Water cremation and human composting could be offered instead of traditional funerals
Water cremation and human composting could soon be offered as an alternative to traditional funerals.
A Law Commission consultation is proposing legal approval of new methods beyond burial, cremation, and the rarely used burial at sea.
The paper published earlier this week highlights two methods used in other countries - alkaline hydrolysis and human composting.
Alkaline hydrolysis - also known as water cremation or resomation - involves placing a person's body into woollen shroud or other organic pouch, using water, alkaline chemicals, heat and pressure to break down the tissue.
The resulting liquid is checked and treated if necessary to enter the wastewater system, while remaining pieces of bone and teeth are dried and can be ground to a powder and scattered like ashes.
Water cremation, which mimics the process of natural decomposition when someone is buried, takes between four and 14 hours.
The method, which has been suggested as a greener alternative to traditional cremation, was used for the bodies of five dead people in 2019, as part of a study facilitated by Middlesex and Sheffield universities.
Anti-apartheid campaigner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who died in 2021, chose resomation for his own funeral in South Africa.
Co-op Funeralcare said it hoped to offer the service in the UK in 2023 but backed out because of the current regulations.
The firm welcomed the Law Commission review, which will run until spring next year, ending in a final report and draft Bill.
New funerary methods are not currently regulated, other than by more general legislation such as environmental and planning laws.
Provisional proposals suggest a legal framework to enable new methods to be regulated in the future.
A Co-op Funeralcare spokesperson said: "At Co-op Funeralcare, we are committed to serving the needs of our member-owners and clients and offering the most sustainable and affordable services.
"In 2023, we announced our ambition to pilot resomation in the UK, and we subsequently worked closely with government to explore the regulatory requirements to introduce this service across the nation.
"However, we did not proceed with this as, at the time, we were unable to find a path through the current regulatory framework.
"We welcome the Law Commission's review and encourage exploration into alternative methods that provide consumers with greater choice and deliver environmental benefits."
The consultation paper also highlights human composting, where a body is placed into a sealed chamber, or vessel, with carbon-rich organic matter, such as straw and wood chips, to enable quicker decomposition.
The process takes around two to three months and resulting soil can be returned to bereaved loved ones.
Other methods involving the freezing of human remains have also been suggested, although none have them are yet viable, according to the paper.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Midwife struck off over claim vaccines ‘attacked babies in the womb'
A midwife has been removed from the register after she shared posts on social media claiming that vaccinations harm babies in the womb. Seana Mary Kerr, from Newry in Northern Ireland, also told a pregnant woman in a shop that she should not be wearing a face mask during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) tribunal panel. Ms Kerr, who had been a registered midwife since 2007, was found by a panel to have placed the woman at 'significant risk of harm' with her views, while she had 'risked seriously undermining the public confidence' in her profession at a crucial time with her posts. In the first of three social media posts in September 2020, Ms Kerr said that babies were being attacked in the womb through vaccination of mothers during pregnancy. Then, in March 2021, she claimed healthcare professionals were being 'complicit' in the national response to Covid-19, and that the health crisis was 'a Trojan horse intend[ed] to introduce a new era for humanity'. A further post in December that year made reference to how a group of people, described as 'they', had been 'planting the seeds' about Covid-19 over Christmas 2020 by referring to 'some bat in China'. Ms Kerr's advice and social media comments were given when she had identified herself as a midwife and was 'promoting her opinion on matters of clinical importance', the panel found. 'The panel considered that the actions of Ms Kerr took place during an exceptionally unusual time, where the entirety of the NHS was mobilised to protect the public from the international Covid-19 pandemic,' they said. 'Therefore, by expressing the view that other healthcare professionals, who Ms Kerr was working with in the Trust, were acting in ways which may cause harm, a view Ms Kerr held which was against the recognised guidance at the time, Ms Kerr risked seriously undermining the public confidence in the profession. 'It further noted that by making these accusations that Ms Kerr's colleagues may have suffered harm while working in an unprecedented and challenging situation.' The midwife approached the pregnant woman in the shop, which was her place of work, during the other allegation in question in August 2020. She identified herself as a midwife before advising the woman that she should not be wearing the face mask as it reduced the amount of oxygen her baby was receiving. Ms Kerr went on to tell the woman that she should not receive a flu vaccination as this would increase the risk of her baby being stillborn. The panel found the pregnant woman and her family were caused 'significant emotional harm' as a result of Ms Kerr's behaviour. 'The panel noted that it is a reasonable expectation of everyone working in a public environment, such as a shop, that they will not be approached and given personal, clinical advice and that such advice would normally only be given during a private clinical appointment or at an antenatal class,' they said. 'Therefore, by approaching Patient A in her place of work, outside a clinical relationship, unsolicited, Ms Kerr placed her at significant risk of harm.' The panel found Ms Kerr's fitness to practise was still impaired and that there was a risk of the individual repeating her behaviour. Ms Kerr did not show any remorse for her misconduct or demonstrate any insight into her previous actions, and had not engaged with the NMC since June 2022, the panel said. It made an order to strike Ms Kerr's name from the register, after a 12-month suspension order had previously been imposed last year.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Midwife struck off after claiming vaccines ‘attacked babies' on social media
A midwife has been struck off the register after posting claims on social media that vaccinations attacked babies while in their mother's womb during pregnancy. Seana Mary Kerr, of Newry, Northern Ireland, also told a pregnant woman in a shop that she should not be wearing a face mask during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) tribunal panel judgment. Ms Kerr, who had been a registered midwife since 2007, was found by a panel to have placed the woman at 'significant risk of harm' with her views, while she had 'risked seriously undermining the public confidence' in her profession at a crucial time with her posts. In the first of three social media posts in September 2020, Ms Kerr said that babies were being attacked in the womb through vaccination of mothers during pregnancy. Then, in March 2021, she claimed healthcare professionals were being 'complicit' in the national response to Covid-19, and that the health crisis was 'a Trojan horse intend[ed] to introduce a new era for humanity'. A further post in December that year made reference to how a group of people, described as 'they', had been 'planting the seeds' about Covid-19 over Christmas 2020 by referring to 'some bat in China'. Ms Kerr's advice and social media comments were given when she had identified herself as a midwife and was 'promoting her opinion on matters of clinical importance', the panel found. 'The panel considered that the actions of Ms Kerr took place during an exceptionally unusual time, where the entirety of the NHS was mobilised to protect the public from the international Covid-19 pandemic,' they said. 'Therefore, by expressing the view that other healthcare professionals, who Ms Kerr was working with in the Trust, were acting in ways which may cause harm, a view Ms Kerr held which was against the recognised guidance at the time, Ms Kerr risked seriously undermining the public confidence in the profession. 'It further noted that by making these accusations that Ms Kerr's colleagues may have suffered harm while working in an unprecedented and challenging situation.' The midwife approached the pregnant woman in the shop, which was her place of work, during the other allegation in question in August 2020. She identified herself as a midwife before advising the woman that she should not be wearing the face mask as it reduced the amount of oxygen her baby was receiving. Ms Kerr went on to tell the woman that she should not receive a flu vaccination as this would increase the risk of her baby being stillborn. The panel found the pregnant woman and her family were caused 'significant emotional harm' as a result of Ms Kerr's behaviour. 'The panel noted that it is a reasonable expectation of everyone working in a public environment, such as a shop, that they will not be approached and given personal, clinical advice and that such advice would normally only be given during a private clinical appointment or at an antenatal class,' they said. 'Therefore, by approaching Patient A in her place of work, outside a clinical relationship, unsolicited, Ms Kerr placed her at significant risk of harm.' The panel found Ms Kerr's fitness to practise was still impaired and that there was a risk of the individual repeating her behaviour. Ms Kerr did not show any remorse for her misconduct or demonstrate any insight into her previous actions, and had not engaged with the NMC since June 2022, the panel said. It made an order to strike Ms Kerr's name from the register, after a 12-month suspension order had previously been imposed last year.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Top public health experts in England say more doctor strikes would be futile
Six senior figures in England's medical profession have criticised potential strikes by resident doctors as 'a futile gesture' that will harm patients and help those who oppose the NHS. The move is the first public evidence of the significant unease many senior doctors feel about the possibility of their junior colleagues staging a new campaign of industrial action in England. In a letter to the Guardian the six medics and former medics say resident – formerly junior – doctors' demand for a 29% pay rise is unaffordable, given the government has 'no spare money'. The signatories include Sir John Oldham, a health adviser to several governments, Dr Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College of GPs who also served on the BMA's ruling council, and the public health expert Prof John Ashton. Their letter comes as the British Medical Association (BMA) ballots resident doctors in England about striking again, as they did in 2023 and 2024. The co-chairs of the BMA's resident doctors committee (RDC) have urged their estimated 55,000 members to vote for the action. The six experts say there was a genuine case for resident doctors to receive a big salary increase after years of erosion in the value of their pay, but that it had largely been addressed by the 22% they received last year for 2023/24 and 2024/25 and the average 5.4% they were given last month for 2025/26. They also say the RDC leaders' call for resident doctors to back a fresh six-month campaign of walkouts is mistaken. 'A strike now would harm patients and diminish the cause of these doctors. The calls for strike misjudge the mood in the country. There is no spare money. This is a futile gesture guiding people into a maze without a thread', they write in their letter. 'In our view the NHS is at a more perilous state than at any time in our careers. A doctors strike would further diminish the ability of the NHS to deliver, and play into the hands of those who don't believe in an NHS – publicly funded [and] based on need not want. 'We urge resident doctors to keep to the spirit of the Hippocratic oath – vote for the NHS and vote No to strike action.' The other signatories are David Colin-Thome, the Department of Health's national clinical director for primary care under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown; Dr James Kingsland, a GP and former ministerial adviser; and Dr Fiona Cornish, a senior GP in Cambridge and former member of the BMA's GP committee. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, appointed Oldham, who worked for the previous Labour and coalition governments, as a senior adviser in March on his plans to create more 'neighbourhood health' services as part of the government's forthcoming 10-year plan for the NHS. Responding to the letter, Streeting urged resident doctors to reject industrial action in their ballot, which ends on 7 July. 'Strikes should only ever be a last resort. Resident doctors have had a 28.9% pay rise [since 2022/23], and they have a government working with them to improve their career progression and conditions. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'I say to the BMA: the government has changed, our policies have changed, your tactics need to change too. Instead of cutting the NHS recovery off at its knees, work with us to turn the health service around', he said. However, RDC co-chairs Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt, said this year's 5.4% pay award – the biggest in the public sector – was too little to help them restore the lost value of their earnings since 2008. 'Resident doctors are currently paid 23% less than they were in 2008. Even after this year's pay award it would still need a rise of 26% to bring pay back to that level. 'We don't believe any of the doctors in this letter are worth 23% less than they were in 2008, and neither presumably do they. The question, then, is how we restore the value of this profession, how quickly, and how we work with government to get there. 'At the rate Wes Streeting is suggesting it would take more than a decade to restore our pay. The NHS does not have that time,' they said.
