In 1987 my dad was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease (lymph gland cancer). After radiotherapy treatment, he then went into remission for 9 years.

In May 1996, my mum was diagnosed with breast cancer and after a course of chemotherapy; she is still in remission today. In September of the same year my dad had a relapse and had to have his spleen removed and a course of chemotherapy.

During their recovery time, my parents began the task of uncovering our family history, which involved searching for birth, marriage and death certificates. As the death certificates were issued, we were frustrated to see that many deaths were not diagnosed in any depth.

On my grandmothers certificate (she died age 62) it said that she had secondary cancer in her lungs, but it was not clear where the cancer had started. This has become a very important issue to both my mum, and myself. Since my mum's diagnosis, we have become increasingly aware that there may be a genetic link passed down through the family, namely through the females, which would result in the females developing cancer at some stage in their life. My mum's aunts died from breast and ovarian cancer. We have visited hospitals and visited the genetics department who have said that they will keep a close eye on both my mum and me on a regular basis (usually yearly for me).

However, not knowing the full extent of my grandmothers' diagnosis is frustrating to us all. If an autopsy had been performed on her, we would have a better idea of what we are dealing with now, in relation to our futures.

On the 22nd of May 2001, after a second relapse of Hodgkin's Disease and further chemotherapy treatment, my dad died of heart failure at the age of 52, which had resulted from his 13-year battle with Hodgkin's Disease. His breathing had become increasingly laboured, and the doctors believed there to be some sort of fluid on his lungs. They asked us if it would be possible for them to take a small sample of his lungs after death, so that they could test it.

After my dad's passing, we were taken into a room with the doctors to discuss what could have happened. It was at this time that the doctors asked us for permission to do a biopsy. I asked what it would involve and they gave me and the rest of the family some details. After thinking about it for a moment, I asked if there was any way of finding out where the cancer was in my dad's body, as there was never any certainty as to where the cancer had spread. They told me that the only way to know would be to perform a post-mortem.

I discussed this with my mother and said that my dad would have wanted to know the 'ins and outs' of everything, so we agreed for the procedure to go ahead.

Once the results came back, my mum was able to answer a lot of questions that she had wanted to ask at the time of my dad's death. It helped her to cope with the fact that he was gone, but we knew why.

In the last 18 months, I have been curious to know what actually happened during the post-mortem procedure that was performed on my father. After watching The Autopsy I think I now understand what happened. Although The Autopsy was performed on someone who had been dead around 8 months, and it wasn't performed in the usual way (in a hospital environment), I believe it to have given me an insight as to what happens after death and when an autopsy is requested.

I never actually believed that I would ever want to see a dead body, however, my dad had died just a few seconds before my mum, my brother and I walked into his hospital room. To see him so peaceful after the terrible trouble he had had breathing was beautiful. My dad's death has meant that I no longer fear death, and I have told my family and friends that if I should ever die from a terminal illness or disease that they should request that a post-mortem be performed on my body, so that they will have peace of mind in knowing what the cause of my death was.

I think that screening The Autopsy will help a lot of people to come to terms with death, and maybe even request that they have a post-mortem performed on them, to be able to help their families cope in knowing the diagnosis, and to help the medical profession in new discoveries with medicine.

I have to say that I am disappointed in the people who have written to you to say that the programme was not detailed enough, like Monica Maclean who said "You warned people before and during the programme, of the graphical content. I was aware of this and this is why I was watching, for the graphical content. What an utter waste of time. I am very disappointed." And Gail Watkins who said "Unfortunately I have to complain about the camera work. We did not get to see much of the autopsy and did get to see a lot of shots of faces in the crowd." I was aware that the programme would not go into TOO MUCH detail, as the ITC rules had to be taken into consideration (as discussed on Richard and Judy). I think the programme was edited in the correct manner, and although the man performing the post-mortem was requesting for the camera to move in to show certain things, the sight of that event may have broken the rules of the ITC.

And to A Woolhouse who was "forced to turn my television off, and come online to voice my disgust at the screening of a live public autopsy."If he/she knew that they would not like the programme, why start watching it in the first place.

It was wrong of Prof. Harold Ellis to say that he would take people into an autopsy of a recently deceased person, and the smell of vomit, etc would put anyone off wanting to see one again. Yes, it may be a smell that you get used to after half a century, but the things that he said disgusted me, because this could result in people not requesting to have autopsy's performed on them after death, and also discourage those people who want to donate their bodies to science. Will this put future medical students off the idea of working in pathology? I certainly hope his comments will have no effect to this.

Thank you Channel4, for helping me to understand the procedure of an autopsy and to confirm my beliefs that they should be performed when they are requested.

I would also like to say that I support the family of the gentleman who died, and the gentleman's decision to have his body used for educational and medical purposes.

However..despite all of this, I do have a bit of a problem with Mr (cos he's not really a Professor is he? self titled I've been led to believe) Von Hagens. He proclaims that his 'Bodyworlds' is educational, yes maybe, but it also has so many underpinnings of entertainment and commercialism. He has created this persona of a modern day 'Dr Frankenstein', and he seems to revel in the showmanship of it all. I was actually going to attend the exhibition out of interest and morbid curiosity. But when I discovered you could purchase keyrings, backpacks and toys, I was immediately turned off. What kind of genuine exhibitor of educational material sells novelty items...what will be next?

"Latest offer - get your genuine body part - half price, offer ends soon!"

Maybe it's just me, but thought it was a little sick. I think he's just a sensationalist who wants to make as much money as possible, his autopsy being just another money-spinner.

Bodyworlds et al, very much like the freak shows of old, will always be around and thriving as long as there is an audience to view it, and methinks there always will be. At the end of the day it is the public which keeps such spectacles alive. So maybe instead of complaining about the Von Hagens of this world, we should look a bit closer to home, at our peers, in order to unravel the mystery of our inherent morbid curiosities!

To end though, I think we all have the right to see whatever we want on TV. I mean, for goodness sake, you don't have to watch it, turn it over/switch it off, no-ones forcing you to watch it!