bodily remains and entertainment

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

Several exhibitors are putting on shows that use dramatically presented human bodies and body parts. That practice has raised some ethical concerns, which we might try to sift through. I won't try to make a nearly complete list. I'll begin with the one most likely to produce consensus.

Have these people died due to the foul play of someone who had a role in the body's disposal?

Did the person formerly associated wtih the body give consent?

Would it matter if this practice signified an inordinate irreverence for the thing that makes each of us (i'm addressing animal forms).

What value does the use of actual cadavers (as opposed to models) give the exhibitions and does that value justify their use?

I'll admit I find something troubling about the spectacle of such shows. A definitive answer doesn't particularly interest me, although I know people will offer such opinions. I'd like to see such issues dissected. Twisted Evil

These links come from a KUOW.org webpage
a cabinet of curiousities
education or freak show
unrest in pieces
stop body worlds
bodies
body worlds

audio from the program What do you think of the Bodies exhibition?

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:37 am

The artist you're referring to has Chines corpses on loan for 4 years for his exhibition... which he claims to serve educational purposes, not entertainment.

Of course, considering the corpse's source is China, one can voice a doubt or two about how kosjer the story behind those corpses is.

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:34 pm

I loved Body Worlds, and as far as I know, all of Gunther's specimens are through dead donors.
That 'stop body worlds ' page just looked like a bunch of baseless pissing and whining.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

. . .

monkeybyte wrote:

as far as I know, all of Gunther's specimens are through dead donors.

I see why the decision of the person who had "been" the body might or might not matter.

A living person has an intimate interest in his or her self. A lifeless body has no personal point of view. For that reason, it makes sense to transfer ownership to those with the most interest. With the bodies from mainland China, when the state sees fit, it transfers ownership to preparers who work for bodyworlds.

Different bodily disposal methods may serve the interests of education, entertainment, or respect for the familiar and unfamiliar material of life. The interests interrelate and differ in value and perhaps validity.

The matter of respect for the material stuff of formerly private lives has at least a visceral component. A person ususally doesn't feel completely emotionally detatched from their future dead body or the body of a deceased loved one. I don't think many people would look at a bodyworld specimen indifferent to the fact that it was their grandparent. They may feel violated or proud, but probably not indifferent.

Giving priority to personal preferences about the disposal of one's remains presumes the vality of an falsely real location of interests. Extinct wishes about the use of any set of bodily have no direct bearing on actual interests,

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:58 am

materialguy wrote:

Giving priority to personal preferences about the disposal of one's remains presumes the vality of an falsely real location of interests. Extinct wishes about the use of any set of bodily have no direct bearing on actual interests,

I've never thought of it this way, which is probably why I have a problem with it. I was pretty pissed at my Aunt when she buried my Uncle instead of creamating him like he wanted.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

monkeybyte wrote:

materialguy wrote:

Giving priority to personal preferences about the disposal of one's remains presumes the vality of an falsely real location of interests. Extinct wishes about the use of any set of bodily have no direct bearing on actual interests,

I've never thought of it this way, which is probably why I have a problem with it. I was pretty pissed at my Aunt when she buried my Uncle instead of creamating him like he wanted.

I tend to agree that your Aunt should have respected her husbands wishes over her own. That expresses my feeling, which I can't really back up except perhaps by saying that a justifiably believable promise might have made your uncle happier. When carried out, it would importantly satisfy those who care about the keeping of such promises.

Such "indirect" interests can matter a great deal and that or convention guides the disposal of most bodies in the U.S. However, in my opinion, it may be ethical to deny someone a say in what happens to his or her body after death. The body might provide benefit to others, while it can provide no benefit to a person who no longer exists. Practical and other considerations leave the decision of what to do with their bodies to those who have the means, or to the state for those who don't have the means.

With all that, I only intended to make the point that the personal preference of someone who doesn't exist shouldn't trump other interestsf. If true, we can attempt to a moral analysis by evaluating those interests' worth. Maybe it doesn't receive a public airing because we just don't talk much about death as a reality.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore