Scientific Exhibit... or is it?
 

Last weekend, I went to see Bodies: The Exhibition at the South Street Seaport. It was awesome. I'm in classes now to eventually get my Master's degree as a Physician's Assistant, so I found it very enlightening and fascinating. I understand so much more now than I did before.

However, there's some controversy about some of these exhibits - if not this one, than others with similar ideas - and I was wondering what y'all thought about it. The main controversy in Florida seems to be about where they obtained the bodies and if they had actual consent.

Link
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1.../Bodiespic.jpg


I get it now... why my knee still hurts. Why it's so painful when my sciatic nerve twinges. How amazing our hip joints with their perfect spheres are. How beautiful all of our muscles are. How delicate and gorgeous our circulatory system truly is.

What do you think? I feel that, frankly... no one claimed the bodies, and if they didn't care to do that, then this is one of the best uses they're going to fulfill - educating people all over the world about the human body and how we are made. Would you go? Would you skip the fetal development section? (I can completely understand why, it could be pretty disturbing to people.)

I'd much rather they be put to an educational use than to go unclaimed and burned/buried unceremoniously

I have no qualms with this practice.

While I do like the idea of these exhibitions in general, I agree with Caplan about the use of bodies without consent. It may be legal, but it is not ethical.
While I would have no problem with my body being used for such a purpose after my death, many people (undoubtedly including some of those unclaimed bodies) would have a problem with this (including for religious reasons). It would be ethically wrong to go against their wishes.

Hey some people make themselves art by getting a tattoo, others do it by posthumously becoming an art exhibit. To each their own.

We've been doing the same for a very long time to teach our doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc., etc. This is only news because it's a new use for the same thing- education. If they weren't used for this, they'd be used for study like they already do with countless others.

I don't see how this is exploitation, per se. Does someone actually profit from it? As for the exhibits of this nature I've heard of, not really... non-profits might rake in some cash via admissions, but that gets put back into the educational forum.

I don't have any ethical issues with this practice.

Edit: Put it in a different perspective. What if a human catches the bird flu from another human, meaning a new and deadly strain. That person dies but has written wishes to NOT be used for science. Do we go with his wishes, or forego those wishes for the better of mankind? Frankly, I go with the latter.

Actually, these exhibits seem to be doing this not only for education, but for profit. In NYC, it's 24.50 to get in. Where do you think all that money goes? Do you think it just costs that much for upkeep?

I'm not really one to make a fuss about human remains, generally (you're done using it...it's just a meat puppet) but I realize I'm in the minority on that. Most people feel a deep respect for dead bodies, and I think unless you have consent and know that the person who was using that body wouldn't mind having it plastinated and displayed, it's a very disrespectful and unethical use of human remains.

The German show that was on display was different - the man who invented the plastination process obtained consent from all of the people involved, and usually from their families as well, and he actually knew some of the people while they were still alive (weird!!) and attempted to capture their "spirit," for example displaying the bodies of former athletes in athletic contexts. Other exhibits, however, are done improperly or sloppily, and have resulted in the bodies "weeping" or leaking...yick.

I saw the "Body Worlds 2" exhibit when it was in Toronto these past few months, and I was awed.

Linky: http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp

It sounds like "Bodies: The Exhibition" is a competing venture; possibly a less scrupulous one. As I understand it, the Body Worlds specimens were all acquired through a rigorous consent process, so I think the ethical question is less an issue. On the whole, the exhibit was pretty clinical and wasn't overly sensational; though I suppose that is subjective. For example, along side the posed bodies, each of the main organs and regulatory systems were presented separately, in various states of age and condition. The exhibit really took you step by step through the mechanics of the body. They had sets of lungs from a non-smoker, a smoker and a coal miner laid out next to each other and the differences were amazing (the coal miner's and smokers looked very similar and very degraded).

Also, the fetal development section was set off to the side, in a sort of shelter, where it was quiet with dimmer lighting, and you didn't have to pass through it if you didn't want to. I thought this was the most fascinating part of the exhibit, and only strenghthened my sense of wonder at the human body.

Are they profiting from it? Yes. Are they educating the public in a positive way? Yes. I can't speak for the OP exhibit, but the one I saw was no exploitive freak show.

This is another great example that everything isn't always clearly definable as black or white. On one hand, I say the bodies can be used to further humanity on the planet now, but on the other I realize that while no one is inside the body anymore, it's still obscene to use someone's body without consent.

Its running here in Atlanta too (until september) its only 20 bucks for an adult ticket. We may go check it out sometime this summer

I saw a similar exhibition in London a few years ago, and although it was fascinating, I had to question some of it. Not only were there bodies and body systems (ie just the nervous system or just the muscular system) of all shapes and sizes on display that had gone through this plastination process, there were some that were like sculptures, my memory of it has faded but I recall seeing a horse displayed in a weird fashion and also bodies riding bicycles and things like that. I know, my memory has gone to crap. They also had a room that was dedicated to pregnancy and unborn babies and that was a total shock. There was a pregnant woman's body and the belly had a section and you could see the unborn baby inside...it may have educational value of course, but the feeling of slight horror upon seeing all the different embryos and babies (some with clear deficiencies and malformations) made me wonder whether it was right to display them as they were displayed. You'd have to see it to understand I guess.

Little_Tipple, the one you saw in London was the BodyWorld exhibit that is now on exhibition in Toronto.

I think this is just proof that people will find something to bitch about in any venture.

I had read about this exhibition when it first arrived in New York and, I almost hate to admit it, but it grosses me out. The ironic part, I guess is that this:
http://www.reybustos.com/03ra/Sarah_mx.htm does not.
I would assume it is because my brain just would not be able to get past the fact that those in the exhibition are REAL people, while the above linked flash, while the model is real, my brain accepts the drawings as drawings....Some people, like my friend Rey and JustJess, look at real anatomy as a wonderous artform. I look at even pictures of real anatomy and just get an EW factor.

I saw the bodies here in Philadelphia, awesome show, one of the best scientific displays I've ever seen. I suppose the organizers are also good at marketing this road show and making sure there is a profit but I have no problem with that.

But just like with organ donations, if the person does not allow use of their body or organs for such purposes, then it is not legal/ethical to do so against their will.

Clearly, if they've said no, you shouldn't... but what about "abandoned" bodies? They come in, they die, and no one else seems to care? Why go to a potter's field when they can help educate, quite literally, people all over the world? Do you think implied consent is unethical?

So...in essence, it becomes more an issue of whose "property" your body becomes, after you die. In most cases, family will come forward to claim "ownership" to dispose of your remains as they see fit. When there is no one willing, or able, to come forward, then your remains "belong" to whatever governmental agency assumes said ownership. As a taxpayer, I expect all governmental agencies, that are supported by my tax dollars, to make the best possible use of their resources...ie, my money. I would say that by using unclaimed bodies in such a manner, very well could be the best possible use of their resources. One, there are no disposal costs. Two, the value gained from education.

That said...it does seem a little...macabre to me, though.

By the way, it should be noted (at least as far as Body World's is concerned) that the exhibit is first and foremost to be seen as "art". The guy who invented "plastinization" created these plasticized corpses as works of art.

The fact that they have since been co-opted by science museums and have become fodder for school trips it something that I find facinatiting.

I personally thought the embryo and birth section was the most fascinating. It wasn't intended as a "Hey, look at all these aborted fetuses" but "Check out how quickly these little things grown. Man - It quadrupled in a week - holy crap, this thing's huge compared to last week!" While I do realise that yes, it's all men and women who have died, but I think the learning experience exceeds the ethical worries of all of that.

Also, another thing about the woman who had died while still pregnant, they have a small section dedicated just to her in the fetus room. Basically she was a really ill woman with some kind of disease and she wanted to donate her body if she died before the baby was born. Which unfortunately is what happened.

Personally I thought the whole setup was brilliant. I learned a lot and heck, you're seeing what comes across as a real life text book, which is kind of unsympathetic to those who died, but when you're looking around you (at least I) had to sit there and remind myself that these were from real people, so when they're saying "This is what an ill person's heart looks like" that's not what one looks like when you're getting sick, that came out of a person who died of heart disease or lung cancer or anything.

I dunno. I liked it.

Yes, I feel that Body World is a bit more flashy and 'lookatme! lookatmee!' than the one I attended. I don't necessarily agree with that - it's pretty gross, actually. And I appreciate the knowledge gained... but somehow, the skinless person is less gross than the skinless horse. :|

As for the fetal sections... I did find them, again, fascinating. Since I'm learning from it, I don't find it distasteful. Some/lots would, I think.

I wish more of you could go and tell me what you think!!

I'm not happy with it myself. The ethics that is.

I think that positive consent should be required. If you had an unconscious person in hospital with no known relatives - would you feel it ok to enter them in a drug trial? probably not. Of course this is to some extent a "bullshit analogy" (if you'll pardon my language).

...so yeah, IMHO it's probably not ok to do this with dead people either. After all - if the hospital profits from selling the bodies, where is their incentive to find relatives? And we all know that some Chinese hospitals are cash strapped.

I'm worried about your US laws also. Are you saying that they can use your organs if you're found but can't be identified? I'm ok with organ donation - but I reckon we need maintain strong safegaurds.

But the bodies are not exactly taxpayer supplied resources are they? It's not like wasted dollars, these are more like money that was found lying in the street. Nobody around seems to own it... ok I'll keep it. No probs. : >

And the thing is... if there is no incentive to find the relative, or if there's an incentive not to because bodies/organs can be sold, that bothers me.

As far I've read, no one is selling the bodies - they're just donated to the local university medical center if no one claims them. If this isn't the case, please let me know! The only exchange of money that I'm aware of is just when we pay an entrance fee.

If somone dies and a reasonable effort is made to ascertain their identity and the effort fails, then I'd most certainly say the body should be put to good use rather then simply cremated. Whether this is as an organ donor, dissected in a medical school or in an exhibit of this sort the body can be used to instruct and benefit those who remain amoung the living.

The Body World 2 exhibit just hit Denver this month and I do plan on going to see it because I think it'll be a worthwhile experience and that I'll learn some interesting things.

Justjess,

grrrrrr... I take umbrage to the fact you didn't even reply when I suggested we go about 2 months ago, since I knew that he wouldn't be and Quadro replied he wasn't interested.

now, like going to see Phantom of the Opera (ask Skogafoss about that one), I'll have to go by myself... *sigh*

My darling, last time you got me in the midst of stressing about class, if I recall. I snagged a free Saturday and RAN in an effort to not end up going at all!

smoochsmooch?

To me it seems clear. If there is not an outright, specifically stated "yes" then there is no consent. Even if relatives or acquaintenaces might think this deceased person would have like the idea of donating their body to science or art or whatever, if that is not explicitly stated by the person him/herself then the answer is no. Same goes for organ donations or soylent green or any unauthorized use regardless of social benefits.

I have no problem with the artistic/scientific display of the human body, and would probably find it to be really interesting. Similar to my thoughts in the thread about an "opt out" policy for organ donation, I don't like the precedent of using unclaimed bodies for any purpose. I suppose you could argue that it's impossible to know anything about what the person might have wanted, so who's to say? I would think you could find enough people who would donate their bodies for such an exhibit that it wouldn't be a big deal to acquire them that way. I suppose I feel that this sets a precedent for the use of bodies in an area like organ donation, where there could be a real financial incentive for hospitals or private organizations to market unclaimed human organs.

Weighing in on the "used for science" aspect, these display shouldn't be compared.

I think it would be interesting to see this. I'm not offended by it. But it is designed for art and profit, perhaps a bit political. That some people find it educational is a side-effect and I don't think it was part of the intent.

I had a roomate for two years that was going through physiotherapy. My wife is midway through medschool. Their cadaver teaching and labs is on the opposite side of the spectrum. Cameras are forbidden. A classmate of my wife's got kicked out for one year because he was caught allowing a non-med student access to the cadaver lab. There is a semi-formal cermony and evening where first year students meet and thank the families of those who have donated their body to science. Respect for the dead is paramount, even though there is a process of intentional desensitization.