Let’s get morbid. After reading Saco’s
“The Politics of Visibility,” I decided to follow the link provided and find
out how scientists used Joseph Paul Jernigan’s body after he was executed. When
he or anyone else who leaves their body to science, they believe that they are
doing something for the greater good. However, do these thoughtful and generous
people expect that any schmuck with a
computer will be able to see parts of
themselves that even they haven’t seen?
Coming from someone who doesn’t
even want people to know what year they were born, this kind of “no good deed
goes unpunished” scenario freaked me out. When someone decides to leave their
body to science, is it fair that they have to worry about their posthumous
privacy? I appreciate all of the work and research that doctors and scientists
do everyday in order to better the lives of others, but should anyone be
allowed to see these kinds of invasive studies? What the donors are doing is
something very brave to begin with, so I feel that their bodies should be used
in the exact way they want. I’m not familiar with all the ins and outs of
leaving one’s body to science, but shouldn’t there be a checkbox on the form
for people who do not want images of their bodies or parts of their bodies on
the internet? |
| Is he a Chinese prisoner who did not consent to this? |
If more people who leave their body
to science knew the extent to which their privacy could be invaded, would they
stick to their decisions? Are they made aware of all the ramifications of
leaving their bodies in the hands of complete strangers? If not, with the
dramatic increase of accessibility over the last decade, it is only fair that
these people know exactly what they’re getting into. They aren’t solely signing
up to be cadavers on med school tables; they’re signing up to be seen.
These are great questions. Now you've got me worried, haha. Do you think there needs to be clarifications or even warnings with the contract people sign when they decide to donate their body? Should there be more options to where their body is donated and what the specific cause it for?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. If you're making the self-sacrificing (literally) decision to do this, it should be on your own terms. I think people who are considering donating their body to science should be made aware of cases like Jernigan's, so they know exactly what is going to happen to them. There might always be a problem based on their physical characteristics that influences what doctors and researchers might want to use them for, but I feel that people should be able to pick a certain cause that they would like to become a part of.
ReplyDeleteI think the only way one can donate one's body to science is to give up complete rights to it. Having pictures of every part of one's body, like in the case of Jernigan, is obviously an extreme case. Still, people who make this choice are choosing to sever the connection between the physical dead "meat" of one's earthly vessel and the memory of the person's life. There are only so many preferences that are reasonably possible for someone who is donating their body to science, after the decision is made, the body is in the scientists' hands. SELLING one's body to science on the other hand...
ReplyDelete