Dr Sandy Thomas
Leading ethicist, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
There are very strong ethical grounds for saying that using human tissue or dead bodies for entertainment is simply not acceptable. One can suggest that society's values have changed and that people actually want to see dead bodies used in this way, and they do find it informative and educational, but I don't think that everybody will feel like that.
A number of bodies, both medical and ethical, have been very clear about the special respect that we owe to the dead. Whether it is tissues of the dead or whole bodies, they should not be confused with art and entertainment, and that is very much how I think the common law has interpreted these kind of events in the past. For example, there was a case in 1991 where earrings derived from foetuses were displayed, and I believe the gallery owner was prosecuted, on the grounds of exceeding public decency.
I think von Hagens' exhibition raises some very grave concerns about consent. He openly admits that he does not see consent as not important for anatomical dissection. He refers to the traditions that go back to the Tsars, of using unclaimed bodies for a variety of purposes, and he is merely continuing that tradition. That's obviously completely unacceptable: to use unclaimed bodies for this kind of purpose, or for any kind of purpose for which that person has not given any permission, flies in the face of just about every bit of medical guidance and regulation in most countries today. So what we have here is somebody who is willing to procure bodies which are unclaimed, where there may be relatives who have not been consulted, and to use those bodies for what many would see as entertainment.
I would have the same concerns about consent with the existing anatomical collections. Simply acquiring foetuses from anatomical collections does not in any way justify including these sorts of things in exhibitions. They were originally acquired for a different purpose, hopefully with proper consent from the parents at the time, and in no way would those people have been able to anticipate that those collections would have been given a subsequent use. I think this is a real abrogation of trust.
If some of those eight million people who bothered to go and see his exhibition actually thought that some of those bodies he had used had been acquired without permission, then they might well feel rather differently about being customers to that form of either education or entertainment. It may well be that they are unaware of the fact that he is quite open about the tradition that he seeks to extend, of using unclaimed bodies from some areas of the world, such as Russia. Now many people would not want to participate in any way in those kind of practices.
Von Hagens has obviously gone to China and Russia because it's acceptable and legal in those countries to procure unclaimed bodies, and that he then feels gives him licence to do what he wants to do with those bodies, ie, dissect and mount them in his exhibitions. This kind of behaviour is not condoned in many countries, and is certainly not within the UK legal framework. In allowing this exhibition to come here we may in some way be facilitating someone who is essentially treating human bodies as things, by not according them the of asking for their permission to use their bodies in this way. I think that that is ethically unacceptable and a cause for serious concern.
It will be very much up to society to debate whether we are comfortable with allowing the dead to be treated in this way. I think we may need guidance from the ethical and legal disciplines to help us decide whether this is entertainment or whether this is education. The very fact that eight million people are drawn to see this exhibition does not mean to say we should not have that debate. We need to ask is the law out of date if people want to be entertained by this kind of material. Now many would argue that it's society's duty to discourage gratuitous use of bodies in this way whether people want to be entertained by it or not. Simply because large numbers of people may subscribe to a particular practice does not in any way suggest that that practice should be allowed. We have had many examples in history of practices – for example, public executions – which we would now condemn in many of our societies.
My personal view is that von Hagens comes across as someone who is deeply interested in what he's doing, nevertheless that does not in any way justify some of the practices he is very open about. He flouts ethical standards that underpin the legal frameworks in many countries, for example, over consent. He uses the concept of Walt Disney to illustrate how his exhibitions might be viewed, and that obviously is within the context of entertainment. He does not come across as a person, I think, who has serious intentions as regards education and enlightenment. He is obviously passionate about what he's doing, but I have real concerns about some of his practices. The ways in which he's acquiring some of these bodies I think is completely indefensible.
