Controversy Surrounding Corpse Donation For Public Display

The practice of displaying human corpses for public edification

The article elaborates on the controversial issue of corpse donation for exhibition display. A total of 14 Australians have willingly consented to donating their corpses to be displayed publicly at a worldwide exhibition. While Melbourne’s taxidermist view the decision as a poetic stance, several social activists have expressed concern and even aversion towards the process involving the action. The company managers have repeatedly corroborated their sense of ethics and value while engaging in the process of preserving and plastinating the body, before it is finally put up for display. Considering it is a worldwide travelling exhibition, the idea of original corpses being displayed at public places is quite offensive in some cultures and hence has raised a lot of controversies in many countries, Australia included. However, the protests were considerably mitigated with Tom Zaller’s (the president of the company) assertion that it is just like the mummies preserved by Egyptians and holds cultural and historical significance. Considering the fact that these corpses belonged to people who had consented to their bodies being used for a purpose after their death, makes it an appropriate and ethical decision on part of the owners of the exhibition company.

The poetic justification of a decision like this cannot be neglected altogether, and the taxidermist has good reasons for supporting Julia Delville’s decision, one of the many Austrians who have consented to this rather unusual activity. According to the arguments made in the article, this is not a violation against human rights since people are neither forced nor manipulated into donating their bodies for an “aesthetic” and educative purpose; they do so willingly as a way of being useful to greater community after their death. The body of the donors can be interpreted as an anatomical work of art and can be highly insightful for visitors aiming to purse anatomy and aesthetics. The questionnaires prepared for interrogating the donators center on their preferences of depiction, and that is evidence enough to the committee’s regard for the emotional prerequisites of the donators. The aim is to give the donators full artistic control while meeting the business needs. The process of plastination dates back to 1977 by Dr. Gunther Von Hagens, who used chemicals and preservatives to make corpses disposable for indeterminate time. The institute founded by Whalley provided specimen only to those that confirmed using them solely for medical and research purposes. The possibility of a future legal sanction could arise from then fact that the exhibition could be doing this mostly as a cheap publicity stunt for drawing in more curious audience. The display might serve nothing more than a source of entertainment for a reckless and fun-loving crowd; which disgraces the noble purpose of the donator. Social activism groups and legal bodies in that case have every reason to sue the company for toying with the emotions of the families of the deceased, and making profit at the cost of their sacrifice. The company has encountered severe criticisms and oppositions that questions the ethical aspect of an activity like this. The president of the company, Tom Zaller combated those resistances by arguing that the practice is not new but had been in popular culture ever since the ancient times in Egypt were civilizations used to mummify dead bodies without the intention of public display in the future. The donators are given full information of the scenario that is to occur following their death. Nothing is held back from them as an attempt to manipulate the donators to meet the business requirements of the company. The organization has been charged for alleged use of Chinese prisoners that had been executed; a charge that was later admitted by the managers. However, the organizers of the exhibition denies having used bodies of deceased people without their consent while alive, in the current collection of displays. The allegations were later investigated by the high courts in Australia and proven unfounded. The company maintains that they have always followed the consent policy of the living for engaging in the activity. 

Arguments for and against the practice of corpse donation

The Australian Ethics Centre executive director Simon Longstaff is of the opinion that ethical aspect of an individual’s cadaver cannot and should not be determined by the belief system, religious values and perceptions (concerning afterlife and reverence to the dead) of the living people. Some people have expressed discernment towards the action by stating that using the corpse of a person without their prior permission is equivalent to disrespecting their integral dignity while they were alive. While there is no denying that the dead people are not waiting in their afterlife to be offended by the ill-treatments meted out to them, the ethical obligations of the fact that they were once living people with an opinion and societal existence must be addressed. This raises questions of the company’s corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility. The activity is highly culture-sensitive, dealing with the emotions and beliefs of people. Since they are dealing with an issue as sensitive as death, it becomes their responsibility to consider the personal views of at least the families of the donators and align their activities in a way that it doesn’t hurt their sentiments. Moreover, the article does not state anything about giving any commission to the family members of the donators out of the profit they have made from displaying their corpses. People of Australia and of other countries initially considered this a grisly horror which is meant more for entertaining than for educating. Additionally, it is extremely taboo in most cultures to display a corpse in public places. The organization is a worldwide travelling company and might be faced with severe oppositions in many countries on account of the candidness and the graphic nature of the displays. The controversy of the company using prisoners and corpses of people without then life consent triggers further ethical concerns among people. Some of the displays even had bullet marks in their skulls suggesting that they were assassinated and that they had no say in the decision of their corpses being used for business purposes in the future.

The ambiguous nature of the article makes it difficult to decide whether the company has made the most ethical decision. From what is provided in the discussion, it is fair to state that the organizers have attempted to meet the ethical standards of business as far as possible, although the minor glitches in some aspects are hard not to notice. As mentioned earlier, there is no clear evidence as to whether the family members of these deceased donators are entitled to a commission. There is no doubt that the organization makes a  lump sum profit from displaying these corpses, although they claim to have life consent from these people, there is no evidence to prove whether these people given a payment for agreeing to contribute to the progress of their business and to greater community. In severe cases, the law might be compelled to interfere in the business operations considering the overall social sensitivity to the issue. It is also not clear if the company pays tax to the government of the different countries they put up their shows in while travelling. They make huge profits off the curious locals who are willing to pay greater amounts than they usually should for visiting exhibitions, just to witness something to unusual and larger than life. In other words, the company feeds off the curiosity of the naïve visitors without necessarily feeling entitled to pay a fair share to the government; and that is enough reasons for a legal interference. However, if the matter is looked at holistically, there is little or rather no reasons for claiming that the organization has no ethical concerns in operating the business. Most of the current displays in the collection are people who had willingly consented to their dead body being used for this purpose. In most cases, the exhibition has proved beneficial for art and aesthetics enthusiasts and educative for students of anatomy who have reported that only few other research centers have been successful in providing an accurate and excellently preserved specimen of the human body. Considered this way, the benefits of the exhibition overshadow the minor lacks in ethical concerns. The ethical issues can be met by aligning with the moral philosophies formulated by scholars meant for helping organizations take better ethical decisions in relation to their business operations.

The ethical considerations and controversies surrounding the practice

For deciding what is right and wrong, business organizations often make use of traditional philosophical approaches to ethics. Evaluating the case from a sensible and broad-minded perspective, the most appropriate philosophy applicable to the situation is the ethical relativism approach. The philosophy of ethical relativism is focused on doing that which serves the society as a whole, decentering from individual demands.  According to this school of thought, ethics deals with attitudes and feelings based on social conventions and encourage behavior that is sanctioned by contemporary societal norms.  If the concept is applied to the particular issue that is being talked about in the article, the organization will be aided well to combat the criticism and engage in corporate social responsibility. The exhibition may not be suitable for all ages and cultures, the display must be censored in some culture-sensitive countries. A clear declaration of the ethical stances taken by the company for the execution of the plan must be issued publicly and stuck to the entrance of the exhibition halls. In other words, each show in different countries and culture must be dealt with differently. Another ethical philosophy that can be applied in this context is social contract theory. The principle concept of the theory maintains that people living in a society must form an agreement establishing the political and moral rules of conduct. Each individual can live morally by his/her own choice without feeling obligated to serve any higher divine purpose. These social contrasts are free to be explicit like the case in point and no one is entitled to a justification unless anyone is harmed in the process. 

Conclusion

The essay sheds light on the issue of corpse exhibition and displays. Within this, mention can be made of the views of Mexican critics towards taxidermy. On the other, social activists have undertaken a poetic stance towards the display of corpse. The managers of the company have adopted systematic processing of the corpses before displaying it to the public. Most of the critics consider the practice to be unethical and offensive, leading to controversies in the religion. As a result of this, protests were held in the form of preservation of the mummies. This approach enhanced the cultural values and aspects. Consent towards donating the corpses preserved the individual sentiments of the people.   

References:

ABC News. (2019). Julia DeVille’s ‘poetic’ decision to put her dead body on display naked. [online] Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-18/body-wrolds-donating-your-body-to-be-displayed-naked/10722530 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2019].

Blackburn, S., 2013. Relativism. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, pp.43-58.

Champney, T.H., 2016. The business of bodies: Ethical perspectives on for?profit body donation companies. Clinical Anatomy, 29(1), pp.25-29.

Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L., 2013. Corporate social responsibility in a global context.

Jones, D.G., 2014. Using and respecting the dead human body: An anatomist’s perspective. Clinical Anatomy, 27(6), pp.839-843

Jones, D.G., 2016. The artificial world of plastination: A challenge to religious perspectives on the dead human body. The New Bioethics, 22(3), pp.237-252

Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B. and Siddiqui, J., 2013. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of business ethics, 114(2), pp.207-223.

Muldoon, R., 2016. Social contract theory for a diverse world: Beyond tolerance. Routledge.

Prasad, G., Karkera, B., Pandit, S., Desai, D. and Tonse, R.G., 2015. Preservation of tissue by plastination: A Review. Int. J. Adv. Health Sci, 1(11), pp.27-31.