Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Bodies: The Exhibition
Currently on display at the Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) in Tampa, is "Bodies: The Exhibition," which opened August 18 and closes in February 2006. (The museum's website is www.mosi.org/). The exhibit shows preserved human bodies and body parts, and the U.S. company, producing the exhibit, is Premier Exhibitions. The company obtained the bodies and body parts from the Dalian Medical University of Plastination Laboratories in China, which used a polymer preservation process called plastination.
The coming of the exhibit was announced at the end of July by MOSI officials who said the exhibit would be both educational and memorable. Of course, a big question for many was, "Where did the bodies come from?" According to the July 23, 2005, issue of the St. Petersburg Times, Dr. Roy Glover, medical director for Premier Exhibitions, told the Times that all of the bodies had been donated to medical facilities for educational purposes. However, before the August 18th opening, the Florida Anatomical Board voted "No" to the exhibit because board officials said the bodies were unclaimed and unidentified in China, and thus, individuals had not given their consent to having their bodies being donated and publicly displayed. Nonetheless, the MOSI said it would open the exhibit on time despite the fact that the board did not give its permission, and it did.
Over 12,000 visitors came to see the exhibit during the first four days. According to Alligatoronline, Lynn Romrell, of Florida's Anatomical Board, said the exhibit was in violation of Florida law. Nonetheless, the state's Attorney General said that the law was too vague to warrant legal action against the museum.
The St. Petersburg Times noted, in its July 28 issue, the apparent contradiction in Dr. Glover's earlier statement that the bodies had been donated. Of course, one can say that he didn't lie; he just didn't say it was the Chinese government that had donated the bodies to the medical facility. Dr. Glover reiterated that the bodies were obtained legally, and said it was possible to exhibit the bodies legally and ethically without consent of the individuals or their families. Michael Sappol, the curator/historian of the National Library of Medicine and the author of A Traffic of Dead Bodies: Anatomy and Embodied Social Identity in 19th Century America, says "'the Chinese government is a notorious violator of bioethical standards'" (St. Petersburg Times, July 28, 2005).
So, is the exhibit ethical? What is certain is the company's vested interest in drawing in crowds to pay for the bodies and reap in profits.
Who were the people whose bodies are on display? Certainly, one can simply repeat what has been said above: they were unknowns because their bodies were unclaimed and unidentified. However, there are other possibilities, aren't there? Could the bodies be the bodies of Chinese prisoners? If so, could they have been political prisoners? The same July issue of the St. Petersburg Times reports of a similar exhibit operated by a German company with a lab in Dalian that does plastination. German media accused that company of using the bodies of Chinese prisoners who had been shot execution-style to feed an international black market. The German company denied using bodies of prisoners killed violently, and Premier Exhibitions denies any affiliation with the German company. Nonetheless, the U.S. company has not proven where these bodies came from beyond the fact that they were Chinese and the Chinese government said the bodies were unclaimed and unidentified.
Another question concerns the boundaries between education and exploitation. Does consent to having one's body used for medical-educational purposes necessarily mean that one consents to having one's body put out for public display as well? The August 29, 2005, issue of National Geographic News quotes Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, to say, "'There is a fine line between education and exploitation in these kinds of exhibits. And you only want people to be displayed if you have their consent, not the consent of a third party.'" However, Dr. Glover seems to invoke their consent by saying, "'These particular individuals are helping us to understand our bodies... I think they would be pleased.'" I guess that means they would be happy knowing that their bodies are being used as commodities by a U.S. company profiting from the preservation and display of their bodies despite their informed consent.
Final questions on this topic, at least for today, are: "Does the location of the exhibit legitimize what the company says is an educational and scientific display? The exhibit is at the Museum of Science and Industry. Would the exhibit be equally legitimate as an educational and scientific display if the bodies were on display at Walt Disney World's Epcot Center or a Las Vegas Casino?
The coming of the exhibit was announced at the end of July by MOSI officials who said the exhibit would be both educational and memorable. Of course, a big question for many was, "Where did the bodies come from?" According to the July 23, 2005, issue of the St. Petersburg Times, Dr. Roy Glover, medical director for Premier Exhibitions, told the Times that all of the bodies had been donated to medical facilities for educational purposes. However, before the August 18th opening, the Florida Anatomical Board voted "No" to the exhibit because board officials said the bodies were unclaimed and unidentified in China, and thus, individuals had not given their consent to having their bodies being donated and publicly displayed. Nonetheless, the MOSI said it would open the exhibit on time despite the fact that the board did not give its permission, and it did.
Over 12,000 visitors came to see the exhibit during the first four days. According to Alligatoronline, Lynn Romrell, of Florida's Anatomical Board, said the exhibit was in violation of Florida law. Nonetheless, the state's Attorney General said that the law was too vague to warrant legal action against the museum.
The St. Petersburg Times noted, in its July 28 issue, the apparent contradiction in Dr. Glover's earlier statement that the bodies had been donated. Of course, one can say that he didn't lie; he just didn't say it was the Chinese government that had donated the bodies to the medical facility. Dr. Glover reiterated that the bodies were obtained legally, and said it was possible to exhibit the bodies legally and ethically without consent of the individuals or their families. Michael Sappol, the curator/historian of the National Library of Medicine and the author of A Traffic of Dead Bodies: Anatomy and Embodied Social Identity in 19th Century America, says "'the Chinese government is a notorious violator of bioethical standards'" (St. Petersburg Times, July 28, 2005).
So, is the exhibit ethical? What is certain is the company's vested interest in drawing in crowds to pay for the bodies and reap in profits.
Who were the people whose bodies are on display? Certainly, one can simply repeat what has been said above: they were unknowns because their bodies were unclaimed and unidentified. However, there are other possibilities, aren't there? Could the bodies be the bodies of Chinese prisoners? If so, could they have been political prisoners? The same July issue of the St. Petersburg Times reports of a similar exhibit operated by a German company with a lab in Dalian that does plastination. German media accused that company of using the bodies of Chinese prisoners who had been shot execution-style to feed an international black market. The German company denied using bodies of prisoners killed violently, and Premier Exhibitions denies any affiliation with the German company. Nonetheless, the U.S. company has not proven where these bodies came from beyond the fact that they were Chinese and the Chinese government said the bodies were unclaimed and unidentified.
Another question concerns the boundaries between education and exploitation. Does consent to having one's body used for medical-educational purposes necessarily mean that one consents to having one's body put out for public display as well? The August 29, 2005, issue of National Geographic News quotes Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, to say, "'There is a fine line between education and exploitation in these kinds of exhibits. And you only want people to be displayed if you have their consent, not the consent of a third party.'" However, Dr. Glover seems to invoke their consent by saying, "'These particular individuals are helping us to understand our bodies... I think they would be pleased.'" I guess that means they would be happy knowing that their bodies are being used as commodities by a U.S. company profiting from the preservation and display of their bodies despite their informed consent.
Final questions on this topic, at least for today, are: "Does the location of the exhibit legitimize what the company says is an educational and scientific display? The exhibit is at the Museum of Science and Industry. Would the exhibit be equally legitimate as an educational and scientific display if the bodies were on display at Walt Disney World's Epcot Center or a Las Vegas Casino?
