Index Home About Blog
From: B. Harris)
Subject: Re: - A Startling Statistic
Date: 13 Feb 2000 20:17:29 GMT

In <885n21$84d$> "Wayne" <> writes:

> "Wayne" <> wrote:
>The connection is that the government dissectionists use the excuse
>that they are catching murderers, but in fact 80% of the people they
>dissect were not murdered, and I suspect that they know that most of
>the time before they start cutting.

   Many autopsies are done at family request. They are carring the same
genes, and want to know what the problem was.  Others are done in the
pursuit of malpractise cases.  I'm sure you object to those.

   Of the rest, not all are murdered, but it is the autopsy that tells
for sure.  So many of the natural deaths count in this category.  What
you "know" and what you can prove to a jury with quantitative data and
pictures, and two quite different things.

   You never answered me about what you think is going to happen to
your body over the next century in your crypt.  Think a little Ban
deodorant will fix you up?  Except for being dead, you'll look like
you're ready to get up and boogie?

From: (Jonathan R. Fox)
Subject: Re: - A Startling Statistic
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:28:53 GMT

On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:41:12 -0500, "Wayne" <>
>7% chance of that since it includes the foul play that might of killed
>someone riding in the back seat of a car in a fatal crash,  or collapsed on
>the sidewalk without a mark on them, etc.  You guys just love butchering
>innocent people who don't want to be butchered, and you hate being critized
>for that, or anything else.  Add other 10% dissected in hospitals without
>getting enough info to make a fully informed decision.

Funny you should mention this, since the truth is we don't do ENOUGH
autopsies.  Various reasons include prohibitive costs, less
appreciation of the value of autopsies, and, according to some,
physicians would rather not discover something that could increase
their liability.

Jonathan R. Fox, M.D.

Index Home About Blog