As I have publicized the case against bodyworlds, I have come to realize that my statement on the home page of this site is vague, and does not state the case against the exhibit clearly.
First I would like to touch on the issue of permission. One of the most frequent defenses of the exhibit, both by the Museum of Science and be the exhibit's admirers, is that since people gave permission for the use of their bodies, it could not be disrespectful. I believe this is buck passing at it's worst, and is just a neat way of avoiding the issue and avoiding the responsibility of making one's own mind up. It is a very low standard of morality. It may seem respectful and dignified to obey someone's wishes if they have donated their bodies, but it is not. If someone gives permission to do something that is wrong, it is still wrong, and following that request would be wrong. Just because someone tells you to do something does not mean you have to do it. It reminds me of a child saying "But Billie told me to do it." We would explain to the child that they need to take responsibility for their own actions. It is reasonable expect the Museum of Science to take responsibility for its actions also.
Now, as to what do I think is disrespectful, the bodies of the deceased are a mere shell that when alive held a human including allthat makes us human, both our bodies and our spirits. On many levels the public display is wrong. When we look at the bodies, we focus on
them, instead of remembering the person as a living being with a spirit. In treating the bodies as mere objects, and this is what the exhibit does, we deny humanity to the people that the bodies represent. The exhibit tends to promote the idea that we are mechanical beings, and denies us a soul or spirit. When a person becomes a mere object, it is not difficult to see how this can lead to the feeling that if a few or even a lot of those objects are hurt, it is not a big deal. It is unconscionable to exploit the remains for profit-the exhibit has raked in around $40 million. In spite of what the exhibitor wants you to think, it would have been possible to educate the public with out the use of real bodies-they are just used to attract attention. There are some museums that have no real objects, but are still fascinating. We learn from books, we are moved by the existence of fictional characters both in writing, on the stage, and on the screen. Many people have been killed because of ideas. The contention that real bodies are educationally necessary is spurious. Although the exhibit is fascinating to look at, as my nephew has pointed out, this is not the same as learning how the body works. By the way, the bodies are so plasticized that they are barely real-life is much messier, and these exhibits are very unreal.
It is hard to imagine how the exhibit contributes to science, i.e. to the advancement of our knowledge about how the body works. If the body donors thought this was the case, they are mistaken.
Much of the praise for the exhibit seems to make it out to be the greatest thing people have ever seen- the fervor seems to be almost religious. I merely ask that people sit back and think. The exhibit is full of a lot of propaganda about itself, and tries very hard to convince one that it is the cat's meow. It tries much too hard…
Aaron Ginsburg, Sharon MA