Consent for plasticisation

Editor - I was interested to read Dora Vertess views on the notorious Body Worlds exhibition.¹ I think she raised some important issues about informed consent and respect.

If the people whose bodies are now on display did not consent, then it is certainly shocking. If they gave their informed consent, however, as they seem to have, then what is the problem?

If it is agreed that informed consent is necessary, is it then acceptable to move to a system of presumed consent for organ donation? Is informed consent unnecessary, because the end, in this case, justifies the means? I do not believe that proper safeguards can be put in place, and I am deeply uneasy about the prospect of organs being removed from patients who do not wish to be donors.

Vertes writes of the importance of respecting life and of respecting patients. And this is, of course, important. But part of respecting people is about respecting their decisions, and, therefore, accepting what they want, even if we do not agree.

I carry an organ donor card: when I die, I am quite happy for any—indeed all—of my organs to be removed. But this is my decision; it is not one that I should make for a patient.

I do not argue with her assertion that Gunther von Hagenss wishes to make money. Two full page advertisments in the studentBMJ in the past seven months—he must be furious. After all, theres no such thing as bad publicity.

1. Dora Vertes. Körperwelten: the fascination of authenticity. studentBMJ 2002:10;168. (May.)