|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Jan 23, 2009 14:10:52 GMT
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. I did answer your point strictly with reference to the topic first post and the Body Worlds exhibition (assuming consent). With respect to the other interesting points raised in this thread (use of dead bodies for propaganda etc.), I am probably far more on your side of the debate. The Body Worlds exhibition uses people who agree to their use and who have already died from whatever cause. I dont understand any moral argument against this. Seeing real bodies like this is a fantastic learning tool and really fascinating. I said it is interesting like a planetarium but really it is way more interesting than that, what you see is what your own body is made up of, it is breathtaking. |
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Jan 23, 2009 14:13:59 GMT
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. I didnt realise there were two competing shows, and can understand moral objection based on lack of consent. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 14:14:08 GMT
Trubs Given that the person concerned is dead and has no legal persona whatsoever, why should the issue of 'consent' be of such major importance? You may remember a somewhat protracted discussion on JSG some months or years back concerning organ donation, where we  over who owned a dead body. (The correct in law answer being that nobody owns a dead body as a dead body is in a unique category of things that cannot be owned as property.) This is why you're allowed (for instance) to cremate people who have specified in their will that they want buried, etc. In life it is imperative that people are able to consent to the vast majority of things that happen to their bodies (the only exclusion I can think of is where you are unconscious and medical intervention is necessary to save your life). But in death, what does consent matter? Should Palestinian children all sign consent forms to ensure that they consent to their corpses being paraded in front of the world's media if they die? In fact, just about every dead body we see in the news was a human being who did not consent to having their body or body parts broadcast to millions. If consent is so important, then surely it should be wrong to show dead bodies in the media in these circumstances? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 14:21:21 GMT
I suppose the base question is this: Do we need to see dead bodies to understand death? Well, that description sounds as if it was VILE to watch. I am glad I didn't watch. I don't need to see the pictures you have described to understand the death of a baby but perhaps I needed to see them or to read a description of them to understand the extent of the inhumanity, the picture of inhumanity. But that's an emotional thing to say and in oder to solve something, emotion is best to be removed.  But without emotion, how do we understand these people's impetus to continue a bloody fight? It's emotion that provided that, I presume. If the main use of these pictures is to radicalise and stir up emotion to make people fight then there can be no condoning them. Using murder to incite murder is disgusting.  |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jan 23, 2009 14:27:24 GMT
Afternoon all. Hmmm, at least Dr Hagens exhibits were donated! I wonder how much he charged? Almost went to his London exhibition, but moved up North before it opened.
I suspect the BBC - or I'd hope the BBC's reporting of the baby in Gaza was because it's not yet a clear cut case of Good and Evil - So many think the Israelis are justified, so many think their strong arm tactics are wrong and vice versa. Unlike showing the suffering of people in the death camps of Germany when the media were only too pleased to make everyone carry on hating the Germans! I wonder if we'd do the same over that today?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 14:27:43 GMT
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IMMEDIATELY. This is a still photo of the baby in question. It is really horrible. If I hadn't seen the moving pictures last night, I would be feeling very sick. I'm posting the link as it seems daft to be coy about it on a thread of this nature, but I'm not recommending looking. PROCEED WITH CAUTION - THIS IMAGE IS HORRIFIC |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 14:32:28 GMT
Reporting is different to entertainment just as education is different to propaganda, you have made that point. I think there are ethical discussions still being had across the media about what they should show of death and dead bodies. I suppose once someone has died in war there is a public interest that might over ride any issue of consent.
Consent is important after death. It is part of that primal instinct of affording dignity.
We are free to ignore the issue of consent, consent is just an indication and it is up to the living to decide the importance of the individual's consent or lack of. When in doubt, and with no greater public interest, I lean towards respecting their will and/or consent.
In organ donation, we are all free to consent before we die, so it's not an issue of the dead having no powers to or interest in consent, by not consenting when alive we made our views known, there has be to respect for such statements of non-consent.
But still, you make good points, and I am feeling guilty now for visiting St Michan's, a church in Dublin with a burial vault that ended up preserving the bodies. I feel a bit bad for shaking hands with the dead nun. I felt it wasn't quite right at the time but still, I could not resist!
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 14:33:06 GMT
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IMMEDIATELY. This is a still photo of the baby in question. It is really horrible. If I hadn't seen the moving pictures last night, I would be feeling very sick. I'm posting the link as it seems daft to be coy about it on a thread of this nature, but I'm not recommending looking. PROCEED WITH CAUTION - THIS IMAGE IS HORRIFICYou're reporting skills are top notch. I will not be clicking. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 14:34:30 GMT
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IMMEDIATELY. This is a still photo of the baby in question. It is really horrible. If I hadn't seen the moving pictures last night, I would be feeling very sick. I'm posting the link as it seems daft to be coy about it on a thread of this nature, but I'm not recommending looking. PROCEED WITH CAUTION - THIS IMAGE IS HORRIFICYou're reporting skills are top notch. I will not be clicking. Should I remove the link? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 14:35:10 GMT
No, it is a very valid thing to provide.  Not least because we can each test our own need to see a dead baby to understand that it was killed by war. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 14:37:24 GMT
But still, you make good points, and I am feeling guilty now for visiting St Michan's, a church in Dublin with a burial vault that ended up preserving the bodies. I feel a bit bad for shaking hands with the dead nun. I felt it wasn't quite right at the time but still, I could not resist! Jeez, the Cafflicks are really weird. When I was in Goa we went to the Church where Francis Xavier's remains are on show (but pretty high up so there's nothing much to see, although they bring the corpse down every 10 years and millions flock to see it). So your dead nun, is she similarly preserved in death 'miraculously'  Apparently they had buried old Francis X in Portugal or Brazil or somewhere, then dug him up later, and there he was, perfectly preserved. I think all that stuff to do with corpses on show is maudlin, and if God could do miracles, couldn't he do better ones than merely stop the process of putrification? |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jan 23, 2009 14:37:43 GMT
There's a faint irony in the defensiveness people may have over how a body is treated by the media - and how many people treat their elderly relatives almost as lifeless commodities whilst they are still alive. With all the love and best intentions in the world - I've seen it happen that aftera while, or a long bout of illness someone's Granny or Nanny suddenly and almost becomes a "thing" rather than the living relative who brought them into the world, and nurtured them.
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on Jan 23, 2009 14:41:25 GMT
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IMMEDIATELY. This is a still photo of the baby in question. It is really horrible. If I hadn't seen the moving pictures last night, I would be feeling very sick. I'm posting the link as it seems daft to be coy about it on a thread of this nature, but I'm not recommending looking. PROCEED WITH CAUTION - THIS IMAGE IS HORRIFICThat's pretty gross, as is the description of the scene in the comments section below. I think there's a cultural thing going on. I may be wrong but I think Muslims don't really go into the honouring the dead bit like we do in the West. Bodies are buried quickly (because of the heat) and I don't think they generally go in for gravestones and the like. In the West we go to great lengths to honour and respect the dead - I've never understood cushioned coffins for instance, but in the arguably more spiritual ME the dead body is seen as an empty vessel. War is horrible. Weapons kill & maim. Do we really need graphic images to remind us? When they parade dead bodies in Gaza, is it for the cameras or the people? If it's for the cameras it's arguable that they are saying "Please stop this from happening". If it's for the people, I can't see it serving any purpose other than to inflame hatred. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 15:00:43 GMT
lol I don't think it is a catholic church now I think about it and maybe that's the reason that they don't claim a miracle, they claim a dry atmosphere. The nun has skin and hair and nails and is ancient. The warrior with his femur cut in two to fit into the coffin was kind of powerful to see. Going there wasn't maudlin, it was exciting - archaeology exciting not dodgems exciting.
Not like the church in Venice I visited that has a massive glass display case full of flappy bits of grey skin allegedly taken from saints. That's beyond weird.
I went to a museum of the miniature in Spain that had shrunken heads. That was a laugh actually.
I never thought for a moment about consent. Maybe the time gap between death and display makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 15:10:59 GMT
It seems we are reaching consensus. Cafflicks and Muzzers are inappropriate with their dead bodies.
Prods are the best.
(Well, is that not where we're heading with this? Or have I jumped to a premature conclusion?)
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 15:17:07 GMT
Trubs, they show mummies (mummys? the Egyptian ones . . you know) in museums.
Is that in any way different from the Chinese criminal corpses on display at your exhibition?
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 15:17:34 GMT
I think it's the only thing we can conclude from this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 15:19:56 GMT
Trubs, they show mummies (mummys? the Egyptian ones . . you know) in museums. Is that in any way different from the Chinese criminal corpses on display at your exhibition? Public property (purchased by our governments), learning about the way people lived 3000 years ago, time lapse, er... yes, I think time must be important somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 15:39:42 GMT
Trubs, they show mummies (mummys? the Egyptian ones . . you know) in museums. Is that in any way different from the Chinese criminal corpses on display at your exhibition? Public property (purchased by our governments), learning about the way people lived 3000 years ago, time lapse, er... yes, I think time must be important somehow. The Chinese bodies of the criminals are also public property under Chinese law. So it must be time. So how long does someone have to be dead for before it's ok for us to look at their bodies? |
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Jan 23, 2009 16:19:51 GMT
So it must be time. So how long does someone have to be dead for before it's ok for us to look at their bodies? I dont think it is anything to do with time, it is about consent. There is no way any mechanism can be put in place to allow either the person mummified or the immediate family to offer their consent whereas now there is. If someone does not wish for their body to be used in this way (or short of them specifying, their family doesnt want it to be) then it doesnt matter how much time passes it shouldnt be as long as this knowledge is passed along with it somehow. |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
