Curious

[Brother Adam]

With our fellow phatmassers avatar on the topic, is something like this really moral?

[url="http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/ausstellung_asien.asp"]http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/ausstellung_asien.asp[/url]

I know that we use cadavers for medical science, but putting human bodies on display? Should there be some kind of respect and dignity for the deceased?

[StColette]

hmm I'm not really sure. I thought it was pretty interesting when I was watching a program about this.

[Didacus]

I nthe scope of education I see no problems. How else are medical students to become surgeons if they don't have a firm look at the inside fo the human body? I understand this can be done in the context of a procedure, but i do not belive that simply learning while medical procdures are ongoing is sufficient to respond to their need of knowledge.

However though, putting bodies as display risk an entirely different realm, that of 'sensatinalism' which I believe to be totally and entirely disrespectful and inapropriate. However, to show bodies in public, (to a mature public of course), would issue no formal problems as far as I am concerned as long as the sanctity and respect of the bodies is preserved - hence, that the displays remains in the context of education.

If not in the context of education, I cannot really imagine another acceptable application.

And I stress that such displays should be viewed by 'mature' audience, capable of understanding proper respect to the human body.
____________________________

Perhaps someone who has read JP II writtings on the sanctity of life nad the human body migth shed some more formal light on the subject. It is an interesting question to say the least - though a touch morbid I admit.

[Guest T-Bone]

Are there not Churches with the walls lined with the bones and skulls of the dearly departed?

(Although this particular display doesn't look all that reverent.)

[Didacus]

[quote name='T-Bone' date='Aug 1 2005, 01:23 PM']Are there not Churches with the walls lined with the bones and skulls of the dearly departed?

(Although this particular display doesn't look all that reverent.)
[right][snapback]667363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good point T-bone!

And you also give a second purpose to the first I presented, thus it would seem to be acceptable for reverence of dearly departed, and for educational purposes (well, the educational one is just me right now, but I've never heard of the church going against it).
But as always, I may be wrong .

[Noel's angel]

is this necessary?

[Noel's angel]

by displaying them, he is opening it up to a wider audience, rather than just 'white coats'

[Guest T-Bone]

The wide audience isn't what bothers me.

On the webpage, they show one "skateboarding". Putting the bodies in "amusing" positions is irreverent and in my opinion disturbing and disgusting.

[Didacus]

[quote name='T-Bone' date='Aug 1 2005, 02:03 PM']The wide audience isn't what bothers me.

On the webpage, they show one "skateboarding".  Putting the bodies in "amusing" positions is irreverent and in my opinion disturbing and disgusting.
[right][snapback]667398[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Most agreed steak-man!

This defeats the sanctity of the human body in my view, and throws it into sensationalism. Not cool... not cool... not cool...

i wonder if the doctor in charge of the exposition will ever be exposed in his turn? And i wonder even more, is the position they would choose for him?



did anyone know that Napolean Bonapart's penis was removed from his body after his death? An auction that occured some years ago sold it off for several thousands of dollars. This exposition, with a skateboarding human body, is just as ridiculous as purchasing a famous person's penis to put on your desk as a book stopper.

[Brother Adam]

Right, this is what I'm talking about is the 'entertainment' value being used here. Medical purposes is one thing, even having a 'plasticized' body in a reverant 'position' such as just laying flat in order for students to learn about anatomy, I could possibly see. But to have a body of a deceased person displayed holding their own skin? That is sick.

[Noel's angel]

i wish this thread would disappear

[Brother Adam]

I don't see how this topic violates forum guidelines.

Is this person a relative of yours? If so I mean no disrespect to the doctor, but I am curious about the moral value here and the dignity, or lack of to human life and the human body.

[StColette]

While there are those who might just view these bodies for entertainment purposes. There are some who find them interesting because of their love for science. It's probably my science background which makes me find them interesting.

[Brother Adam]

Personally, I love science too, especially biology, so that is one of the main reasons I am asking this question on the moral value found here.

[Noel's angel]

Professor Gunther von Hagens:
Twenty years as an anatomist at the University of Heidelberg, I pleased the students. But over the weekend I'd get fire-fighters, nurses, first aid workers through our exhibits and I noticed they had a vacuum of knowledge of anatomy. At this time of history, lay people are very knowledgeable about the body. In the media they hear about and read about and get pictures about heart infarction, about smoker's lung but they never see how it looks in reality. This had to be changed and therefore I am here to democratise anatomy.

[Noel's angel]

Nikolai K, Edinburgh, Scotland: Don't you think that a lot of the objections you have received are warranted? By chopping up bodies and plastinating them - you can obviously appreciate how some people might see this as not exactly the actions of a balanced individual. What is your reaction to this, please?


Professor Gunther von Hagens:
In this way, we would have also called Leonardo da Vinci and other Middle Age masters - in which tradition I see myself as fully unbalanced because what they did they even went out at night stealing, without consent, the bodies from the gallows, dissected them up, hide them - like Leonardo, under his bed - and in this way they opened up medical science for us and now we enjoy a double lifespan.

[Gunga_ann]

I myself would not want to totally give my life to science, but I don't think there is anything wrong with this show. Why? One, these people propobly wanted this to happen to them when they died, two, they didn't kill themselves to be in the show, and three, because it is an awesome way to see how the muscles in the awesome human body look in every day poses, like the guy sitting or the skateboarder. I think it is cool. I saw on a program, they were doing this 100ish years ago, also.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Gunga_ann' date='Aug 1 2005, 02:42 PM']I myself would not want to totally give my life to science, but I don't think there is anything wrong with this show.  Why?  One, these people propobly wanted this to happen to them when they died, two, they didn't kill themselves to be in the show, and three, because it is an awesome way to see how the muscles in the awesome human body look in every day poses, like the guy sitting or the skateboarder.  I think it is cool.  I saw on a program, they were doing this 100ish years ago, also.
[right][snapback]667459[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. They might have sold their bodies to science out of necessity - like prostitution



2. How do you know if they didn't kill themselves?


3. You have a point, nothing like the real thing to see how it really is. I guess this is something like "the eye of the beholder thing", but I still think the person organising the show should make attempts not to 'sensationalise' the show - like the guy holding his own skin... what is so awesome about that? There are fine lines here.

[Noel's angel]

yeah, you are right-all the bodies are donated willingly.

'I learned a lot at the exhibition, gaining a myriad of little insights and revelations. I learned that many of the muscles that move the fingers are in the forearm - if the muscles were in the hands themselves then they would be too large and heavy to be dextrous. Now I know better what a pancreas, the spleen, the sinuses and various other vaguely mysterious organs do and look like. Two full body slices with arms out stretched, and placed at right angles to form a strangely symbolic cross, demonstrated how our height and our arm spam are roughly the same. That was a stunning way to demonstrate a simple fact!

The bodies were presented with great skill, revealing different aspects of the body not just in an insightful, but also in an artistic way. I an not alone in my opinion that modern art is not as clever as it thinks it is; is more tedious that it thinks and is staggeringly talent-free, and I despise the establishment that supports this cultural decay. But the exhibits here, whilst not art per se, are truly artistic, there was obviously true skill, passion and imagination involved in presenting some of these bodies that only a master craftsman could produce. Like some of the best computer games, art in this exhibition is a pleasing emergent property of the primary raison d'etre of the object. The anatomy and the art are a duality as surely as brain and mind. They are only possible combined.

Brains were preserved here, but not minds. Nearly all the bodies were shown with the skin and fat stripped away to reveal the muscles, nerves and a cornucopia of other internal organs. Because of this I had to keep reminding myself that I was looking at real dead people. The polymerisation caused by the von Hagens' patented "plastination" process makes the bodies resemble remarkably intricate models made of plastic, and in a way, the bodies are plastic, they are high tech fossils. These are the science mummies. I can truly understand why thousands of people offer their bodies to be displayed at these exhibitions. It would be great to be a fossil used to teach, rather than a banquet for lucky creepy crawlies. Our body is our greatest asset and yet we dispose of these astonishing machines in the most destructive way.

Occasionally, for example when I saw real eye lashes on the eyelids, I would realise emotionally as well as intellectually that I was gazing at actual people. Looking at the skinless faces I kept wondering what they looked like. I yearned to see photographs of the people I examined as they were when they were alive, so I could relate to the more abstract bone and flesh. That would have been fascinating but it is very understandable why they preserve the anonymity of the bodies. Maybe in the future they will begin to show photographs of the person behind the corpse. That really would have been intriguing, in a bad taste, voyeuristic kind of way. But, let's face it - it is human to be that way. This is why the exhibition is such a success: for all the educational value, if I am typical then it appeals at least partly to our fascination in the morbid.

Body Worlds offers a acknowledgement to Christianity. Along with a rather thought provoking tribute to the donors, there is a comment that Christianity is the most anatomy-friendly of all religions, that the popes of the sixteenth century sanctioned anatomy as a genuine way to better appreciate God. I am an atheist, but I too appreciate that open mindedness. I came away once again wishing that those Christians who doggedly deny evolution would desist (ironically they are mostly situated in supposedly educated America these days). To be as open minded and curious about the study of evolution today as their forebears were open minded and curious about anatomy would be a credit to the religion. Many Christians believe that evolution does not contradict the spirit of the bible. I hope that this trend continues. If Christianity could lead the world's religions with their leadership and enlightenment regarding evolution in the same way it did with anatomy, then it would be a deep credit to the church and to Christianity as a forward looking and enlightened religion.

My overall impressions of the Body Worlds exhibition are that I am delighted I went. I do not perceive it as gratuitous exploitation, or even if it is, it is justifiable as it invites us (or invited me at any rate) to confront the unthinkable. There is no snobbery, just an unforgettable and accessible presentation of anatomy and a desire to give knowledge. It made me alter my perspective on life in a positive way and most of all it is thought provoking.

An outstandingly unusual thing in an unusual exhibition is that death is not presented in a funereal way and nor is it trivialised: this isn't Disneyland. The main point is to learn about our bodies, but at the same time death is presented in a thoughtful, almost celebratory way. We see death with learning, humour, humanity and - in a paradoxical way - death is shown with an intimacy that is both disturbing and reassuring.'

[Noel's angel]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Aug 1 2005, 08:48 PM']1. They might have sold their bodies to science out of necessity - like prostitution
2.  How do you know if they didn't kill themselves?
3.  You have a point, nothing like the real thing to see how it really is.  I guess this is something like "the eye of the beholder thing", but I still think the person organising the show should make attempts not to 'sensationalise' the show - like the guy holding his own skin... what is so awesome about that?  There are fine lines here.
[right][snapback]667468[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. they don't sell their bodies, they donate them
2. he only uses bodies of people who have willingly donated them
3. it may seem 'sensationalised' to you, but remember, the poem about the red wheelbarrow wasn't about a red wheelbarrow at all...