Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.
Anon @ 16.12: I'm anon at 10.03.
You make a fair point. One distinction is that people choose to work as a registrar or provide B&B services, whereas you or your family do not get to choose whether the coroners system is involved following your death.
I think I saw those 2 examples as actively discriminating against a "protected class" - i.e. a balancing exercise against competing rights in areas society and the law have recognised need specific protection. As above, it is also people who have chosen to place themselves in a position where their religious views come into conflict.
I appreciate I am swimming against the tide of other commentators, but I see the order in which a Coroner makes decisions about release of a body as different. The issue seems to be more about resources or speed, not a balancing exercise involving irreconcilable positions.
Even as a staunch atheist, I accept that deeply held religious views as to speed of burial are a relevant factor to take into account (though obviously not the only factor). To say that, as a matter of principle, religious views can't be taken into account seems to ignore Art 9 ECHR .
I would however want to emphasise that the main reason for my view is based on an understanding that most coroners are able to manage this balancing exercise without significantly affecting other families. If the reality is that decisions about release of the body are actually delaying other burials, as suggested by Timothy Nunns, my view would rapidly change.
One of the options put forward in the JR was for families to indicate when they anticipated burial to take place. This is similar to Prof Yaffle's suggestion and seems at least one possible solution to me.
Copyright © 2019 The Law Society
Site powered by Webvision Cloud