially troublesome._

When I saw that one, it became clear the companies involved in this know they
are operating on shaky ground.

There is a perfectly valid concern of rich/eccentric/stalky people paying a
lot of money to be fitted with bodyparts of their idol. I get that.

But even then the primary motivator _can only be_ pre-emptive avoidance of PR
backlash. Harvesting cadavers for big profits feels creepy enough. But just
imagine the media storm if a celebrity's family goes on national TV,
complaining how their plans for open-coffin funeral were ruined because the
national treasure's body had been taken apart and sold for very high-value
scrap. Possibly (and quite literally) even before the corpse had got cold.

Optics are important. _Checks the price of cornea._

------
eth0up
Perhaps there needs to be an additional option; eg a) Organ Donor vs b)
Science Donor, and some redefinition of the former to preclude post mortem
pecuniary feasting. Most certainly, strict policy is needed to prevent
harvesting without consent, which may be an issue more often than expected
[1].

I must say, that the utilitarian views on corpse harvesting are to me,
appalling. The thought of someone I cared profoundly for, having their form
indifferently, irreverently butchered for anything other than pure, noble
science or directly life-critical purposes is wretched, and even then... It
appears that an argument is being made that such procedures benefit some, who
even if able to survive without, are entitled and that it fills a market niche
and therefore it's perfectly fine. If a case can be made for justifying
cosmetic harvesting beyond the will of the departed, it doesn't seem
drastically more extreme to propose an industry for necrophilia or necro-
voyeurism or any other taboo having only ideological consequences. The same
reasoning could be applied, with arguments both for and against being mostly
of subjective values. I'd rather not.

I hope those who view existence and its every detail from macro to micro
exclusively through the lens of cold science and economy can pause to consider
either that some others don't, or find a suitable formulaic substitute for
empathy. Assuming ownership and control of someone's (formerly) most intimate
personal property, ie body, might not be as agreeable as you think.

1\. [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1997-nov-02-mn-49420...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1997-nov-02-mn-49420-story.html)

~~~
cheez
Then I hope you never learn of Chinese organ harvesting farms.

~~~
eth0up
I'm well aware of the issue and it isn't only China. The black market for
parts is ubiquitous and illicit organ brokers are everywhere, etc, etc. Need a
kidney? Someone knows a homeless guy pining for cash..[1]

We may not be as different from China as we prefer to think. Rather than state
sanctioned, ours will be corporately so. Social credit system is coming here
soon too.

1\. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cash-connections-can-get-a-
kidn...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cash-connections-can-get-a-kidney-in-
nyc/)

------
scarmig
I don't mind my body being ground up and used for penis plumper.

I do want my family to get a big cut of that if it's selling for a grand per
teaspoon.

~~~
snagglegaggle
Federally there are laws against profiting off of organ trade, which is
possibly why the company listed is registered as a nonprofit. You as an
individual are operating for profit and would not qualify for an exemption.

It goes deeper, too, with bodily tissue not being recognized as property for
some reason. This makes it hard to sue doctors and hospitals for misusing your
medical waste, etc.

------
hanniabu
How come you can only be an organ donor or nothing at all? Why is it not
possible for your family to sell your body? I'm positive that it would flood
the market with bodies and drive the value of your body down, but would at
least still cover funeral services.

It would be nice if you could even select what you want to donate and sell,
such as sell your skin and donate your organs.

~~~
el_cujo
I'm not saying I like this current system either, I but I could definitely see
some downsides to letting people legally sell bodies for profit. It certainly
seems chilling to me that people could have serious conversation about "what
to do with grandma" if you have to consider not only how much it costs to take
care of her, but also how much you could stand to be paid for her. It opens up
a lot of unpleasant doors, but I guess its up for debate whether anyone thinks
that's worse that what we have.

~~~
generalpass
What stops a medical provider right now from letting someone die because they
stand to profit more than if care is given to keep the patient alive?

~~~
scarmig
On top of fear of malpractice suits and general well intention of doctors and
nurses, medical providers make a lot more money from the provision of services
than from being corpse brokers.

~~~
snagglegaggle
Have you ever researched the outcome of malpractice suits? People almost never
win nowadays, usually because doctors must testify against other doctors. It
is impossible to hold them accountable and now there are usually caps on
damages.

~~~
hestipod
It's so frustrating to see people deny truths because they don't like them. I
know what you say to be true. I have experienced it and have seen many other
victims of medical malpractice experience it. Money always wins and doctors
and their insurance companies lobby for laws and establish facilities in areas
with a more friendly jury pool (higher financial classes and peers). But I
constantly hear how "people are just out for a payday" and how "easy" it is to
sue and win from people who have no idea. Medical mistakes are the THIRD
leading cause of death. They ruined my life. But every time the topic comes up
and people speak about it like you did they are downvoted, ignored, dismissed.
The same as the victims. People are just terrible so much of the time. No
empathy or ethical/moral center.

------
generalpass
> Medical examiners say among their hardest decisions is whether to allow
> companies to recover organs or tissues from bodies of children...

Why are medical examiners the ones making these decisions?

------
linuxftw
> ground-up human skin is priced at $434. That product is one of those used in
> cosmetic surgery to plump lips and posteriors, fill cellulite dimples and
> enhance penises

Disgusting.

~~~
big_chungus
Yeah, way to make people want to be organ donors. I'm willing to help someone
who's got a bad kidney, but that? No way.

There's a big difference in giving up some body parts to save someone's life
once you don't need them and getting sent to the glue factory to feed
someone's vanity.

~~~
krapht
I mean, for a lot people, I imagine there isn't a difference. I'm going to
remain an organ donor. It is said that Diogenes, when asked how he wished to
be buried, left instructions to be thrown outside the city wall so wild
animals could feast on his body. When asked if he minded this, he said, "Not
at all, as long as you provide me with a stick to chase the creatures away!"
When asked how he could use the stick since he would lack awareness, he
replied "If I lack awareness, then why should I care what happens to me when I
am dead?" At the end, Diogenes made fun of people's excessive concern with the
"proper" treatment of the dead.

~~~
xwdv
How we treat the dead has a profound effect on those that are still living.

If we just ground up your loved ones on death and turned them into fertilizer
or corn feed for cows you might have a very dim view about life.

Funerals aren’t for the dead, they are for the living.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
Actually, I think I would choose to be ground up for fertilizer if I had that
option.

~~~
sushid
There are burial options where they plant a tree (non fruit bearing) on top of
your body if you really want to opt for something like that.

~~~
waste_monk
Why not a fruit bearing tree?

Is it a prion risk or other health concern? or just people being squeamish /
worried about misuse e.g. "haha that apple you just ate was made out of my
grandpa" type thing.

------
radu_floricica
Umm... good? Didn't see anything wrong in the article. If people make money in
the process it means it everything goes smoothly.

Also, I'm pretty sure it confused costs with prices. You may pay $x for
medical grade skin prepped for the operating theatre. It doesn't mean the same
skin still attached to a dead body is worth $x. It's like going to a
restaurant and trying to pay for 1% of a cow's market value. You want to pay
that money, better be ready to kill, cut and cook a cow.

~~~
the_pwner224
When you donate blood to an organization like the American Red Cross, they
sell that blood for around $200 per bag. But, they have to hire qualified and
well-trained people and set up facilities with medical equipment to collect
your blood. From the research I've done, they don't seem to be making much
money off of your blood - it's reasonable for them to sell the blood to
hospitals, otherwise blood supplies would be extremely limited.

This does not seem the same. It seems like companies are running around
sending people to harvest as much tissue as fast as possible because they make
tons of money. Note that the picture in the article only lists prices of skin,
cornea, tendons, etc. That is probably because it is against US law to
buy/sell actual organs like a heart or a kidney. But these companies are
clearly making a profit on everything else if they're so obsessed with getting
all the tissues they can, even at the cost of murder investigations.

The Red Cross marketing team calls me to get me to try to sign up for more
blood donations. But they don't lobby the government for laws that hook them
into the coroners and morgues so they can harvest all the blood the second
that someone dies.

------
rdtwo
You body is worth a lot of money to your estate. By donating it someone in the
medical industry gets to steal that money from your family then profit
handsomely from it. That’s why I choose no for organ donation, the whole
industry is corrupt and I don’t want to support it, even if it means that some
unfortunate sick person is unable to buy my donated kidney for 50-100k in
processing fees.

~~~
synt4x1k0
What a terrifyingly capitalistic view.

~~~
xwdv
What’s terrifying about it? That it shatters your previous understanding of
the industry or that it implies some medical dystopia?

Would you prefer to instead called it a terrifyingly rational view?

~~~
nicoburns
Here in the UK healthcare is seen as a right. Hospitals and recipients of
organs don't pay for them, and nobody is making money off of donated bodies.

The idea that access to life-saving treatment is based on ability to pay, and
that there are corporations making profit at the expense of people's health
and well-being is pretty terrifying to me. There's nothing rational about such
a system.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Ability to pay dictates all aspects of life. Whether the individual pays or
their country, at the end, no one works for free.

That is why poor people in poorer countries than the U.K. don’t have access to
life saving treatments. I’m sure even poor people in the U.K. don’t have
access to the same care that rich people do.

~~~
nicoburns
> Ability to pay dictates all aspects of life.

Only under capitalism. That's precisely why this is terrifyingly capitalistic.
Societies ability to _produce_ dictates all aspects of life. But not
necessarily ability to pay.

> I’m sure even poor people in the U.K. don’t have access to the same care
> that rich people do

Not if you're really rich (a millionaire). But even rich people in the UK will
usually go for the NHS first. The care's pretty good.

~~~
xwdv
All aspects of life are ultimately dictated by something. If not by the
ability to pay, then it will be by other things out of your control or your
ability to curry favor with those who can get you what you want.

I’d prefer it just be dictated by pay and skip the bullshit.

------
aperrien
That was a disturbing read.

I'm wondering how they would handle the bodies of those who have signed up for
cryonics... Is there even a way to notify these companies that someone has
signed up for that?

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/tdZfF](http://archive.is/tdZfF)

------
scarejunba
Thanks. I've opted out of organ donation and I'm informing everyone I know to
do the same.

~~~
hestipod
I will not likely be around much longer and there seems to be no way to ensure
my remains are used for good or just flushed and not lining someone's pocket.
You cannot even just be disposed of...you have to pay four figures at least
just for a simple cremation where someone profits from just burning you up. I
cannot even escape capitalism's nonsense in death. I had my end of life
documents made up not long ago and had noted scientific donation as my
preference, but after this article and looking into it more, I don't want some
greedy jerkwad selling my bits. My life was ruined by greed and people
choosing profits over life...and I hate the idea of those same sort of people
"winning" in my death.

