But how do we define the dignity of the human body? And how important is it that we protect this dignity in the search for effective medical therapies, widespread health awareness of the general public, and the education of our health practitioners?
It seems as though much of the concern arises from the charge that the industry caters to "voyeurism and morbid curiosity," as if the internet did not do so much already. As for the dignity of the human body, I would argue that silencing the open viewing and discussion of the human body promotes the exclusivity, the esotericism of the medical industry that may preserve the profit of hospital care but keeps much of the public in the dark when knowledge can be made readily available which is a true ethical concern.
It seems that medical knowledge flooding the public domain is something that has yet to establish a strong precedent in societies. Yet it is not difficult to imagine that a public with greater awareness of their body and its organs and systems will in turn mean a healthier public. It may then be plausible that the means toward such an education is what truly respects the "dignity of the human body."
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/world/20090401_ap_frenchjudgeaskedtoshutcadaverexhibit.html
2 comments:
I completely agree that studying the intricate workings of the body will help educate the general public about how the body works. There seems to be few others ways to do just this in a real-life way, without using real bodies. Exhibits like BodyWorlds are crucial to the understanding of the human body, and I feel that we would be doing a disservice to the public if we were to outlaw these types of exhibits based on the fact that some may violate human rights.
The discussion we had in class about this was very interesting. Since we are not specifically dealing with the human rights of United States citizens, but rather the rights of Chinese prisoners, there is quite an ethical dilemma. In China, we discussed that these prisoners, though we have no knowledge of their accused crime, are practically considered to be non-humans in the eyes of the Chinese government. So, when the Chinese government sends over these bodies, does the U.S. now have the right to give human rights to these bodies under our own moral standards?
I strongly disagree that the United States should give human rights to these bodies that have already been deemed non-human. In doing this, even though we believe it is the right thing to do, I think that we are disrespecting the views of the Chinese government towards their own citizens and towards those who have hurt their society in some way or another. To suddenly give more respect to a body that has been deemed as a troublesome member of Chinese society is almost to go against the morals of Chinese society and replace them with our own.
I think that the argument that these types of exhibits violates human rights is very flawed due to the fact that these bodies did not originate in the United States, yet we are attempting to use U.S. –based morals to establish whether or not these bodies can be used for exhibition. There is also the point that since these people have done a disservice to Chinese society, using their bodies to advance society’s understanding of science serves as a way for them to give back to society and redeem themselves.
Natalie poses a very important question in her blog entry – “How do we define the dignity of the human body?” The discussion we had in class about the bodies used in the BodyWorlds exhibit was very intriguing. We are dealing with bodies of Chinese prisoners that have been brought to the US. As we discussed in class, there is a high chance that the deceased families’ hadn’t been told to even collect these bodies. In fact, it would not be false to state that the Chinese government itself did not treat the bodies as humans.
Coming back to the BodyWorlds exhibit, it cannot be denied that profit is one of the biggest motives [if not the biggest] for BodyWorld exhibits. However, the intellectual benefits cannot be denied. The exhibit introduces the public to the human bodies anatomy in an innovative way. Finally, the organs are not limited to pictures in a Biology textbook but can be seen and observed in real life. Also, the exhibit serves as a mode of art as it portrays the different human activities in a very creative manner.
While, I agree that BodyWorlds does provide some intellectual benefits to society, I feel that it is not worth sacrificing the dignity of the human body for this cause. According to me, if one really wanted to learn the workings behind the human body BodyWorlds is not the only source. In fact, it cannot be denied that while BodyWorlds does provide an interesting physical representation, one can learn the same things by studying textbooks and looking through other pictures.
The human body is termed to be the “temple of God” by Christian sources such as the Bible and this sentiment is echoed by most religious texts. My argument is along those lines; throughout out life we take utmost care of our bodies. For the majority of us, it serves as a mode of expression and a mode of being. After death, we obviously won’t feel any physical pain if our bodies are used in such exhibits but our bodies serve a bigger role in our lives. It is one thing to willingly donate your body towards exhibits such as BodyWorlds but it is another thing to give up your body to such causes without any form of consent.
Every human has basic rights, and the right to decide what happens to your body during your lifetime and after your lifetime should be left to each individual. And most importantly, this right does not change with what country you were born in and what country you died in.
Post a Comment