The Corpus Callosum

A fellow blogger, Logtar,  tipped me off to a controversy, and asked if I had anything to say about it.  The controversy has come about over an exhibit: Bodies Revealed.  It's a traveling exhibit that displays plastinated human cadavers.  The exhibit was organized by Premier Exhibitions, Inc.

A bit of background can be gotten from an article in Scientific American, Plastic Bodies On Display, from 3 April 2000.  The process was invented by Gunther von Hagens of the University of Heidelberg, Germany, in 1978.  An anatomy professor in the USA opened a laboratory to make use of the technique.  The US laboratory was opened in 1989, at the University of Michigan, by Professor Roy Glover (photo).  Dr. Glover retired from the University in 2004, holding the title of Emeritus Professor.  He is now the Chief Medical Advisor for the company that is putting on the exhibit.

When I first started to read up on this, I thought I recognized the name.  I looked into it.  He was awarded a teaching award in 1984.  As it happens, I was in medical school at the University of Michigan at that time.  This connection, of course, would make me hesitant to be overtly critical of him.  

Although I would be disinclined to be critical of a highly respected former professor, if it turned out that he did something wrong, I would say so.  But in a gray area, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, what is the controversy?

Looking around the Internet, I saw quite a few blog posts that mostly seemed critical of the exhibit.   There were also several letters to the editors of various papers, things like that.  Logtar put it like this:

...When I started hearing that the exhibit was coming to Kansas City, I was not very happy. I do not believe that science needs to be displayed in a freak show manner, specially since now our technology permits the creation of life like materials that are being used every single day to train doctors. Gone could be the days of gross anatomy where you could only learn by dissecting cadavers...

I however cannot condone the display of human bodies as a spectacle. I do not see any scientific or artistic merit on this morbid display. I am not as satisfied as Union Station CEO Andi Udris with the company that potentially used unwilling condemned prisoners for some other exhibits. Even thought the company produced documentation, it is not enough for me...

So I call on everyone that reads this blog to just skip this exhibit all together...

There are two arguments here.  One is that it is disrespectful to display bodies in such a manner.  A corollary of that is that it is crass to make money from such a display.  The second argument is less obvious, because it depends on the details of how the bodies were obtained.  This, in my opinion, is the more serious matter.

It has been alleged that (at least some) bodies were obtained illicitly.  As reported by ABC News:

N.Y., China Investigating Black Market in Bodies
Self-Admitted Participant of Bodies Black Market Described 'Body Runs,' Where Bodies Went for $200 to $300
By BRIAN ROSS, RHONDA SCHWARTZ and ANNA SCHECTER
Feb. 15, 2008

Authorities in China and New York have opened investigations into allegations that a black market in Chinese bodies, which may include executed prisoners, is sending corpses to the United States for public display.

The investigations come in the wake of an ABC News report, that aired this Friday on "20/20", that features a self-admitted participant of a bodies black market who described "body runs" to locations where bodies, including those of executed prisoners, were sold for $200 to $300...

Dr. Glover did provide an explanation in an interview with the Washington Post.  Unfortunately, he was vague about the details:

Rockville, Md.: I've never received a satisfactory answer as to where these bodies come from and how they are procured. Please explain. I would feel more comfortable visiting the exhibition if I knew the deceased people had voluntarily donated their bodies to science.

Roy Glover: All of the bodies were obtained through a credited medical university in the People's Republic of China. Asia possesses the largest and most highly competent group of dissectors in the world, and they are highly skilled in preparing the bodies for educational and scientific purposes. Currently, human specimens in medical schools in China, the United States and other countries throughout the world are donated or unidentified bodies.

That interview was from 2007, though, so he was not responding to official allegations of impropriety.  Even so, he knew perfectly well in 2007 that there was a controversy.  In 2005, the exhibit was in Florida.  It was reported:

The exhibit opened today, despite a move from the Florida State Anatomical Board which voted 4-2 to stop the show out of concerns that the people never gave permission for their remains to be displayed. According to the Anatomical Board, such authorization is required by Florida law. The Tampa exhibit uses unclaimed and unidentified cadavers from China.

Curiously, the more recent controversy, this time in Kansas City, led to the following comment:

Glover visited Kansas City in October when Union Station announced "Bodies Revealed." He was asked by The Star specifically about concerns raised by human rights groups that the bodies may be those of prisoners, political or otherwise.

"The individuals died of natural causes," said Glover, a professor emeritus of anatomy and cell biology at the University of Michigan. "They had made the decision to donate their bodies to a medical school after their death, and so what happens in China is exactly what happens in the United States when a person donates their body. … And the medical school is legally obligated to use it for an educational or research purpose."

Granted, these were different exhibits, perhaps with different bodies.  But first he said that some were "unidentified bodies."  In the Kansas City interview, he says the people agreed, before death, to have their bodies used for educational or research purposes.  It is hard to see how that could be the case with unidentified bodies.  

These apparent inconsistencies are disturbing.  It is important that people be able to trust the medical profession to handle them with respect, even after they die.  Thus, it is necessary that exhibits of cadavers be arranged with precise records regarding the origins of the bodies.  It is true that there are confidentiality issues. Such records could not be revealed publicly, or casually.  But every confidentiality statute that I have seen makes allowances for legal or institutional review.  

The Kansas City report includes the following statement:

Union Station CEO Andi Udris said Saturday that the ABC report focused on "Bodies: The Exhibition," a separate show also produced by Premier. The company says that "Bodies: The Exhibition" is composed of unclaimed bodies but that "Bodies Revealed" is made up of people who signed donor forms before dying of natural causes.

"I have no reason to believe these people (in "Bodies Revealed") didn't willingly donate their bodies," Udris said. "It happens every day."

But anticipating a meeting with local Catholic officials — and before the ABC report — Udris already had decided he wanted a greater comfort level.

"I went back to my people and said, 'OK, what we need here is some additional evidence,' " Udris said. "And what they have provided us is the donation form, in English, explaining this is what these people supposedly signed off on. What they have not revealed to us is the actual copy signed by the person."

Udris isn't sure Union Station can demand that information.

This clarifies it somewhat: different bodies, from different sources, in different exhibits.  But no actual evidence is presented.  It would be possible to construct a legal framework for the licensing of such exhibits, along with a standard for documentation regarding the origin of the bodies and any consent that may have been obtained.  Apparently this has not been done.  Some communities have responded by simply banning the exhibits.  

My personal reaction is to think it is crass to have these exhibits, even though I am not personally bothered by seeing anatomical specimens.  One thing that sways me is the existence of merchandise.  [These photos are hotlinked, because the site disables the right-click-save function.  (I know it can be circumvented in at least two ways, but why bother?) ] 




For me, this tips the whole thing over the edge, into a realm of venal commercialization.  Sure, a keychain with a little model brain is neat for neuropunk geeks, but I wouldn't want one: the connection to an exhibit of actual bodies of controversial provenance is just too much.  In medicine, ethical standards universally call for being conservative.  That is, it is necessary to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.