Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes

6 (50%)

no

6 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: November 26, 2005, 04:21:30 pm

[side_show]

I've long had a facinataion with Gunther von Hagens' Body Worlds Exhibit, and from the initial information about the exhibit, I really wanted to see it, and now that his secondary exhibit is in Toronto, I could go see it.  Recently though, Articles have been printed in local papers claiming that the human remains presented are of people who did not give their own consent, but are often those of prisoners, patients with no living relataives, or patients of mental health facilities.  I have to admit that I'm deeply disturbed by the idea that these may be the bodies of those who did not give their personal consent, and am starting to think I'm not in favor of the exhibition.  So I checked if there were any statements released by von Hagen, and his sight has this news release:

With regard to the accusation that Gunther von Hagens obtained corpses from dubious sources, there is no evidence of the unauthorized removal of bodies or of the body parts of deceased persons from the custody of those entitled as defined by §168 para.1, alternative 1 of the StGB. A criminal offence of this nature only arises if the actions are taken against the will of persons entitled to and exercising custody of the corpse. The law defines persons entitled in this respect prior to the funeral as normally being the next of kin. However, in such cases the next of kin are not always identical with those persons entitled to custody; relatives of the deceased are only in fact custodians of the corpse if they actively assert their custodial rights. If someone dies in a hospital or other institution, for example, of if relatives are not present, custody is – at least initially – governed by the principle of the “coincidental custody” of the relevant institution. In the present case, Gunther von Hagens was said to have obtained corpses from state institutions in Kyrgyzstan such as the Medical Academy in Bishkek, from a prison camp, from hospitals, prisons and psychiatric institutions as well as from police authorities and, with their consent, similar institutions exercising “coincidental custodian” rights in China. Even if these persons may have disposed of corpses in an illegal manner, this would not fulfil the definition of unauthorized removal specified by §168 para. 1, alternative 1 of the StGB, and there are therefore no grounds for pursuing criminal charges in Germany.

What do you think - doesn't it seem that they're arguing a technicality?  Yeah, it's not against the law since the organizations who held claim to the bodies gave consent, but there's no indication that the actual people who have been disected and put on display had any say in what happened to their remains, and this really upsets me.  Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's ethical, does it?

On top of all this, from von Hagen's own sight, there is a release noting that it has been suggested that his father, who works with him to process the bodies, and who is a former member of (German) SS, Gerhard Liebchen, was responsible for war crimes committed during the Second World War.  The site notes that it has been decided that there will be no investigation by the Institute of National Memory in regard to these accusations, but again, what are the ethics behind being a former member of the SS, who now participates in the procurement and dissection of bodies for display purposes?

Further to that, in von Hagen's article on the anonymity of his subjects, he states that

it eliminates any legal problems that might result from the survivors' permanent rights of disposition.

So, he's intentionally concealing the indentity of the subjects because he wishes to prevent the surviving relatives for their rights?  This is even more disturbing to me.  If my mother, who is mentally ill, was to go missing, get insitutionalized and die in the institution, I would want to put her to rest.  Even if I only found out a year later, I don't see why this wouldn't give me the right to make my own decision in this regard, and von Hagen's assertion seems very dubious to me.  Certainly if I or one of my family memebers was to dontate their body to this process, I would desire to have some word in regard to the dignity of how the body was processed, handled and presented, and I consider von Hagen's failure to recognise this quite upsetting.

While I look at the images on the site and think that many are presented beautifully,  and was fully prepaired to shell out some serious chedder to see the display, I now can't see them without thinking that that person I am looking at may have been a mental patient who had no peace in their life, and is now being used, on display, in a way that he or she may not have wanted.  I don't know, I just don't think it's appropriate that these people are marginalized for their whole life, then without their own consent, can end up with thier corpses put on display.

[V-Adore]

It's really hard to say without any hard evidence.

You're right that the rebuttal sounds very shady (as it basically seems to sum to "we didn't do anything technically illegal"), but I'm not sure that means that anything shady actually went on. I'm not sure I'm willing to state ethicality or not unless I knew the circumstances more clearly. If he got consent, or if he took all reasonable effort to get consent (attempted contact with next of kin and so on), then I can't argue with it.

If you're not comfortable, don't go. That seems like the best thing to do, since I doubt you'll ever get a straight answer about whether or not the remains were acquired ethically.

[misterqueue]

Actually I saw the show last when I was in Chicago and it was rather excellent.  As far as I had read up most of the bodies were donations or john doe situations.

I don't think a past affiliation with the SS should bar anyone from being able to work on a show like this.  I mean I suppose if it was proven that he had a predilection to only pick a certain race or something.. or was robbing graves or actually killing people for it... sure.

Then again maybe it's just me since I ascribe to the theory that a body is a body as long as it didn't get that way through someone else's violent acts.

However I agree with V.. if you're uncomfy, then don't go.  No reason to get yourself worked up over it I'd think.

[Beatrice]

I went to Chicago at the beginning of the year and on our way back home my friends and I intended to spend the morning at this exhibit.  The wait just to get tickets was two fuck*ng hours.  And it cost a shit ton of money.  So we didn't get to go in, and I was pretty dissapointed about it.

[Doc]

I think V has the right end of it here: it is hard to call ethical or not without actually knowing either way. I think for me at least the line would be if he were actually deliberately hiding the identities of the bodies so that family members could not identify them. That said I could see him wanting the bodies to be donated anonymously for other reasons, the argument could be made for instance that a person may not want it to be known they donated their body in this way precisely becuase it would upset their surviving relatives. This of course doesn't justify anonymity in every case, just a possible reason.
As for myself I don't think this would really bother me (as in if it happened to me), but then I'm not a religious person and could understand why others would object.

The only way to be 100% safe would be to only use people who had consented and ideally I suppose this is what should happen though. It is always a bit dangerous when people start seeing art (or anything really) as being more important that ethics.
That said I'm pretty sure the whole corpses as art thing isn't new, I'm sure I've heard of this done before quite a long time ago I beleive. Of course I have no reference at this time.

[AlohaDawg]

Personally

I think it's unethical from the standpoint of what it is - not where the bodies came from but what's done with them. Also the profit that is made.

To me, Ethos can be personal and global. Ethos come from a sense of community standards and accountability for behavior on a more personal level than the law.

In my view, abusing a corpse, displaying it publicly, and charging large amounts of money for the privilege is offensive on multiple levels and troubling, certainly, on every point of Mel's very thoughtful post.

If I ethically/legally obtained a corpse and filmed a pornographic movie featuring people defiling it would that somehow be different than this display?

I don't think it would be much different 'ethically' and the 'ethics'/;legality' of obtaining the rights to a dead human being would be completely served.

I think the ethical question is grounded primarily in the motivation and intent of the people behind this exhibit (and those who want to see it).

There seems to me to be nothing normal or natural about this exhibit, particularly if it is true that there is a wanna-be Dr Joseph Mengele behind it.

[V-Adore]

I'm curious, Dawg: what do you see as the major element of this that makes it unethical? Is it the ticket sales? (You imply that the profit motive is their only motive here, which mildly confuses me, since this whole process seems like a rather overelaborate way to make some cash.) Is it the public exhibition? (I was under the impression that fairly frank anatomical exhibits were common these days; I know the Mutter Museum has been in operation a while and seems much more focused on "freaks" and other "exploitative" exhibits than this is.) Do you consider this to be more "abusive" to the bodies than, say, medical experimentation and the Body Farm?

I guess my thought on the matter is that, provided proper consent was obtained, there's nothing particularly unethical about displaying human remains, even with an admission cost attached. Without further evidence, the SS thing strikes me as a straw man; it's easy to talk about "would-be Mengeles" in the absence of any evidence for or against, but until there's actual firm evidence of wrongdoing, even the most dubious ancestry doesn't demonstrate unethicality per se.

[slink]

Have to say, assuming the methods they obtain the bodies and such are consensual then I don't have an issue with the morality/ethics of it.
Not sure I'd want to go see it, but I have no problem with it.

[AlohaDawg]

I'm curious, Dawg: what do you see as the major element of this that makes it unethical? Is it the ticket sales? (You imply that the profit motive is their only motive here, which mildly confuses me, since this whole process seems like a rather overelaborate way to make some cash.) Is it the public exhibition? (I was under the impression that fairly frank anatomical exhibits were common these days; I know the Mutter Museum has been in operation a while and seems much more focused on "freaks" and other "exploitative" exhibits than this is.) Do you consider this to be more "abusive" to the bodies than, say, medical experimentation and the Body Farm?

I guess my thought on the matter is that, provided proper consent was obtained, there's nothing particularly unethical about displaying human remains, even with an admission cost attached. Without further evidence, the SS thing strikes me as a straw man; it's easy to talk about "would-be Mengeles" in the absence of any evidence for or against, but until there's actual firm evidence of wrongdoing, even the most dubious ancestry doesn't demonstrate unethicality per se.

It's personal. And, I'm afraid, inarguable since it's a matter of faith. It's rooted fairly deeply in my belief in a conscious and loving Creator and the accompanying belief that our existence, our bodies and our lives are a gift from that Creator. Jokes I can handle but when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit, I think it runs very strongly counter to my admittedly personal views as a Christian. I believe we are meant to love and respect each other, even after death. Universally.

There are so many other ways to express the artistic talent, which is also a gift, that this actually, today at least, strikes me as mocking the gift-giver Himself.

This is the kind of thing I don't give a second thought to - it's roughly parallel to that sort of performance 'art' you might get from someone like Annie Sprinkle.

In my opinion It's wasteful of talent and intellect (not to mention, possibly, taxpayer dollars) and it doesn't really raise the social discourse in my humble and doubtlessly minority view.

Medical Experimenatation is subject to major ethical, political and professional controls.  It also has objectives that are fairly universally agreed upon to be positive for society as a whole - yet, there are a few people objecting to it on different, often religious or at least deeply held personal ethical grounds.

Just on this board so far (as of 11/28), its 1/2 and 1/2 for this exhibit's ethics although I doubt many would post a religious objection to it even if that was the reason. I do because I trust many of you and don't care about the opinion of the rest of you. As Mel points out, though, there are enough other reasons to feel at least discomfort if not revulsion over this exhibit.

Art is by definition and tradition not subject to ethical controls. Were I conscious of the Mutter exhibit and had I clicked the link I might not be too happy with that one either - I didn't and I'll take your word for its description at face value - I have no opinion since I have no knowledge of it.

[AugustWest]

when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit,

I agree that that would be reprehenisble, but is that the case with this exhibit?  I don't know, but that isn't the vibe I got from the website.  I guess I thought this was about learning to better appreciate the human form through artisitic anatomy lessons.  Kind of like nude figure studies taken to the next level.

What if viewing real anatomy in this form lead one to appreciate the intricate elegance of our bodies?  Couldn't that be beneficial?  Couldn't that lead to intellectual and spiritual growth?  And if that's the case, if I could obtain those benefits from such an exhibit, do I need to concern myself with the producers' motives?

[V-Adore]

Art is by definition and tradition not subject to ethical controls. Were I conscious of the Mutter exhibit and had I clicked the link I might not be too happy with that one either - I didn't and I'll take your word for its description at face value - I have no opinion since I have no knowledge of it.

For the record, the Mutter link is text-only and totally worksafe; I probably should have marked it as such. Sorry about that.

I'm not going to argue with your personal religious beliefs, of course, but I agree with August that I believe you're too quick to jump to a conclusion that this exhibit is about exploitation. I haven't seen it, so I may be wrong, but judging by the website the intent appears to be educational -- to display the human body in a way that allows the layperson to better appreciate the structure and systems of the body.

I agree, of course, that both before and after death the human body must be respected. However, if all due consent is acquired from the deceased or their next of kin, I don't consider tasteful public display (as this appears to be) any more disrespectful than any other of the numerous indignities to which we subject the dead. While it may not be quite as worthy a purpose as organ donation, public education I also believe to be a worthy purpose for human remains.

[side_show]

Well, AD, we sort of oppose the exhibit for different reasons, but I also apreciate your own.  Even though we come from different spiritual places - I'm an Athiest, your, a Christian, still though, I still strongly agree with your take:

our existence, our bodies and our lives are a gift

You know, as someone who works with living human bodies every day, and also as one who works to protect children from the bad stuff, I do tend to think of the body a sacred thing, a thing not to be taken lightly, not be messed with without owner's consent.  I talk to friends of mine who still have relatives whose bones are on display in museums because of the sheer fact that they were American Indians, and the thing that I can't get my head around is that the body can not become totally depersonalized.  No matter what, those bodies are all the remains of someone's son or daughter.  For me, what I can't get around is the issue of consent or lack there of.  And, also as AD points out, the profit involved.  Like Doc mentioned, unless these were bodies on display where 100% of the subjects who had knowingly signed off before their passing, I don't think I could ever be comfortable with this.  Von Hagen never states that he got personal consent, and never denies that he took bodies from prisons and hospitals. You can find this information from his own statements on his own site.  

And what about the SS connection?  It is a fact that his father was a member of the SS, this is not up for question.  Even von Hagen admits this.  It wasn't so long ago that Nazi's were using Jew's skin for lamp shades, so even if his father didn't stoop to this level, is it at all wise to then tread this fine line?  It would be like being accused of being a child molester but untried, then going and working at a daycare.  Why would you do this?  

It just seems that both father and son are lining their wallets by intentionally being confrontational.  

And why not display the bodies in a medical manner instead of in a supposedly artful, and sometimes provocative manner?  Look at Pregnant Woman Reclining - This choice was intentionally incendiary - there was thought and time put into this. Why try to make it art?  It's as inapropriate as me, with my art degree, asuming I have the right to practice medical procedures just because I know first aid.  It just smacks of on lack of understanding of art and it's function to try in turn medicine into art.

I don't know, I have to admit that I saw a wonderful documentary on the original Body Works that really made me want to see it, but at the same time, brought up a lot of questions for me.  My SO wants to donate his body to science when he dies, and since I had a good friend in med-school and heard lots of stories about what they do to cadavers ( I'm talking the joking around, not the disecting), I'm pretty sure I don't want to do the same with my body.   Yeah, once your dead, it's just a corpse, but I don't know - there's something natural and peaceful about returning to the earth - it's my body, you know - it was touched and kissed and made love to, and even in the end, if it's just food for worms, that just seems more peaceful than being on display, especially under such bizarre circumstances.

[Ben-San]

I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.

The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.

However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.

[AlohaDawg]

I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.

The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.

However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.

On it's face, maybe - but if the old man is using skills he honed torturing or maiming people for the Fatherland to help his kid make money now, sorry, but I think the son does become in a way complicit to the Holocaust. I don't feel it's ever appropriate to benefit or profit from a crime - let alone benefiting or profiting from genocide.

Still, though, I'm not sure the SS Question is answered in this example - but in general, I do think it's wrong.

[AlohaDawg]

when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit,

I agree that that would be reprehenisble, but is that the case with this exhibit?  I don't know, but that isn't the vibe I got from the website.  I guess I thought this was about learning to better appreciate the human form through artisitic anatomy lessons.  Kind of like nude figure studies taken to the next level.

What if viewing real anatomy in this form lead one to appreciate the intricate elegance of our bodies?  Couldn't that be beneficial?  Couldn't that lead to intellectual and spiritual growth?  And if that's the case, if I could obtain those benefits from such an exhibit, do I need to concern myself with the producers' motives?

This goal could be accomplished in many media besides human flesh.

The fact that it's real dead human bodies, altered gruesomely and posed gives it the morbid grotesquerie that brings in the dollars. It's NOT the 'learning experience' people are paying for - I think we can agree that for the population in general, that doesn't sell. It's the horror factor people are paying for. I think that it appeals to the most base part of the psyche, I don't doubt that it hardly approaches the intellectial heights you describe.