It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death Tax charged for Baby

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Title




SEATTLE -- Olivia Clark lived for only one hour. Doctors didn't even expect her to survive birth. Now her family has a hard time understanding why the King County Medical Examiner has to review her death and charge $50.


I am not very sorry for what I am about to say...


I would be telling the county where to go and refuse to pay...

If it goes to court, demand jury trial...

I have been there, but never have I heard of such heartless garbage from guvmint..

their excuse




"The reason we do that is to make sure no one goes to the crematorium or to their grave without society and the family knowing exactly how their loved one died," says Gareth Johnson, King County Prevention Division Manager.


you decide ATS...

(bamstomper found but cant post yet)




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


Their excuse sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I know if my child died, after carrying him for nine months, I would like to know the cause of death.
edit on 11-1-2011 by alittleironic because: typo



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by alittleironic
 


on this one Ill plead ignorance... I am find the subtle differences in states apply here... I thought it was done at the hospital for all children...

But to bill the parents ... I went through it and never did I ever see this garbage...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alittleironic
 


They know the cause of death:



Her grandparents say Olivia was polycystic and, as a result, her lungs never developed.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
That is just rediculous, there is no excuse for that, they should tell them to take thier bill and go pound sand.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I was offend by what the county did. I feel the county violated the families constitutional rights. The family wasn't ask but forced to pay for a service the did not want. What about people's religious/personal views that are against autopsy? This all could have been avoided by a little yes or no box.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


Death is a business, as is everything else... The far more important thing to focus on (IMHO) is this:


"With Olivia, there was so much love in that room and we knew it was going to be such a short time," says her grandmother, Diana Clark. "That was probably the most joyous hour that I've experienced."



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
What I am about to say will seem extremely cold hearted to some, to others it will make sense. What would the father and mother have been charged if the child had lived? You know, I look around every day and see things I do not wish to see. And this is one of them. Their child did not survive. And yet these people wish to charge them a price anyways? A price for what? They already know the problem. And yet they wish to charge them an amount of currancy that could be better spent on the burial of their beloved child. A child that will never know the warmth of our sun, or the bueaty that our planet has to offer. Why add to their grief? Is it not enough that thay lost a child? My thoughts on this are so out-raged that I can not continue with what I would really love to say. To the father and the mother, I shall keep you in my prayers.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by krakencampbell
 


I can't even begin to imagine what it is like to lose a child. I can say that things like this will make the grieving process even harder for this family.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BAMstomper
 


reply to post by BAMstomper
 





I was offend by what the county did. I feel the county violated the families constitutional rights. The family wasn't ask but forced to pay for a service the did not want. What about people's religious/personal views that are against autopsy? This all could have been avoided by a little yes or no box.


I don't think I agree with the $50 charge either, I mean I suppose someone has to pay for it, but I think it should come from a general pool for such purposes, not designed to get in the faces of grieving parents when they get their funeral bill.

But where in heaven's sake did you read anything into this that had anything to do religious views on the matter. The insensitive thing about this is the bill to the parents, clearly labeled as a death tax, not the review process itself.

The line item should have been labeled something else, something simple like 'Coroner's Fee' would be much more innocuous, and even more accurate.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I was implying a "what if" scenario. For example What if some one had a religious view of some sort that did not permit an autopsy? Some cultures are strict in rituals the perform on their dead. An autopsy might be seen in those people's eye as desecrating the body not allowing for the soul to got to other side. I wasn't referring to the family in this story.I apologize. I will take more care in my wording of my post.

Relabeling it doesn't change the fact the people are forced to pay for a service rendered they may or may not wish to purchase. Which is against their constitutional rights as Americans.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join