I attended BODY WORLDS at the Arizona Science Center a couple years ago. I absolutely loved the exhibit, and would recommend it to anyone. In my opinion, BODY WORLDS celebrates human dignity by illustrating how complex and amazing the human body is, as well as the many different things it can do.
My experience was not necessarily "educational" per se, because I spent most of my time admiring the artistic elements of the exhibit. However, now that I look back, I think the exhibit did open my eyes/give a worthwhile introduction to anatomy and physiology. Furthermore, the exhibit does a great job at showing how various bodily systems interrelate and interconnect with one another.
I disagree with author Lawrence Burns' comments that the overall "value of the palstination for the general public is minimal because the general public cannot appreciate the complexity of the human body in such detail." As a member of the "general public" I felt that I greatly and completely appreciated the level of detail just as much, if not more, than a specialist, because I, and the "general public," am never exposed to that type of detail so it was all the more incredible.
Also, I disagree with Burns' statement that "to improve its educational impact and to maintain its focus on what makes plastinates uniquely instructive, BODYWORLDS should continue to display the fragments of bodies but reduce the number of whole-body gestalt plastinates." The whole body plastinates were BY FAR the best part of the exhibit! While they might not have shown the bodily systems as clearly, the whole body displays are exciting enough to generate an interest in anatomy to an otherwise uninterested person.
Lastly, I do not find the suggestions persuasive that the names of the donors should remain anonymous, the artistic & creative poses need to be eliminated, or that the artist von Hagen should be required to remove his name from the label. In my eyes, the artistic elements glorify the human body, and von Hagen should be credited for the work, much like any other doctor, scholar, teacher, or artist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dr. von Hagen’s legal problems arising from the questionable origination of 60 corpses, possibly from Chinese and Kyrgyzstanian prisons, got me thinking about the United States’ policy on prisoner cadaver and organ donation. Aside from the informed consent issue, do we even allow prisoners to donate their bodies to science or permit live organ donation? While I couldn’t find anything on full cadaver donation, there is quite a bit of controversy about whether a prisoner may donate organs either while living or upon death (natural or by execution).
http://www.bioethics.iu.edu/deathrow.asp
Those that believe prisoners should have the right to donate, cited such reasons as :
• it will save the life of someone in desperate need
• organ transplantation could be used as part of the convicted felon’s sentence and is justified by the three fundamental principles of punishment currently in place: deterrence; retribution; and restitution.
• if they are found mentally and medically suitable, there is no harm in using their organs for directed and non-directed donation
• adequate protocols can safeguard prisoners against coercion and patients against the risk of disease
Those who believe prisoners should NOT have the right to donate cite as their reasons:
• The negative effect on the public view of organ procurement, especially in light of the existing organ procurement practices among condemned prisoners in China and high risks of transmissible disease through organ donation
• Exchange of organs in return for mitigated sentences poses problems of a lack of informed consent and voluntariness of choice
• An ethical objection to the death penalty; any program allowing donation from death row inmates would encourage the use of the death penalty; it is not morally justifiable to kill one group of people (or threaten to kill them) in order to save the lives of others
• proposals to execute prisoners by organ retrieval violate the existing Dead Donor Rule and provide no convincing arguments suggesting that there should be an exception to the rule
I also found an article about the South Carolina legislature’s proposal for a law that would allow prisoners who donate organs to receive time off their prison sentence (example: 180 days for a kidney). However, since federal law prohibits ‘valuable consideration’ in exchange for organ donation, the lawmakers are unsure about the legality of such a statute. (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/08/america/NA-GEN-US-Inmates-Organ-Donations.php)
Personally, I see few problems with allowing prisoners to donate organs, assuming the patient in need of the donation pays for the medical costs and those aren’t passed along to the taxpayer. As long as informed consent is obtained from the prisoner, I see little downside to this practice. However, I think the South Carolina law is quite coercive given that 180 days off a sentence sounds like very valuable consideration.
I know that this comment is waaaay late, but I saw a couple of plastinated people on Oprah (they were doing a show on health questions) and it was very weird to look at- especially the sawed- in- half guy! I immediately thought of your piece. I'm not sure I'd want my remains on display for eternity though. jl
I saw the exhibit as well, and it was the most amazing museum exhibit I've ever seen. I think most Americans have no idea about the intricacies of the human body, and this exhibit is as enlightening as any could get. It does not diminish the mysteries of the human body, but rather, it explores the magnificence of it. I find anonymity to be fine, as it shows the science as science. Everyone should see Body Worlds!
Post a Comment