Magnifisyncopathological

I feel your pain. Well, not quite but I do understand how the least significant regulations tend to be the most irritating.

Perhaps your calcium deposit once removed qualifies as medical waste. If so, because you are having the hospital and its agents remove it, they, as generators of medical waste must dispose of it under Texas law. In the 90s several companies and individuals that transported medical waste made the news when lots of it turned up in trailers and other improper even residential locations vs. making it to disposal sites. The hospitals in those cases were somewhat upset because they had paid to get rid of it as required under law and as always sensational stories can make bad law and overbearing regulation. Proper disposal sites are where such waste is burned, zapped and handled to prevent disease etc - (In one case reports were that over 60,000 lbs ended up in three locations across the state in trailers ie sans the 18 wheeler cab. The state had to go in and get it disposed of in clean-up actions but hopefully recouped some of that cost down the road. In that case, the company was cited for violating administrative health and safety code violations and later convicted of federal fraud related record tampering charges and prosecuted under state law for securing documents, specifically checks by deception, specifically by telling the generators, ie hospital via written and verbal representations that the waste had been properly disposed of when facts alleged it was not...it was in those trailers) ......You may want to check out the state environmental agency to see what you think, but I think you ran into medical waste disposal laws and regs. Sorry Charles but I am kinda glad you did. I kinda think you should have to get rid of your funky bodily deposits properly if you want to have the hospital do it for you - otherwise cut it out yourself and keep it in a jar at home etc/whatever in your space! PS if you do that - wash your hands first - folks don't do enough of that to prevent spread of disease or to protect against infection.

Search for 'Generating' (pick your verb) or just enter 'Medical Waste' - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - www.tceq.state.tx.us

www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/registration/medical_waste/mw_generation.html

See Medical Waste: Am I Regulated? - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - www.tceq.state.tx.us
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/registration/medical_waste/mw_amIregulated.html

Thanks for the pointer and the explanation, Mrs. Douglass. I figured it had to be lurking around in a legal text somewhere.

On the other hand, I find your argument seriously lacking. The tissue is literally of me; it is mine in every aspect. My right to decide its fate is based on the grounds of self-ownership. I was willing to pay extra for the additional hospital resources to capture it and preserve it. Such an arrangement is the business of only myself and the medical team, possibly my insurer.

To state that I should only have two choices is absurd. Why? The first coerces the hospital to dispose of wanted waste "properly." The second I cannot do because the state says I can't be allowed to possess surgical-strength painkillers, post-op antibiotics, let alone conduct a medical operation without a license!

While I reject the premise that the government has a rightful say in my health, I also reject the idea that in this specific case my "waste" posed a threat to anyone. If I could find docs that agreed, I would have insisted upon a strong, sealed, and transparent container of some sort; going home with a tiny piece of quasi-bone loose in my pocket was not my intention. I can think of a spectrum of strong, sealed, and transparent containers that would fit this task well. At that point, the only health risk would have been limited to those who deliberately opened the container (or one that I ended up using) or came across it broken or unsealed. In such a scenario, the problem would be between myself and those exposed...and this still assumes that the contents would be biologically harmful at that point in time which might be years down the road.

No, there is no justification for this requirement other than ham-handed government health nannyism. Other cases might involve greater quantities of and more biologically problematic tissues, but I still think the patient has the right to demand those tissues be preserved for the patient's later possession. The degree of the problem does not negate the principle in effect.

Furthermore, my business with the hospital doesn't provide an opening for other parties (such as the state government) to tell the hospital what to do. A hospital that wants to remain reputable and desirable from a patient's and community's viewpoint is not likely to neglect the problem of medical waste.

Softbal for you - a late xmas present so you can get into form for 2006. Looking good, Charles,sounding good. I usually don't agree with you but I'd say we end up at the same position about 51% of the time. Have that anti-government pro-individual choice kind of year you dream about. Again, please wash your hands after hanling any medical or other category of solid waste if you end up finding docs who will let you take home any future internal mass(es). xo and happy new year (ps Encore Records moved to the 1700 block of W. Anderson Lane - have you checked out the new digs & its MS Douglass young man!