|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Saturday, November 23, 2002See, I think the autopsy and the exhibitions are good things - I like that these things are available for the public to see. Without seeing the exhibit, I can't say exactly how "educational" it is, but let's assume that von Hagen's work is at least on the level of, say, bill nye the science guy, whose "educational" program is 99% presentation and 1% science - since when is it bad for people to see what's inside their bodies? But, you already said you agree with, as you put it, the medical education of the public. Sure, you don't *need* to do what he does when computer simulations are available, but come on. You also don't need to go to art galleries when there are pictures of the same paintings on the internet. For that matter, you don't really *need* to see the inside of the body at all if you're not a med student. But you know what? I think it's a good thing art galleries exist - a picture of a painting is nothing in comparison to the real thing, and while I went on every surgery / anatomy lab / museum field trip I could in high school, and loved every minute of it, I've never seen a computerized dissection that didn't bore me to tears. And I *like* computers. The cadavers are willing participants, and since everybody involved (vn hagens, the people formerly in the bodies, and the audience) are all OK with it, what's the harm? I think the art museum analogy is very applicable. Do museums "cheapen" art? Does anybody leave a museum with less respect for the paintings that when they came in? Does it matter whether the museum charges admission? I probably didn’t express myself well in the previous posts about this. My objection isn’t that he charges money. And of course there’s no problem with art museums. They don’t cheapen art, even when they charge admission. What’s at question is whether or not this is art, and whether it’s of any educational value. I don’t think it is either of those things, and I suspect if he were honest with himself, the professor doesn’t think so, either. His treatment of bodies is ghoulish and morbid, and not done with any modicum of the respect that the dead deserve. He cheapens death, and in so doing cheapens life. Yes, it’s true that his bodies are donated, but judging from his donation form (pdf), he goes to great pains to make people think their bodies will be treated with respect and dignity and used for educational purposes rather than entertainment: I am aware that the IfP is a private institute. It is run by the inventor of plastination, Prof Gunther von Hagens. Prof von Hagens has undertaken to use human specimens exclusively for research and educational purposes, and only to give them directly to educational establishments, such as universities, hospitals and museums, but not to private individuals. . [emphasis mine] How many of those donors do you suppose read “museum” and thought “art museum”? The form is worded to suggest they’ll go to natural history museums or medical museums or science museums. In fact, I wouldn’t have any objection to the use of them for such purposes, as long as they were treated respectfully. They aren’t treated respectfully in his art exhibit, though, as a glance through its web page makes abundantly clear. (there's more here.) That is my sole objection to him. He’s a sensationalist, not an educator. And his use of corpses is better expressed by this picture than by Rembrandt’s. posted by Sydney on 11/23/2002 06:51:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
