Vile Bodies?

[trubble]

www.bodiestheexhibition.com/



Would you go?

Pics here: images.google.ie/images?hl=en&q=bodies%20the%20exhibition&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Warning: these are pictures of dead people, skinned and boned.

The human body – a fascinating experience!


BODIES…The Exhibition showcases meticulously dissected real human body specimens that are preserved through an innovative process and respectfully presented, giving visitors the opportunity to view the beauty and complexity of their own organs and systems.


For visitors of all ages, BODIES…The Exhibition displays real human bodies and allows people to view themselves as never before. More than 200 organs and full body specimens are on display in 9 galleries showcasing the complexity of the body´s many bones, muscles, nerves, blood vessels and organs.


BODIES…The Exhibition is a stunning display of human anatomy, arriving in Dublin following its huge success in cities such as New York, London, Washington, Mexico City, Amsterdam and Prague. More than 7 million people have already had a chance to discover all there is to know about human anatomy.


BODIES...The Exhibition will enlighten, empower, fascinate and inspire.



Shall I go?

There's all this hoo-hah about the origin of the bodies, they are chinese people who were unclaimed at death and therefore by default left to the state for research etc. Some people believe that they are chinese prisoners - the implication being that they were imprisoned unjustly.

How ethical is it to view the preserved bodies of people who never consented to being hawked around and perhaps the bodies of some poor fellow men who were trying to protest for democracy and needed to be destroyed.

Plus tickets are a ripping off €20.

[riotgrrl]

Sorry to divert slightly, but I've been thinking about the ethics of corpses all last night and this morning after watching that TV Prog last night about how the media has reported on the Israel attack on Gaza.

In particular there was footage of a young baby's corpse. It was clearly very badly damaged and had been burned. (The claim was that the baby had been run over by a tank, but I couldn't say if that looked to be the case or not).

British television has to conform to taste and decency guidelines, but Arabic TV doesn't.

Arabic TV carried pictures of this poor corpse being lifted above the head of a big man, with much wailing and screaming and the corpse of the baby clearly in view.

British TV carried pictures of the poor baby, wrapped in a shroud, being quietly put in te morgue, and one British journalist went so far as to say that the pictures of the man holding the corpse above his head like a doll with all the wailing and shouting was staged propaganda and should not be shown.

British Muslims were interviewed, and they are all watching Al Jazeera and the like and seeing all the most disturbing pictures of death and injury. Some British Muslims were arguing that you needed to see that kind of thing to appreciate the reality of war. A journalist pointed out that the effects of truly horrific pictures were not useful because the emotional response to such photos precluded any sensible analysis of the situation.

Anyway . . what struck me most was that the poor dead, blackened baby being hoisted about above the man's head was not being afforded any dignity in death. I didn't find it repulsive or sickening, but I don't believe that I need to see dead babies to be able to understand that babies are dead in quite horrific ways.

I am not a religious person, and to me a corpse is just a corpse. As I've said before, in my will I have left my body to medical science as I have no interest in it post-mortem.

But nonetheless, I still feel that using the dead, manipulating and passing round their bodies for political gain, is profoundly wrong.

In your Chinese case, the use of corpses for entertainment purposes is probably not as bad as the use of corpses for propaganda purposes. However, if these bodies were unclaimed, should they not be passed on to medical science rather than used for an exhibition?

To me, that's the issue.

I see that tickets for the exhibition in Dublin cost 20 Euro - so any attempt to explain this exhibition as educational are clearly bogus. It is a FOR PROFIT exhibition.

That's what's wrong. If this was a genuinely educational display, perhaps being toured around schools or universities, I could see the merit in it and would be less concerned about the unclaimed bodies. It's the introduction of the profit motive that concerns me.

[trubble]

Lots of good points to consider. Hmm.


I was tempted to watch that programme but then decided I couldn't handle the heavy vibe so I'm very grateful to hear its content here. Feel free to add more details!

Anyway . . what struck me most was that the poor dead, blackened baby being hoisted about above the man's head was not being afforded any dignity in death. I didn't find it repulsive or sickening, but I don't believe that I need to see dead babies to be able to understand that babies are dead in quite horrific ways.

I am not a religious person, and to me a corpse is just a corpse. As I've said before, in my will I have left my body to medical science as I have no interest in it post-mortem.

But nonetheless, I still feel that using the dead, manipulating and passing round their bodies for political gain, is profoundly wrong.

Having not seen it, perhaps I can't comment but..

The baby was not afforded any dignity in death by being killed in the first place, the showing of the stark reality might be undignified but the filming of it is offering the only dignity possible - that such an horrific death of a baby should not go unrecorded.

? Maybe.. ?





I don't think anyone needs to be religious to feel the need for respect for the dead, I think it's a fairly primal urge. Elephants pay respect to their dead. They don't just leave the body alone after death, they stay with it to 'protect' it for a decent time before they move on. Of course, I am presuming elephants aren't religious and have nothing to base that presumption on.

using the dead, manipulating and passing round their bodies for political gain, is profoundly wrong.

If it's not just reality of war, if it's political manipulation then Yes. It really is. I can't think of any mitigating circumstances.


So to do it for mere financial profit has to be worse.

Yet, profitable or not, it would still be educational to view these bodies in the exhibition and I can't fathom how any group could finance this without using the market. Perhaps making it profitable is the only way to stage it.

I am putting myself off the idea of going as I type. I can't imagine the educational value would be more than the profitable value and the lack of consent is perhaps the most disgusting part of the exhibition.

It's not like the RSC using a real human skull to play Yorick. That guy not only consented but willed them to use it. The RSC had to stop using it because it was attracting the wrong type of audience, gapers who went just see a real skull used; what with that and the Dr Who fans, any Hamlet fan in the audience would be a rare thing, not to mention disheartened.

I suppose if this were an exhibition of models of humans I wouldn't even have thought of going. I don't want to walk around this bodies exhibition with a crowd of Barnum and Bailey fans.

[riotgrrl]

Jan 23, 2009 11:26:45 GMT trubble said:

Lots of good points to consider. Hmm.



The baby was not afforded any dignity in death by being killed in the first place, the showing of the stark reality might be undignified but the filming of it is offering the only dignity possible - that such an horrific death of a baby should not go unrecorded.

? Maybe.. ?

The main plank of the programme was that the Israelis were wrong not to allow the media into Gaza (which I have been banging on and on about on GWD & JSG for weeks; resulting in my being called a 'terrorist' on JSG as it happens.)

The baby had obviously either died horrifically, or its corpse had been subject to further destruction. It was black burned, and appeared to have no legs or arms. It looked like a doll to be honest. The Palestinians claimed the harm had been done by the baby being ran over by a tank, but I don't know what that would have looked like. The baby's face was 'normal' but blackened.

The key point was that this pitiful corpse was being held up (under the armpits, with its head waving with the movement) by an angry shouting man who was thrusting it up and out to the cameras, while other angry shouting men encircled him.

Was this the natural reaction to death and an outpouring of communal grief? Or was it a staged protest using the corpse of a child as its main prop?

The crowd were all male. There were no women in the shouting, angry crowd.

Al Jazeera and the like showed the mob and the corpse being thrust and thrown. The BBC showed the baby wrapped in a shroud being quietly laid down.

As this discussion is about corpses and not Gaza, I won't go off on a rant about propaganda, the media, etc. and try to stick to the point (tempted as I am.)

It it ever appropriate to call in the cameras to take photos of a particular corpse to make a political point?

And the effect of these corpses on young British Muslims was clear in the film. These young girls were demanding that the BBC showed the full extent of the injuries of children and the like, as it was only by doing that that people could understand the horror of Gaza. The counter-argument was that an upsetting picture tells you nothing, but makes you feel things, and is unhelpful.

Basically Al Jazeera (etc.) are using dead bodies to radicalise and anger Muslims, supported by those promoting a pan-Muslim ideology. (The 'British Muslims' interviewed were clearly Bangladeshi or Pakistani, but the replacement of any territorial identity with a religious one was obvious.)

I wondered if the burned child's mother was still alive. I wondered how she felt about the corpse of her daughter being thrust about in front of cameras.

I suppose the base question is this: Do we need to see dead bodies to understand death?

[riotgrrl]

Jan 23, 2009 11:26:45 GMT trubble said:

Yet, profitable or not, it would still be educational to view these bodies in the exhibition and I can't fathom how any group could finance this without using the market. Perhaps making it profitable is the only way to stage it.

I can see why biology students might benefit from the educational value of the exhibition.

But your average punter doesn't need to know what the inside of a corpse looks like for any purpose whatsoever. The only reason they would have for going is interest.

Is it interesting like, say, going to a planetarium is interesting?

Or is it prurient and numbing and ultimately reducing respect for humanity, such as attending a gladiator duel to the death might be?

[riotgrrl]

Sorry, my posts on this are far too long.

I've obviously got this Palestinian baby on my mind, and am still trying to work out how I feel about the use of its corpse in this way.

[swl]

<<It it ever appropriate to call in the cameras to take photos of a particular corpse to make a political point?>>

i144.photobucket.com/albums/r166/swl_album/drugdeath.jpg

Remember this one?

[trubble]

If you're recalling the BNP's use of this picture....that's a case to file under hideously VILE.

If you're recalling the parents' use, that was transferred consent, and not for political manipulation, so fair use.

[trubble]

Jan 23, 2009 12:33:34 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Sorry, my posts on this are far too long.

I've obviously got this Palestinian baby on my mind, and am still trying to work out how I feel about the use of its corpse in this way.

Keep going, it's interesting. I am waiting around like an idiot today, I have been stood up and have wasted a morning here printing out stuff* that I could have printed out any time, and I am a bit livid. If it wasn't for something interesting to read on screen I might have gone mad.


_{*for 'printing out stuff', please read 'hitting printer and sobbing'.}

[swl]

Did the BNP use the picture? Whatever for?


Anyway, doesn't the Catholic Church use a mutilated corpse to drum up support?

[trubble]

Jan 23, 2009 12:32:54 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Jan 23, 2009 11:26:45 GMT trubble said:

Yet, profitable or not, it would still be educational to view these bodies in the exhibition and I can't fathom how any group could finance this without using the market. Perhaps making it profitable is the only way to stage it.

I can see why biology students might benefit from the educational value of the exhibition.

But your average punter doesn't need to know what the inside of a corpse looks like for any purpose whatsoever. The only reason they would have for going is interest.

Is it interesting like, say, going to a planetarium is interesting?

Or is it prurient and numbing and ultimately reducing respect for humanity, such as attending a gladiator duel to the death might be?

Inside of a body, not a corpse, although it is a corpse, but inside of a body is the main thing it is.

I don't agree that the general public cannot benefit greatly from understanding the body in more detail. The exhibition includes diseased lungs and other organs. At the very least, this part will be educational to most people.

Numbing can be levelled at watching violent movies or porn more easily than walking around an exhibition. I think the act of paying far too much money to see this, and actively engaging in the exhibition by attending it, has already bypassed the laziness of merely watching a gladiator fight for entertainment whilst eating some pig's ears or popcorn.

[trubble]

Jan 23, 2009 13:25:35 GMT swl said:

Did the BNP use the picture? Whatever for?


Anyway, doesn't the Catholic Church use a mutilated corpse to drum up support?

I don't think the church does, it depicts Jesus dying on the cross to save our sins but I'm not sure why.

Yes, the BNP used the image in an anti-muslim leaflet. 'The muslims are supplying the drugs that are killing our white innocent daughters, get the muslims out'. Or similar. I'll google.

The parents complained about the the BNP using the image, firstly without request to use it and secondly with a message that they did not endorse. The BNP told them to fuck off. Literally.

[riotgrrl]

Re. the dead junkie girl photo; I never saw the point in that. The photo is not gruesome and, if you didn't understand how blood lies in death, you wouldn't even be sure that the girl is dead as a result of it. I don't think it served its purpose at all of providing a shocking message to kids tempted to use drugs.

But it is a frequent thing that bereaved families end up involved in some kind of campaign about the issues that killed their children. It's part of the greiving process for some people . . all that 'let's hope we can make something positive come from the death of our child'. So I respect that.

(Trubs, describing yourself as a 'bit livid' in the post immediately after the dead girl's photograph made me laugh in a very sick way. Incidentally.)

Trubs, re. the inside of bodies, diseased lungs thang - yeah I see your point on that one to some extent. But I think I'm still on the prurient side of the prurient/educational divide on the issue.

Re. Jesus - in the Church I was raised in it was considered a bit sick and primitive to have jewellery (for instance) depicting Jesus's dying agonies on the cross, just the sort of the thing the bog-ignorant Cafflicks did go in for. We, however, (in a slightly superior way) used the plain cross, the symbol of Jesus's life and teaching, not a reminder of his death.

[rjpageuk]

I went to this exhibition in London a few years ago with Karen and we both really liked it.

I think I did anyhow, is this the Dr Gunther von Hagens Body Worlds exhibition? The people in that one have given their consent for their bodies to be used in this way.

It is a fantastic way to see how intricate and amazing the human body is and it is really worth visiting.

[trubble]

No, it's a different exhibition, I think. I watched a little of his autopsies on TV. Very interesting. (same guy, I think?)

[trubble]

Jan 23, 2009 13:36:31 GMT @riotgrrl said:

(Trubs, describing yourself as a 'bit livid' in the post immediately after the dead girl's photograph made me laugh in a very sick way. Incidentally.)

---

Oh man. i really wished I hadn't googled for that leaflet. It exposed me to lots of bile. Skankblack of Jsg fame is having a major battle with Lee Barmynes of BNP fame over who is the most vile person on the internet. Even the posters on Stropfront are telling them to 'crawl far away'. Yet the jsg board lets JackassSkank evangalise. F. F. S.

I need to not go on that google trip again.

I think I might have stored the leaflet in my pictures somewhere. I'll look there.

[rjpageuk]

I have decided to use all of my powers of reasoning to present my argument to you RG:

Jan 23, 2009 12:32:54 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Is it interesting like, say, going to a planetarium is interesting?

Yes.

Jan 23, 2009 12:32:54 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Or is it prurient and numbing and ultimately reducing respect for humanity, such as attending a gladiator duel to the death might be?

No.

[trubble]

Well that's that sorted.

[riotgrrl]

Jan 23, 2009 13:46:40 GMT rjpageuk said:

I have decided to use all of my powers of reasoning to present my argument to you RG:

Jan 23, 2009 12:32:54 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Is it interesting like, say, going to a planetarium is interesting?

Yes.

Jan 23, 2009 12:32:54 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Or is it prurient and numbing and ultimately reducing respect for humanity, such as attending a gladiator duel to the death might be?

No.

Rob, I think you've cut to the nub of my somewhat wordy posting.

This is the dividing line, and I think I'm falling on the opposite side to you.

The problem is that it's easy to say that something relatively bland (such as the preserved internals of a human body - the lack of consent issue is separate ) is interesting and not prurient.

But if you take the use of dead bodies more widely in society - such as the use made of corpses by Hamas in propaganda - the questions become more difficult.

[trubble]

I've decided.

If I get the opportunity to visit Dr Hagens' exhibition I will consider doing so.

This one cannot prove it is ethical and is not the only one or even the first of its kind.

This article sums up the difference, ie consent.

At present, circling throughout cities around the United States are two popular "body exhibits."

One of them, "Body Worlds," is produced by German physician, Dr. Gunther von Hagens, the inventor of "plastination," a technique using polymers that preserves cadavers. The second franchise, "Bodies, the Exhibition" and "Bodies Revealed," is the work of Dr. Sui Hongjin from China, who learned from and worked with the former during the 1990s.

While extensive media coverage in America has highlighted the educational aspects of these body exhibits, and praised them for, among other things, teaching anatomy to the public, promoting health and wellness, and encouraging smokers to quit, little attention has been paid to the source of these bodies.

According to body donation reviews, verified by many sources, including the latest Journal for Medical Humanities, von Hagens bodies stem from his institutes body donor program. In a meeting with von Hagens in September, he also told me that he did not use any Chinese bodies because he could not verify their origins.

The second exhibit, however, does not have a body donation program. Sui and his American partners, Premier Exhibitions, claim all of the body parts in his exhibit are "acquired by legal means with the highest of ethical standards." Considering that most of the bodies in this exhibit are from males, evidently young, fit and muscular, few Americans have taken the time to question exactly what the organizers of Bodies mean by this vague declaration.

As director of the Laogai Research Foundation, I have worked with human rights advocate Harry Wu for many years on the issue of the Chinese laogai, Chinas prison system. Because China is an authoritarian country lacking the rule of law, the scores of unemployed workers and peasants who desert their land and swarm into the cities in search of jobs can easily fall into the trap of committing crimes.

There are 68 crimes that can lead to the death penalty in China ranging from drug dealing to corruption to robbery. The case of young peasant workers finding themselves in situations where they have committed such crimes is far too common. As a result, without legal defense, and without the knowledge of their families, these men are sentenced to death, thereby allowing their bodies to become the "merchandise" of the prison, court and hospital.

Several thousand people are sentenced to death yearly (the exact number is classified as a state secret), and their organs are very often harvested without their consent. Chinas vice minister of health, Huang Jiefu, acknowledged publicly in 2006 that most of the organs used for transplantation in the country come from executed prisoners.

According to Chinas laws, stipulated in the Provisional Regulations of the Supreme Peoples Court in 1984, "the use of dead bodies or organs from condemned criminals" is permitted in China, if: 1) the criminals body is unclaimed or uncollected, 2) the criminal voluntarily gives his body or organs for medical uses, or 3) upon approval of the criminals family members.

Thus, we can reasonably question that most of the Chinese cadavers in Dr. Suis exhibits, currently touring throughout U.S. cities, come from the same source — executed prisoners. If that is the case,, there can be no justification in the name of science or art for these reprehensible exhibits. This kind of exhibit, which exploits such a vulnerable and persecuted group, should be banned in the USA.

Tienchi Martin-Liao is director of The Laogai Research Foundation.