The letters forum in Sunday’s (Raleigh) News and Observer featured comments on last week’s story “An activist awakens,” about anti-”Bodies” activist Sarah Redpath.
What article critics don’t address is that the for-profit company behind the exhibit cannot provide any proof that the individuals whose bodies are on display gave their consent. As I wrote in response to one blog comment, it is not enough to say that something is “beautiful” or “educational” or “inspiring.” It must also be right, in this case done with the agreement of the people used for the display.
The example I used was inflammatory, but apt. What if you had the opportunity to buy a beautiful lamp whose shade was made of the skin of a Holocaust victim? It could be the most lovely, artistic lamp ever. But its origin makes it not only ugly, but reprehensible and a crime. I argue that the “Bodies” exhibit presents us with precisely the same issue.
What appears to be happening is that the people whose bodies are used for our entertainment were simply too poor to protest. Likely, they died far from home or in such a state of destitution that family was unable or unwilling to claim their remains. Then their remains were purchased, for the “Bodies” display.
Does their poverty make it right for us to ignore how the body was produced, while “appreciating” its beauty and intricacy? I would answer an emphatic no. How these things come to be matters desperately.
Tags: 2 Comments
2 responses so far ↓
Thanks for following this Robin. Here is a preview of my my response to the forum letters. I hope the N&O prints it entirely.
………………………………………
Thank you, those who took the time to respond to the bodies exhibit article. Thank you also to the hundreds who wrote to me privately and left comments on the petition, with encouraging agreement. I’m glad our community has had the chance for this dialog.
My main concern here is unregulated businesses using bodies as commodities for profit. There are more public protection restrictions on a family funeral or transporting lettuce than bodies displayed for years for profit. Are they correctly preserved? There are no standards or licenses for plastination as for other embalming methods. Perhaps this is an idea for an at-home business.
As a doctor’s daughter I fully understand the beauty and inspiration the human body elicits. I am not squeamish. However, I don’t have to view the exhibit to know that a wide open door to Dalian China directly into the heart of our community with no oversight provides intolerable opportunities for unethical behavior. This new entertainment industry’s two billion dollars profit makes the production companies’ ability to ethically self regulate questionable. These concerns are not related to legitimate organ donation or about what you do with your body willingly after you die. I encourage ethical scientific education and consenting donations.
Many responded that the exhibit was so beautiful they forgot these were real bodies. Is that a good thing? Is personal entertainment worth the risk someone died for your ticket money? I’m shocked how facts add up to that terrible possibility.
I would desperately like to be wrong; but respected news sources - NPR, National Geographic, ABCNews, NYTimes, The Guardian, Die Spiegel, Salon – reported: no death certificates, no proof of consent, no health inspections, no customs import restrictions (its an art collection), bodies returned due to gunshot wounds to the head, eleven body processing plants next to prisons in Dalian China. But that is all old news, you see, reported elsewhere. And so for publishable local news I agreed to a story, uncomfortably, about me. I want my community to be informed of what they are consuming. And so, North Carolina, who are we relying on to balance that toxic mix? Chinese laws? I’m not the only one who sees many dangers here.
The profiteers must bear the burden of proof. Recently stated in SmartMoney, their biggest problem is planning what to do with all that money. Are they education philanthropists? The inevitable knowledge gained from these bodies doesn’t negate the word ‘education’ from being used as a smokescreen for shady practices. I’m sure these men look very trustworthy and they have warm handshakes. Apparently that, and the lucrative popularity, convinced many venues like the Pittsburgh Carnegie Science Center to point to the production companies when asked for proof of ethics. Personally, I need more than that, thank you. Where are the documents?
Its easy to spurn me as a hysteric. Do some reading. This is deeper than you think. And its not just my personal problem.
Sarah’s edited response (”Unregulated Bodies”) was published in the September 30 News and Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/story/720955-p2.html