3 ms·

The visible human project[1] at least has some consent, although it may not have been full and uncoerced. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Pro

by toast0 1y ago

The visible human project[1] at least has some consent, although it may not have been full and uncoerced. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Project

leoc 1y ago
It’s also intended for medical students and other people researching anatomy and physiology, not for gawkers.
- alwa 1y ago
  I mean, honestly, I personally might think about consenting! Especially if they explained what about my physiology they’d want to educate people with. I can see how it would be easier to skip that conversation and those years (hopefully) waiting for me to expire of natural causes… and how, from a curatorial perspective, it might be easier to acquire the full variety of human bodies if you can effectively just go shopping for them.
- toast0 1y ago
  Regardless of intent, these images were widely distributed as part of the Multimedia PC movement, largely to gawkers.
OldfieldFund 1y ago
I wonder what "informed consent" truly entails. When someone donates their body "to science," they are likely picturing anonymous dissection in a medical school lab for the benefit of students.
- fhdkweig 1y ago
  Sometimes they are just used to test bombs. "A body donated to science - but used to test bombs" 6 August 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198405 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198405
- toast0 1y ago
  I would think informed consent would include some specific categories relating to how the body may be used, and specific approval or disapproval of those; then actually following through on those uses, and if there's no need for a body for those uses, either returning it to the estate or disposing of it through burial or cremation as per the wishes of the donor. When donor bodies get used in ways that weren't generally practiced when donated and weren't specifically consented to, that's almost certainly not informed consent, even if there is a blanket consent 'to science'. IMHO, being exhibited in novel ways is fine if it's specifically consented to, but not otherwise. Especially in cases where the body was preserved for many years and then a novel use is made, it seems like you'd need new and specific consent, which maybe you can obtain from the estate, but certainly not from the donor.

by toast0 1y ago

leoc 1y ago

It’s also intended for medical students and other people researching anatomy and physiology, not for gawkers.

alwa 1y ago
I mean, honestly, I personally might think about consenting! Especially if they explained what about my physiology they’d want to educate people with. I can see how it would be easier to skip that conversation and those years (hopefully) waiting for me to expire of natural causes… and how, from a curatorial perspective, it might be easier to acquire the full variety of human bodies if you can effectively just go shopping for them.
toast0 1y ago
Regardless of intent, these images were widely distributed as part of the Multimedia PC movement, largely to gawkers.

OldfieldFund 1y ago

I wonder what "informed consent" truly entails. When someone donates their body "to science," they are likely picturing anonymous dissection in a medical school lab for the benefit of students.

fhdkweig 1y ago
Sometimes they are just used to test bombs. "A body donated to science - but used to test bombs" 6 August 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198405 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198405
toast0 1y ago
I would think informed consent would include some specific categories relating to how the body may be used, and specific approval or disapproval of those; then actually following through on those uses, and if there's no need for a body for those uses, either returning it to the estate or disposing of it through burial or cremation as per the wishes of the donor. When donor bodies get used in ways that weren't generally practiced when donated and weren't specifically consented to, that's almost certainly not informed consent, even if there is a blanket consent 'to science'. IMHO, being exhibited in novel ways is fine if it's specifically consented to, but not otherwise. Especially in cases where the body was preserved for many years and then a novel use is made, it seems like you'd need new and specific consent, which maybe you can obtain from the estate, but certainly not from the donor.