Declaration Of Indigency: Fill & Download for Free

In all aspects of health care, the rich have a greater share. That is why they live longer than the poor. That is unquestioned. This separation of the rich from the poor may be more glaring in organ transplantation for the process of transplanting organs is very expensive. Persons donating their organs, however, have a right to have a say as to who gets their organs. How can he assure himself that it goes to persons who need it most and not to the very rich who alone can afford to pay for the procedure?Recently in the US, a person who had donated his organs was injured seriously in a road accident. The man was declared brain dead, but life support was continued for several hours till they could get the body to a facility were his organs could be harvested. Nothing improper except that the cost of keeping him on life support for those hours was added to the victim’s account and not shared between the various persons who would have received the donated organs. In short, the donor’s estate had to bear the extra expenditure (which can be sizable) because the person out of the goodness of his heart made the donation.Organ transplanting has become an industry that sorely needs regulation. Donors of organs can do their bit to set it right.I believe there is a prescribed a form that donors must sign before the donation becomes valid. The following clauses must be included in that form:First,in case the body needs to be on life support till harvesting of the organs can be arranged life-support expenses should be borne by the hospital who may recoup it later from the recipients of the organs.Secondly,The organ should be used for patients who need it most.Thirdly,In case the recipient is well-to-do a third of the amount billed should be allotted for organ transplantation of indigent patients.For the donors to get the best out of their donation the ethical standards of the hospitals concerned must be high.

No. It’s interesting how I can say, ‘No’ without hesitation. But the answer is, without a doubt, “No.”After the Civil War was over, confederate soldiers who were sick, injured or indigent or their widows received pensions. These records are in the National Archives. “The agencies listed are repositories for Confederate pension records. The veteran was eligible to apply for a pension to the State in which he lived, even if he served in a unit from a different State. Generally, an applicant was eligible for a pension only if he was indigent or disabled. Some repositories also have records of Confederate Homes (for veterans, widows, etc.), muster rolls of State Confederate militia, and other records related to the war.”Interestingly enough, no confederate records exist anywhere that show black slaves or freedmen receiving combat pay or eligible for even one pension from the confederacy.You can stop here if that’s enough to convince you. But, if you need more, read on…For several decades, the question of whether or not there were “Black Confederates” has been one of the most controversial issues in the study of Civil War history. The disagreement arises in part from rival ideological positions, but also traces to different definitions of key terms, especially “soldier.”Myths & Misunderstandings | Black Confederates“There is no question that tens of thousands of enslaved and free African Americans served with Confederate armies as body servants, laborers, teamsters, hospital workers, and cooks. But were these men “soldiers” in any real sense of the word?“…were African American laborers in the Confederate army formally enlisted in the army, equipped with uniforms, arms, and accoutrements, and paid for their own work, as were African Americans in the U.S. Army? No. Their status was that of enslaved or marginally free laborers serving in capacities in a military setting analogous to their roles in civilian life. Referring to such men as “soldiers” ignores a fundamental distinction between forced labor and military service.”Here’s how slaves went to war in the confederacy:Confederate officer and his ‘body servant.’Black Confederates“Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers. There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war and no documentation whatsoever exists for any black man being paid or pensioned as a Confederate soldier, although some did receive pensions for their work as laborers.”Black Confederates is a term often used to describe both enslaved and free African Americans who filled a number of different positions in support of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War (1861–1865). Most often this assistance was coerced rather than offered voluntarily. Male slaves were either hired out by their owners or impressed to work in various departments of the Confederate army. Free black men were also routinely impressed or otherwise forced to perform manual labor for the army. The government's use of black labor, whether free or slave, followed patterns established during the antebellum period, when county governments routinely engaged the service of black men to help maintain local roads and other public property. While large numbers of black men thus accompanied every Confederate army on the march or in camp, those men would not have been considered soldiers.”Not one infantry, artillery, engineering or cavalry brigade or individual member—combat veteran—of the confederacy that was black has ever filed for a pension or received one. This was deliberate; confederate leaders were adamant that no slave or free black man ever fight for the confederacy. Their entire concept and purpose would be destroyed by allowing this, as blacks were viewed as inferior and unable to fight (or maybe there was fear that armed blacks would turn on the slaveowners).“In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common.”The notion of widespread black combat service has only arisen within the past 25 years or so, long past the life-span of real veterans from either side, who would have immediately denied its legitimacy.The modern myth of black Confederate soldiers is akin to a conspiracy theory—shoddy analysis has been presented, repeated, amplified, and twisted to such an extent that utterly baseless claims of as many as 80,000 black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy (which would roughly equal the size of Lee’s army at Gettysburg) have even made their way into classroom textbooks. It is right to study, discover, and share facts about the complex lives of 19th century black Americans. It is wrong to exaggerate, obfuscate, and ignore those facts in order to suit 21st century opinions.——————————————-After I did all this work, pulling data from various sources, somebody did it better than I could, so here it is:History gives lie to myth of black Confederate soldiersTRUMAN R. CLARK*Clark is a professor of American history (now emeritus) at Tomball College.A racist fabrication has sprung up in the last decade: that the Confederacy had "thousands" of African- American slaves "fighting" in its armies during the Civil War.Unfortunately, even some African-American men today have gotten conned into Putting on Confederate uniforms to play "re-enactors" in an army that fought to ensure that their ancestors would remain slaves.There are two underlying points of this claim: first, to say that slavery wasn't so bad, because after all, the slaves themselves fought to preserve the slave South; and second, that the Confederacy wasn't really fighting for slavery. Both these notions may make some of our contemporaries feel good, but neither is historically accurate.When one speaks of "soldiers" and "fighting" in a war, one is not talking about slaves who were taken from their masters and forced to work on military roads and other military construction projects; nor is one talking about slaves who were taken along by their masters to continue the duties of a personal valet that they performed back on the plantation. Of course, there were thousands of African-Americans forced into these situations, but they were hardly "soldiers fighting."Another logical point against this wacky modern idea of a racially integrated Confederate army has to do with the prisoner of war issue during the Civil War. Through 1862, there was an effective exchange system of POWs between the two sides. This entirely broke down in 1863, however, because the Confederacy refused to see black Union soldiers as soldiers - they would not be exchanged, but instead were made slaves (or, as in the 1864 Fort Pillow incident, simply murdered after their surrender). At that, the United States refused to exchange any Southern POWs and the prisoner of war camps on both sides grew immensely in numbers and misery the rest of the war.If the Confederacy had black soldiers in its armies, why didn't it see black men as soldiers?By the way, all the Confederate soldiers captured by Union troops were white men. If there were "thousands" of black soldiers in the Confederate armies, why were none of them among the approximately 215,000 soldiers captured by the U. S. forces?If there were thousands of African-American men fighting in the Confederate armies, they apparently cleverly did so without Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, the members of the Confederate congress or any of the white soldiers of the Confederacy knowing about it. (I can just imagine some former Confederate soldier, told in 1892 that hundreds of the men in his army unit during the Civil War were black, snapping his fingers and saying, "I knew there was something different about those guys!")The South was running short of soldiers as the war dragged on, however, and some people began to suggest that it would be better to use slaves to fight than to lose. As late as three weeks before the Civil War came to an end, the members of the Confederate congress (and Lee and Davis) were hotly debating the question of whether to start using slaves in the Southern armies.If, as some folks in the 1990s claim, there were already "thousands" of black troops in the Confederate armies, why were the leaders of the Confederacy still debating about whether or not they should start bringing them in?The very accurate point made then by opponents of this legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization."And what was that "essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization"? Let's listen to the people of the times. The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said on March 21, 1861, that the Confederacy was "founded . . . its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."What was the "very doctrine" which the South had entered into war to destroy? Let's go to the historical documents, the words of the people in those times. When Texas seceded from the Union in March 1861, its secession declaration was entirely about one subject: slavery. It said that Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - were "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color . . . a doctrine at war with nature . . . and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."But, by March 13, 1865, the Confederacy had its back against the wall, and by the less than overwhelming margin of 40 to 37 in the House, and nine to eight in the Senate, the Confederate congress approved a bill to allow Jefferson Davis to require a quota of black soldiers from each state. Presumably (although the bill did not say so) slaves who fought would, if they survived the war, be freed. Southerners who opposed using blacks in the army noted that this idea had its problems: First, it was obvious that the Yankee armies would soon free them anyway; and second, if slavery was so wonderful and happy for black people, why would one be willing to risk death to win his freedom?The war was virtually over by then, and when black Union soldiers rode into Richmond on April 3, they found two companies of black men beginning to train as potential soldiers. (When those black men had marched down the street in Confederate uniforms, local whites had pelted them with mud.) None got into the war, and Lee surrendered on April 9.Yes, thousands of African-American men did fight in the Civil War - about 179,000. About 37,000 of them died in uniform. But they were all in the Army (or Navy) of the United States of America. The Confederate veterans who were still alive in the generations after the war all knew that and said so.Finally, these modem non historians say that slavery couldn't have been a main cause of the Civil War (never mind the words of Alexander Stephens and the various declarations of secession), because most of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves.As modern historians such as Pulitzer Prize-winner James M. McPherson point out, the truth was that most white people in the South knew that the great bulwark of the white-supremacy system they cherished was slavery, whether or not they personally owned slaves."Freedom is not possible without slavery," was a typical endorsement of this underlying truth about the slave South. Without slavery, white nonslaveholders would be no better than black men.The slave South rested upon a master-race ideology, as many generations of white Southerners stated it and lived it, from the 1600s until 1865. There is an uncomfortable parallel in our century with the master- race ideology of Nazi Germany. First, millions of the men who bravely fought and died for the Third Reich were not Nazis, but they weren't exactly fighting for the human rights of Jews or gypsies. And second, yes, as was pointed out in the movie Schindler's List, many thousands of Jews did slave labor in military production factories in Nazi Germany - but that certainly didn't make them "thousands of Jewish soldiers fighting for Germany.We can believe in the "black soldiers fighting" in the Confederate armies just as soon as historians discover the "thousands" of Jews in the SS and Gestapo.The Pernicious Myth of the ‘Loyal Slave’ Lives on in Confederate Memorials

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.My stepsister (Sister) passed away in August 2018. She was living in Florida at the time. She was very independent and lived life on her terms. It was not unusual for us not to hear from her on a regular basis. It seems like each time we didn’t hear from her for several months, it was because she was in jail. So when we started questioning her whereabouts in March 2019, that is where we thought she was.She went by several aliases, so it was always hard tracking her down. The majority of her family (including myself) are in California. She had a daughter that was living in Georgia and an ex husband and young son who resided in Virginia.Like I said, we thought we were going to find out she had been arrested AGAIN. Never in a million years did we expect to find out she was gone at 52 years old.My family was in disbelief and shock. It had been 7 months since she passed. I didn’t even know how to go about finding her, but took it on myself. Even though our lives had gone in completely different directions and we didn’t communicate much as adults, I know I was always her favorite. We had a special bond when we were younger and she was definitely “my person”. So I knew I was the one that needed to step up and find out what happened.Apparently her ex husband had been contacted about her death and he didn’t want to have anything to do with it. He was given a case number and didn’t even bother calling her family. I got the case number and started calling around in Florida. I was able to get some information from the police department. The police department informed me they were unable to locate any next of kin for my sister, so after going through her phone and personal effects, they declared my sister indigent. The definition of indigent is: a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself. My stepsister was shipped off to the Medical Examiner’s Office to determine the cause of death - accident/sudden death/cocaine/alcohol use.Indigent people are then sent to a crematorium and cremated. After 120 days (4 months) their cremains are shipped off to sea and scattered in the ocean. Four months from the date of her death would have been December 8, 2018. It was now March 26, 2019. I didn’t have much hope for finding her, but I called the crematorium anyway. The lady that answered the phone was so gentle and understanding with me and went to look up my sister’s name. When she returned she asked if I was sitting down and proceeded to tell me that my sister was supposed to be shipped off the week before but for some reason was left behind. They still had my sister!!! The tears I had been holding back erupted out of me like a volcano and I weeped with joy. I told the lady, “my sister was waiting for me to bring her home.”It was absolutely the best outcome for such a sad situation, but now my sister is home where she belongs.