In message <000601c7eb18$b2ab1f10$2101a8c0@STUDY>, Trefor Roscoe
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Thank you Harry.
>
>So that confirms that the new system being proposed for all deaths
>with a medical examiner looking into the death and speaking to the
>doctors who have attended, the relatives and any nursing staff
>involved if appropriate will have to be available 24hours, or at least be
>around weekends and bank holidays.
Presumably failure to provide this service to those with a religious
need for burial within 24 hrs would constitute religious discrimination?
Who would be liable? And would the liability be limited to the people
who had responsibility for ensuring that the death certificate was
processed promptly (the medical referee et al) or would those who had
been caring for the deceased also be liable, if the medical referee was
unable to interview them?
Mary H
>
>I will feed that back via GPC
>
>Trefor
>From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr Harry
>Brown
>Sent: 30 August 2007 15:11
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Does any religion object to signing cremation
>certificates? (GMC consultation)
>
>For people for religious reasons who need to buried within 24 hours
>of death, the registrar of births and deaths offers an emergency
>service for registration of death out of hours-no one is allowed to be
>buried without the paperwork from the registrar of births and deaths.
>If it is a coroners case then there is no short cut unless at the
>discretion of the coroner
>
>Hope that helps
>
>Harry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Trefor Roscoe
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Does any religion object to signing cremation
> certificates? (GMC consultation)
>
> More importantly about the GMC proposals, if it applies to all
> deaths, there
> will have to be on call medical referees available at Bank Holiday
> weekends
> to get the GP to go into the surgery to unlock the notes so those
> whose
> religion expects burial within 24 hours can have their wishes
> adhered to.
>
> Actually, what happens to devout Jews and Moslems who die after
> 5 on a
> Friday, is the death registered after the burial????
>
> Trefor
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary
> Hawking
> Sent: 29 August 2007 22:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Does any religion object to signing cremation
> certificates?
> (GMC consultation)
>
> Sorry, I started this thread - and the question was about GPC
> consultation.
> Among other things it stated that doctors should not refuse to sign
> cremation forms because of their own religious or personal
> objections to
> cremation.
> The question was whether there were any religions who had
> religious
> objections to cremation to the extent that they would refuse to sign
> cremation certificates for those who did not share their own
> beliefs.
> I could understand the moral issues raised by abortion - but
> cremation?
> Yet the GMC seemed to think that this was a serious problem of
> conscience
> for some doctors.
> The discussion on this list has been interesting and enlightening -
> but
> hasn't answered the question which was:-
> *Is* there a serious problem of principle and conscience for
> doctors in any
> religion in signing cremation certificates for those who do not
> share their
> beliefs? If so, which religion? And if not, why was it raised in the
> GMC
> consultation document?
>
> So far, the responses seem to indicate that although there may be
> objections
> within some religions or subsets of those religions to cremation
> for
> themselves these are not so overwhelming that they would refuse
> to sign them
> for relatives of deceased patients requesting cremation.
>
> Why is the GMC concerned? I can only assume that somewhere,
> some time, some
> doctor has refused to sign a part B (the own doctor bit) on
> religious or
> conscience grounds.
>
> Does anyone know whether this is true?
>
> Mary Hawking
>
>
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dr Peter von Kaehne
> <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >That makes sense. Having said this I find it odd that a totally
> private
> >matter, neither contractual nor statutory duty, is suddenly
> elevated to
> >this status. Particularly when there is significant disquiet about
> the
> >form as such (lnot the matter of cremation) and a fair number of
> people
> >been on record that the profession could simply cease to provide
> this
> >form until matters are finally improved. Is this pre-emptive? Will
> >there come a time when filling in of part C is also obligatory?
> >
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >Declan Fox wrote:
> >
> >> I can't remember, exactly. But I think it was me reading the
> proposed
> >> GMC guidance and the forms and thinking that if I could not
> give the
> >> right answers to allow cremation then that would mean that
> there was
> >> something _possibly_ suspicious about the death and
> someone would
> >> have to inform the coroner.
> >> Burying the deceased does not seem to be considered a
> suitable option
> >> by those who have made up their minds to have him/her
> cremated and it
> >> seems to me that the GMC is taking that line too---ie if the family
> >> want a cremation then the doctor _has_ to oblige and his only
> excuse
> >> for _not_ obliging is if he is unable to give the death a clean bill,
> >> as it were. In which case, in these post-Shipman days, that
> means
> >> calling the coroner.
> >>
> >> Declan
> >>
> >>
> >> <<<I still struggle ot understand why lack of crem form should
> lead
> >> to a coroner referral.
> >>
> >> I always thought if a crem form can not be signed the body will
> be
> >> enterred and that is the end of it.
> >>
> >> How did the coroner come into it?>>>
> >
> >
> >**********************************************************************
> >This message may contain confidential and privileged
> information.
> >If you are not the intended recipient please accept our
> apologies.
> >Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this
> e-mail
> >or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly
> >prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this
> message has
> >gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your
> co-operation.
> >
> >NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a
> million
> >messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why
> more and
> >more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for
> Health
> >system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail
> >**********************************************************************
> >
>
> --
> Mary Hawking
--
Mary Hawking
|
