Recently, Gunther Von Hagens of Body World exhibition fame attempted to sell his collection of plastinated bodies for a profit online. He has met fierce criticism from a church he does not even associate himself with, namely the German Protestant Church community. For those of you who don't know, plastination is the scientific process by which the blood and fat in a body is replaced with certain plastics in order to preserve the body so that it can be touched in the future without risk of decay or rot. This amazing process was invented by Gunther Von Hagens himself in around 1979, and he has received multiple patents for this process both in the United States and in Germany.
To get a good look at what plastination looks like, youtube the Body World Exhibition; I won't post it here as it may offend readers.
Back to the main point: I believe that the church is being completely unreasonable in their opposition to Gunther Von Hagens' decision to sell his creations. They claim that "human dignity" remains "sacrosanct," even after death, but could any fate-after-death be better than plastination? Compared to a corpse rotting six feet under the ground, plastinated body parts retain most of their properties and remain in good condition.
Not only that, a regular corpse can only be used in its individual parts for research and other purposes due to the nature of storage freezers. Plastinated body parts opens up a whole new realm for research where full bodies still relatively similar to when they were alive can be studied. To add on to this, Von Hagens requires purchasers to submit written proof that the body parts are being used for research or teaching purposes.
While the Church feels that Von Hagens is promoting a "corpse trade" and that he is, "breaking a taboo," it is important to remember that the benefits that these bodies can bring, and the specific conditions for sale, proves the negative connotations of a "corpse trade" to be incorrect. Sure, maybe selling body parts makes some people uneasy, but is this really a taboo that we can afford to allow to live in our current, modern times? The future lies in developments in science; in order to look towards the future, we need to open up new pathways to study the human body.
There is no real controversy, only a conservative religious group once again trying to stop advancement because it violates the group's own, specific moral standards.
3 comments:
I, indeed, believe that the moral and ethical concerns the church has against plastination are completely ridiculous. Plastination is simply an art form. The church and all its morality are against this art form because they feel it usurps human dignity. But in fact, humans have countless other traditions that parallel this rash display of the human body:
What about open-casket funerals? Is an accessibility to touch and view the body of the deceased in his/her full form a violation of human dignity as well? Oh, but it is. And don’t give me this crap about “well, it’s a funeral! You’re mourning the body by having it out there!” But isn’t that tradition of our own making? What truly makes a deceased human lying in an open casket that much different than a plastinated body? Nothing. Except that plastinated bodies in fact usurp LESS “human dignity”.
For one, all bodies plastinated by Von Hagenswith are done so with the complete consent of the individual, before his or her death. Secondly, plastination, as Daniel so admirably mentioned, actually has noticeable benefits, actually INCREASING “human dignity,” in a sense. Plastination is commonly taught in over three dozen medical and dental universities around the world, allowing students to have a hands-on approach to medicine. It provides dead-useful models for students and professors to use, and allows students and professors to have accurate models for the teaching of anatomy. With this, fewer animals are killed to perform research; plastinated animals serve as a handy alternative. The benefits of plastination are undeniable. The church’s criticism is wholly unjustified.
Many people around the world donate their bodies in some form or another. Some people choose to donate their bodies to science after their deaths and others choose to be organ donors. I think as long as these bodies are being used towards education or another area of common good, then their sale is acceptable. If Van Hagens was forced to bury these bodies, they would just sit underground, not even rot, and go towards nothing. Since we have the chance to use them we should do so. If these people gave their bodies to Van Hagens to work with, than I doubt they personally cared about their own "human dignity" after their death and thought that this act of donation was going towards something they approved of and believed in.
-Sandy Frank
To address the apparent morality problem, I would like to ask any Protestant church of their views on "human dignity" after death. What human dignity? If they believe that the spirit is eternal (in which I believe all Protestant Christians agree), then why should we care about the corpse? The body has no soul in it anymore; it is merely a group of matter, no more. The soul has left to meet God in heaven. And the final nail: Jews in the Old Testament did not handle corpses since they were considered (obviously) unclean.
In addition, the church really should not care about what other people do. From the Bible: "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges..." 1 Cor 5:12-13a. Even if it is morally wrong, the church really shouldn't be making such a huge fuss when it doesn't involve them.
By the way, Dan, though your points are mostly valid, your conclusion that they are specifically trying to block advancement is almost certainly wrong. Most churches have no problem with science.
Post a Comment