http://blog.bioethics.net/2008/02/where-exactly-are-the-corpses-for-the-bodies-exhib/
Apparently there is an exhibit in New York City about "Bodies." However, the company who is sponsoring this exhibit does not really know where these bodies come from; they only know that they come from China. The problem is that the company may be using the bodies from executed prisoners, without their consent. Obviously, the company claims that the bodies were all "unclaimed" and not those of executed prisoners.
The article ends by asking: "Why the outrage against using executed prisoners? It's not like the exhibit has a stack of consent forms for its bodies...So, are we really concerned about the the prisoners and their lack of consent? Or are we just motivated by our own unease about the act of execution?"
This same scenario is analagous to the organ donor situation. In order to be an organ donor after you die, you must give your approval during your lifetime. If you do not consent to being an organ donor while you are alive, your body will not be donated and your organs will not be removed and given to others in need.
The fact of the matter is that we are not uneasy about using a dead person's organs if they gave consent during the course of their lifetime. However, we are uneasy about using a person's organs if they never gave consent. For this reason, I disagree with the author of the article's implication that we are only uneasy about using the bodies of executed prisoners because they had been executed. I think it is unethical to use the bodies of any person who never gave permission while alive.
The reason people become more uneasy about using the bodies of executed prisoners is because it is a grisly thought to first kill someone and then harvest their organs or in this case, put their body on display for all to see. It seems like something people would do in the middle ages, not here in the civilized 21st century.
This case is not unethical because the company is using executed prisoners' bodies. It is unethical because they have not obtained consent for the use of any of their display items.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree with Yuri that the exhibit is unethical because it used bodies without the consent of the people when they were alive. I believe that society would function much more efficiently and effectively if people did not always get to determine what happened to their bodies after they died. If doctors were allowed to use organs from any dead body instead of going through the red tape of consent forms, thousands more lives would be saved in the future because organ donations would be more timely and more available. Also, if more bodies were donated, surgeons could practice their craft and students could get a better understanding of how we function.
I know that some people religiously believe that the body must be kept intact after death, but personally I disagree. I don’t think that the soul has any connection to the physical body after death and that once a human cannot comprehend their existence their soul and their identity is not present and not in charge of the mass of carbon and other chemicals that was formerly their body. Even though my personal feelings are strong on this, I believe that practically we must respect different religious views because, first, with metaphysical questions, no human can produce a definitive answer and, second, undermining this right to the body may lead to a slippery slope of undermining rights while people are still living because it will reinforce a culture of government control. That said, the solution is potentially to make an adamant campaign to get people to sign consent forms and hand their bodies over to researchers at death.
Post a Comment