Sure It sounds fine, but at what price would you pay (money your family won't get) to have this done? If it cost more than direct cremation, would you do it?
Direct cremation at the cheapest $1000-2000 from what i can tell. My googling showed a cost of between $3000-7000 for this service. Personally i think any money spent on getting rid of my body, is wasted money. Put me in a dumpster and take me to the landfill. Also i don't have family that get all weird about death and funerals, etc. so that potential feel good benefit for the living would not be a thing

I'm guessing there is a nice profit to be made for companies that provide such a service, and probably enough people who would feel better having the deceased in their life done away with in this way. If you have the bank and it makes someone feel better than it seems reasonable. Personally i want none of it.

Being in the death business I wash my hands a lot to the point where it's hard to separate two sheets of paper or handle cardboard boxes due to having no oils to grip with. It's not like I can just swipe some saliva off my tongue. I do wear rubber gloves when handling the deceased but not everything is sanitized such as door knobs and surfaces where you would not normally use gloves. I always use rubber gloves to pick my nose though.

I often go to nursing homes, hospices and peoples homes to do body removals. One thing that always tugs at my heart is to see the deceased with nearly freshly painted fingernails and toenails.

I look at the end of this video with this woman wearing handcuffs and I see her red fingernails and wonder who painted them for her.

It can be kinda challenging getting rings off the deceased but I haven't failed yet. Thin necklaces with the really small clasps are tough to unlock when you're wearing rubber gloves with well trimmed fingernails.

I entertained the thought of drawing a smile on my mask. I decided it would probably look "insensitive" as I wheeled a family's deceased loved one out the door on a gurney.

----------------------------

Best removal I ever did:

Loaded the deceased into my vehicle as the family of about 6 adults watched. Just before I pulled away one family member knocked on my window and he told me they were all going to salute as I pulled away and I didn't need to stop.

I thought that was pretty cool.

As I was leaving I looked in the rear view mirror and the whole family was flipping the bird high in the air. It was a beautiful send off.

I felt as though I was among my own kind. Brought a tear to my eye.

Yeah, in my business that phrase doesn't work, for the family or the deceased.

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

I pick up people everyday that had the same hope you do.

Don't worry. I don't know where you live.

EDIT: I just realized how this comment may be homicidal sounding for those of you just tuning in. I'm not riding around picking up people to become "Serial Killer of the Year." The people I pick up are already deceased. Just wanted to clear that up.

I don't travel TO work. I'm AT work 24 hrs. a day, 6 days week. I'm getting paid right now to reply to you. Someone would literally have to die to pull me away from replying to you right now. (not a compliment, just fact)

Then I will travel to the scene, pick up the deceased and take it just shy of its "final destination."

If I should happen to get pulled over for going 10 mph over the speed limit, the officer would gladly let me go or give me a police escort depending on the situation.

It is my job and a privilege to do my job which includes driving. As I stated earlier, it is also my right to travel as a licensed driver.

I also have verifiable proof of my pristine driving record.

Post my bail. I'm not falling that old trick again.

Normally I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks, even those couched as opinion........


....... but imo Bob really went trolling hard, begging for attacks this time. Personally I have a real hard time asking people to remain civil and restrained in the face of such a disgustingly provocative zealator* who's being disrespectfully vile to a recently deceased, not yet buried American hero (one I rarely agreed with but almost always respected).

That said, it's better if we don't dig holes to get down to his level of discourse and thinking.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

*a zealous defender or supporter, one who zealously furthers the cause...

Mostly the trouble depends on where you work and how publicly you make your statement. I'd mostly get called a racist, but working for a partially publicly funded place if I was vocal enough losing your job or being told to apologise and be quiet are real possibilities.

The not allowed to talk about it applies much more heavily to anyone in the media. A recent example would be an aboriginal man that was recently shot by a white farmer. The narrative on the national CBC media made a big deal about rampant racism in the region against aboriginals. In their coverage of local opinion it was even more one sided, as they described two sides, the grieving family of the deceased and their supporters, and then the racists who sided with the farmer because they hated aboriginal people. They very slowly, reluctantly and buried deep under a lot of disclaimers released more information on the case.

The young man that was killed was in a truck with 4 of his friends, and their story was that they got a flat tire and pulled into the yard to seek help with repairs. The CBC ran that much right away. They were much more reluctant to include that the RCMP had been called BEFORE the truck got onto that farm because they had been trying to steal a truck from a neighbouring farm already beforehand. It wasn't until during the trial that even more came out, and CBC again reluctantly included details from the friends that where with the victim. All the occupants of the vehicle had been drinking very heavily all afternoon. They admitted to 'checking cars' at the earlier neighbouring farm. They admitted to using the butt end of a rifle to try and break the windows of the truck at the neighbouring farm, but the stock broke off the gun. It was found at the neighbouring farm by police. Upon arriving at the final farm, they admitted trying to start up an ATV and going through and unlocked vehicle there as well, but disagreed on who was doing which. The trial even included text messages from the night before wondering if one of the friends would be able to "go on missions" tomorrow because they were hiding from police after a liquor store robbery. The farmer also mentioned being scared about what could happen the day of the shooting because he thought back to a story he'd been told about 2 farmers being killed on their yards a few years before he'd moved into the area. Only 1 media outlet in the country, and in 1 article checked out that the identity of one of those killers back then turned out to be the victims uncle. I had to go back looking for the original article from when those murders took place to be sure that the current news article wasn't just sensationalising things.

Now of course none of that means you want to see somebody getting killed over property theft. None of that means racism in any way shape or form is justified. However, when there was a rampant run of rural crime across the area and farmers were getting more and more fed up and nervous about their safety something bad was eventually going to happen. It's a tragedy, but our media was absolutely terrified of covering the full story because listing the facts I just laid out is considered racist. Your blaming the victim. My listing of the above facts is not supposed to be done without including many times more explanations and reasons that this was the white man's fault.

Ultimately, the absolute failure to talk openly about things in Canada is getting people killed. We absolutely need to be clear that stealing doesn't deserve a death penalty. We ALSO need to tell a group of young adults that were going farm to farm, with a loaded rifle, raging drunk, stealing and breaking into vehicles that doing that was a BAD idea and one of the reasons is that doing so might get you shot by someone that doesn't know if your going to hurt them or not. I really believe if the kids had been white that would have been the narrative, but because of race it wasn't. It just makes things worse and inspires more risky and dangerous decisions from people in the future and more people will continue to get hurt.

Ha!
Yeah...if I was more creative and less lazy, I would put together a newt in a Dutch boy paint outfit or something.
What I use is my sweet (now deceased) golden retriever/lab puppy getting blown back by my neighbor's huge dog's hurricane bark.
Maybe someday I'll get off my ass and change it.

Yeah, you don't have to die, just ruin your chances to pass on your (faulty) genetic code.

" The prime tenet of the Darwin Awards is that we are celebrating the self-removal of incompetent genetic material from the human race. Therefore, the potential winner must be deceased, or at least incapable of reproducing. The traditional method is death. However, an occasional rebel opts for sterilization, which allows her more time to enjoy the dubious notoriety of winning a Darwin Award. " - Darwin Awards, rules.

You don't have well thought out opinions. Your examples are very poor.

Failing to avoid getting hit by a car as a pedestrian may or may not be the pedestrian's fault. I could give you literally thousands of examples where it is not the pedestrian's fault (and I bet the statistics show this to be true the majority of the time) but I'll let you Google them yourself.

I sure as hell hope you're a spring chicken because if someone veers off the road at a high enough speed directed at you, you're going to have a hard time getting out of the way.

BTW, I'll let my mates who are still paramedics know to tell any pedestrians injured by cars (or family thereof for the deceased ones) that it was their fault, even when it wasn't.

This one is just for you:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/live-pedestrians-hit-gunshots-heard-in-melbourne-cbd-20170120-gtvf3x.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-cbd-horror-four-dead-bourke-street-mall-closed-as-city-reels-after-car-mows-down-pedestrians-20170120-gtvx
3c.html

It was still a bit of distraction while watching the movie. But I feel like the technology is nearly there in recapturing the likeness of a deceased actor.