Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Skeletons in the closet at Human Body Exhibit

245

Comments

  • #32
    Bad Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭Bad Panda


    WindSock wrote: »
    Plastic gees. I bought 5.

    I hope they're warm and moist on the inside.


  • #33
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,200 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    I actually think it's a pretty fascinating exhibition. People really don't appreciate how amazing the body is (Internally).

    I always thought though that these bodies were those of people that volunteered themselves to science/this exhibition after death.

    I'd find it very disturbing if some poor sods body is off traveling the world without their consent.


  • #34
    cloptrop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭cloptrop


    Can you see their tits , can they dress them up in sexy attire for you if you ring ahead?
    Without cadavers being donated Frankenstein never would have been made .


  • #35
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    seamus wrote: »
    Nonsense. Everybody knows that there's a massive difference between seeing a model on a screen and seeing the actual thing. Otherwise we wouldn't bother going abroad, we'd just look at the pictures online.


    Pretty stupid anology imo.

    How does displaying a 'real' human body differ from displaying a realistic model of one? - Other than the morbid thrill you get from knowing that you're looking at a real dead person of course.

    If that's what floats your boat fine - but don't try to justify it by contrasting it with travel as against 'looking at pictures'


  • #36
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    seamus wrote: »
    And how is that any different to her being buried in the ground with an unidentified family? Either way the family are untraceable. What's the problem?

    A body is typically treated with respect because it belongs to their family and they wish to have it respected - to see it disrespected is upsetting.
    If someone has no family, I see no moral problem with using their body for ethically sound and practical purposes, including scienfitic research and art.

    For all I care you can throw my body in a wood chipper to see what happens, except that I know such a thing would upset my family.

    The OP said Romanian :)

    Just because it is unidentified doesnt mean the family doesnt want the body respected. It has nothing to do with it being upsetting for the family its to do with the family having the choice to decide on behalf of the deceased what to do with their remains.

    If they cannot identify the body or find the family then they cannot have permission. If a member of your family went missing tomorrow and you never found them, do you think it right that their body should be given by police to a university to put into a travelling art exhibition ?.

    I know I dont think its right because I know my family members wouldnt want to be put into a travelling art exhibition so just because I dont know about it doesnt mean its right. Its still against the wished of the deceased and the family.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    readyletsgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,276 ✭✭✭readyletsgo


    giant_midget wrote: »
    Myself and the GF went in to see it, Well worth the money. It's a real eye opener..only €20 too so a bargain

    Eh, you do know (I feel all of Dublin has forgotten this) it was €12 for an adult and €8 or so for a child. RIP OFF now I think.

    Missed it last year even tho it was on for like 8 months (limited time my ass :rolleyes:), there was well more kick up about it back then.

    Anyway, got to see it last month. Thought it was very good, yes there is about 7/8 bodies on display cut up and what have you. And body parts around the place. Very interesting display on our mortal bodies, very good to see it all.

    BUT, €20 for the size of it is just way too much of a charge, I went on a Sat, it was like a cattle farm, way way too many people in to see it, hard to view anything. I would say they must have made over €5,000 in that hour.
    Thats what pisses me off, also there is no Gift Shop.

    Go if you dont mind paying €20 for about 15 mins to walk round a view it all, kind of worth it...


  • #38
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    what's the big issue here ? :rolleyes:


  • #39
    RiseToTheTop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭RiseToTheTop


    I was on a visit to New York when I saw an advert for this exhibition, it was open down the road.

    No way was I going to go.


  • #40
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MungBean wrote: »
    If they cannot identify the body or find the family then they cannot have permission.
    Of course they can. The body becomes the property of the state. It's just dead flesh. If you can't find the rightful owner, it becomes the state's.
    If a member of your family went missing tomorrow and you never found them, do you think it right that their body should be given by police to a university to put into a travelling art exhibition ?.
    Well you see, normally when people go missing, you report them missing. Then when bodies are found, the police trawl through the mountains of missing persons to see if they can find a match. And they co-operate with forces all around the world to try and find places to send bodies.

    It's not a case that someone goes missing, the police find a body and go, "Aha, finders keepers!". If an owner for a body cannot be found despite proper searches, then logically nobody is missing a body. There is no etheral karma keeping check on what you've done with a body. If an owner exists but is untraceable, then there's no actual difference between burying the body or using it for science.

    People do manage to get to the ends of their lives with no family and no friends. It's sad, but that's life.


  • #41
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    what's the big issue here ? :rolleyes:

    Its one step away from "Real sex toys - real people plasticised after death for your sexual pleasure! - only €20 for a half hour".

    If you argue (as some people have done) that the fact that they are not identified and as such their family cannot be traced means remains are not related to a human being but instead are something to be used for entertainment then you have to stand by the their use in other ways.

    If there is something to say "you cannot sell that body for any reason because that was once a human being" then that means they should be respected regardless of their "status" when dead. So sticking them in a profit making artistic road show is no different than using them as fcuk dolls in the back of a porn shop.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    seamus wrote: »
    Of course they can. The body becomes the property of the state. It's just dead flesh. If you can't find the rightful owner, it becomes the state's..

    I have seen a few family members pass and never have I heard mention of "ownership f the body". The body is nobodies property, its the reamains of a deceased person and should be either treated in a manner they or their family wish it to be treated or the nearest thing to that. Not used in any manner you wish because its a bit pf property nobody claimed.
    Well you see, normally when people go missing, you report them missing. Then when bodies are found, the police trawl through the mountains of missing persons to see if they can find a match. And they co-operate with forces all around the world to try and find places to send bodies.

    It's not a case that someone goes missing, the police find a body and go, "Aha, finders keepers!". If an owner for a body cannot be found despite proper searches, then logically nobody is missing a body.

    People do manage to get to the ends of their lives with no family and no friends. It's sad, but that's life

    You know what I mean so answer the question. These people were never identified so you cannot say they were never missing or dont have family. You can only say they were not identified. So if your family member went missing (all you know as your never aware of them being found and not identified) do you think it acceptable that their body be put into a travelling art exhibition ? Or would you think that body is the remains of your family member and is being treated in a manner that they wouldnt wish it to be treated. ?


  • #43
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    what's the big issue here ? :rolleyes:


    Awww, no one Zinged my pun, I am disappoint


  • #44
    mconigol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    RiseToTheTop wrote: »
    I was on a visit to New York when I saw an advert for this exhibition, it was open down the road.

    No way was I going to go.

    Cool story


  • #45
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    Awww, no one Zinged my pun, I am disappoint

    Sorry :o

    Was a good one too.


  • #46
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MungBean wrote: »
    I have seen a few family members pass and never have I heard mention of "ownership f the body". The body is nobodies property, its the reamains of a deceased person and should be either treated in a manner they or their family wish it to be treated or the nearest thing to that. Not used in any manner you wish because its a bit pf property nobody claimed.
    It is property. It's the fundamental problem we have in Ireland with donorship because even if you have an organ donor card, your family can veto the use of your organs because your body is their property. You are dead, so all contracts and agreements you signed in relation to your body no longer have effect and your next of kin has full authority over it.
    You know what I mean so answer the question. These people were never identified so you cannot say they were never missing or dont have family. You can only say they were not identified. So if your family member went missing (all you know as your never aware of them being found and not identified) do you think it acceptable that their body be put into a travelling art exhibition ? Or would you think that body is the remains of your family member and is being treated in a manner that they wouldnt wish it to be treated. ?
    I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a family member would go missing but be found by someone else and not brought back to me.
    In any case, as I say it makes no difference. If I can't be traced to the body, then for all intents and purposes their body hasn't been found. So I won't be upset. What you don't know can't hurt you and so forth.

    It's like saying, "If I found out my body was being used like this after my death, I'd be very upset". No you wouldn't, you'd be dead.


  • #47
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    found a link

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6094228/China-admits-organs-removed-from-prisoners-for-transplants.html

    17 Japanese got kidney or liver transplants for $50,000


  • #48
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    No problems with this kind of thing if people specifically donate their bodies for exhibition.

    Going around collecting up unclaimed bodies on the other hand is suspect. All you'll need to find is a dodgy official willing to supply "unclaimed" bodies for a wad of cash. That's where it gets iffy. No suprise they seem to be coming from China where millions of people are on the move from villages, many of them illiterate or close to it and uneducated, to the new cities and so on in the search of jobs, opportunities etc. There is a mass migration going on in a country of a billion plus people. No wonder they can't identify and locate families and relatives.

    I'd also argue there is a huge difference between science, education and research and the modern day equivalent of a travelling freakshow peddling the taboo nature of the fact that they are real bodies for profit. There is no science there.


  • #49
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a family member would go missing but be found by someone else and not brought back to me.
    In any case, as I say it makes no difference. If I can't be traced to the body, then for all intents and purposes their body hasn't been found. So I won't be upset. What you don't know can't hurt you and so forth.

    It's like saying, "If I found out my body was being used like this after my death, I'd be very upset". No you wouldn't, you'd be dead.

    I didnt ask you if you'd be upset I asked you if you think it would be right. You said earlier you see no moral or ethical issue yet your refusing to give me an honest answer on this because I think there is a moral and ethical issue and you think it would be morally and ethically wrong to use the remains of your family member in a way they wouldnt wish it to be used simply because you were not aware of their remains being found and couldnt make those decisions on their behalf.

    Can you answer the question please ?


  • #50
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Whether it would be right or not is exactly the same as whether or not I'd be upset. Something is morally right when it minimises the suffering it causes and/or avoids causing suffering. Therefore since using my family member's body in this way would cause no suffering, then yes, it's morally fine.

    I'm not going to magically sense a disturbance in the force when they're not buried and get upset.

    If my family member turned up at an exhibition that I happened to be attending, then I think I'd be more elated that I'd finally found them and happier that their body had been cared for than rotting in a ditch somewhere. Then I would consider what to do with my property.


  • #51
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    seamus wrote: »
    Whether it would be right or not is exactly the same as whether or not I'd be upset. Something is morally right when it minimises the suffering it causes and/or avoids causing suffering. Therefore since using my family member's body in this way would cause no suffering, then yes, it's morally fine.

    I'm not going to magically sense a disturbance in the force when they're not buried and get upset.

    If my family member turned up at an exhibition that I happened to be attending, then I think I'd be more elated that I'd finally found them and happier that their body had been cared for than rotting in a ditch somewhere. Then I would consider what to do with my property.

    Well I have to disagree with you there. If my family members remains were used in that manner I would think it morally and ethically wrong that their body was being used in a travelling art exhibition to make money.

    I think it morally and ethically wrong that anyone's remains would be used in that manner without attaining permission from the deceased prior to their death or their family to ensure that the remains were not being disrespected and used in a manner that would be against the wishes of the deceased and their family.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    MungBean wrote: »
    Its one step away from "Real sex toys - real people plasticised after death for your sexual pleasure! - only €20 for a half hour".

    If you argue (as some people have done) that the fact that they are not identified and as such their family cannot be traced means remains are not related to a human being but instead are something to be used for entertainment then you have to stand by the their use in other ways.

    If there is something to say "you cannot sell that body for any reason because that was once a human being" then that means they should be respected regardless of their "status" when dead. So sticking them in a profit making artistic road show is no different than using them as fcuk dolls in the back of a porn shop.

    Mungbean - I think you also missed my pun, I wasn't actaully asking what is the big issue here, read it, read it twice, read it 3 times.
    perhaps read the first post as well


  • #53
    paddyandy
    Site Banned Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭paddyandy


    Art disguises a lot of Evils .


  • #54
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    Mungbean - I think you also missed my pun, I wasn't actaully asking what is the big issue here, read it, read it twice, read it 3 times.
    perhaps read the first post as well

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77454420&postcount=45


  • #55
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    MungBean wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77454420&postcount=45


    Woops - soz


  • #56
    angry kitten
    Closed Accounts Posts: 311 ✭✭angry kitten


    I think it's morally wrong. In my opinion it is little more than a modern day freak show to amuse the masses. There should be dignity in death. If a person chooses to donate their body that is one thing. It is ridiculous to say that the bodies are treated with respect while they are being prepared, as if that makes it alright. They are on public display for the entertainment of anyone who can pay the price of admission. Sick sad world.


  • #57
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    black francis wrote: »
    Any of the information conveyed could be done using computer graphics or models.

    Oddly enough upon visiting the set of Gangs of New York, George Lucas turned to Martin Scorsese and said "We can do all this with computers now".

    Oddly enough, the guy who still builds the sets makes the better movies.


  • #58
    hairyprincess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭hairyprincess


    I went to the exhibition with my daughter a few weeks ago. I thought it was brilliant , very educational and interesting.
    However, the moral thing is a niggler. If they did use bodies that were not donated to science, i.e. unclaimed by family, why did they do this? Surely there are enough bodies donated to science every year that they shouldn't have had any problems in acquiring a few.


  • #59
    danslevent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭danslevent


    At the start of this thread I just thought, "Meh, just a body, who cares" but then I imagined if it was a family member it would really bother me, the thought of their body being used like this without consent. Wish I could change my poll vote


  • #60
    Frank Black
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    Oddly enough upon visiting the set of Gangs of New York, George Lucas turned to Martin Scorsese and said "We can do all this with computers now".

    Oddly enough, the guy who still builds the sets makes the better movies.

    And the guy who makes a snuff movie, makes the most realistic movies of all.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    I just feel sorry for the unexpecting visitors and staff that will be thrown into the epicentre of a zombie apoclapyse when the times comes... prime targets, hope they bring weapons just in case.


Advertisement
Advertisement