Channel four, autopsy programme
WideRedDragon
Who saw it?
Made for quiet interesting TV, even with the sensationalised,
'the police are gonna arrest him after the performance' aspect.
One thing that made me think was the old doctor in the audience,
who kept saying that it shouldn't be allowed, that only professionals should
be present.
Also slagged it off for being not very realistic with the fact that the body
used was 8 months dead
and plasticised. Telling a woman that she should be at a real one with vomit
and faeces
to see what it was really like.
If so, and it wasn't exactly like a real one, did
A:~ He still say it shouldn't be done
and
B:~The doctor performing the autopsy risk arrest from some, alleged,
antiquated law!
The show that has been in London since may I think
in which the doctor has plasticised many body's and organs
and, apparently, arranged and posed them in various 'unfitting' scenarios.
The eternal question about 'is it art' rages on, and the doctors website
has said that the show has been extended until next march
because when laws are passed to stop his show,
it wont ever be allowed back into the country again.
I for one will be making a trip to London for this before it goes.
for educational purposes? maybe
for sensational reasons? maybe
To say I actually saw it!!
Damn Right!
When will they learn?
Tell someone not to do something
Ban something.
Generally guarantees a higher interest and attendance
or is it all just hype?
<WRD>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 08/11/2002
allezbleu
<widere...@hotmail.com> seemed to blather :
>Bound to be mentioned, so I thought I'd get in first,
>
>Who saw it?
>
I missed in unfortuinately, I dont watch television usually, so didnt
know it was on :^/
however if anyone taped it, would love a copy.
ta,
a
Andrea
Andrea
"WideRedDragon" <widere...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:103785198...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
Covgoth
Thinking about it last night and this morning, it might make an interesting
subject for my dissertation - comparing Bodyworlds and tracy Emin to the
likes of the old masters etc.
I still dont think it's art, but then others will disagree ith me. I guess
it's down to the individual at the end of the day.
Interesting that the body was 8 months old. It was more of a show really,
and it will be interesting to se if any legal action is going to be taken.
I'm still out on this one,
Captain M
> Bound to be mentioned, so I thought I'd get in first,
>
> Who saw it?
>
I didn't see it, and I have to say that I find the concept of autopsy by
television somewhat distasteful. I can't help feeling that this was a circus
aimed at entertainment rather than edification. I watched the introduction
to the programme but not the actual autopsy and found myself in
agreement with what the emeritus professor of surgery and the representative
from the British Medical Authority said: live dissection performed in this
manner is voyeuristic and undignified spectacle. The surgeon carrying out
the autopsy came across as being a showman instead of a natural heir to the
great Renaissance anatomist Vesalius, as the introduction seemed to imply.
Vesalius' work contributed in a major way to human knowledge while last
night's event was more of a contribution to the modern day hunger for
pornographic sensationalism; it appeared to have more in common with a
slasher horror movie than a scientifically visceral insight into the human
body. Was it aimed at an audience genuinely interested in the nature and
workings of the human body, or was it merely reaching out to rubbernecks
seeking a gratuitous display of guts and gore?
At least that's how I interpreted it. Personally, I'd rather experience the
human internal anatomy vicariously, such as through a good perusal of
'Grey's Anatomy', than watching Mr C.A. Daver being carved up on live TV.
But having said all that, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong
in televising operations or even autopsies provided it's done in the right
context. However, judging from its tone, yesterday's broadcast appeared to
be in the wrong context.
Captain Misapprehended?
Graham Clark
> I didn't see it,
I didn't see it either. I went to see Half Man Half Biscuit last night,
and very excellent they were, too.
> At least that's how I interpreted it. Personally, I'd rather experience the
> human internal anatomy vicariously, such as through a good perusal of
> 'Grey's Anatomy', than watching Mr C.A. Daver being carved up on live TV.
There's a world of difference between diagrams in a book and seeing
organs and their layout in the flesh. Many years back, during my abbreviated
attendance at medical school, I studied and passed the anatomy course,
including dissection of human cadavers. I do think that this is a very
worthwhile thing for interested members of the public to be able to learn
about. Obviously it's not to everyone's taste, but I don't see why the
current situation is justified. Artists used to study gross anatomy to help
them draw the human form - they can't do that now. Nurses and
physiotherapists could arguably get a lot of benefit from this too.
> But having said all that, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong
> in televising operations or even autopsies provided it's done in the right
> context. However, judging from its tone, yesterday's broadcast appeared to
> be in the wrong context.
There aren't many other contexts available for morbid anatomy. Operations
can be shown, but obviously what can be demonstrated there is limited by the
need to put the patient back together again afterwards.
G.
--
Stated opinions have been adopted as official policy by the Sanger Centre and
will be supported by any and all measures deemed necessary, including (but not
limited to) litigation, criminal prosecution, and/or the use of lethal force
Next Calling : 26th November g...@sanger.ac.uk
Kevin O'Gorman
>I didn't see it, and I have to say that I find the concept of autopsy by
>television somewhat distasteful. I can't help feeling that this was a circus
>aimed at entertainment rather than edification.
I wasn't paying too much attention to it (flicked past a couple of times),
but I'd have to agree. What I don't understand is why he wasn't arrested.
He was warned against it, he proceeded to commit a crime, and he wasn't
protesting against some ridiculous UK byelaw but one that is still relevant
in protecting public health, if nothing else. (Not that I'm saying that
without it there'd be crack-smoking autopsy parties or wild autopsies in
the streets or anything, though that would be funny.)
I dunno, I was planning to go to the Bodyworlds exhibit at some point anyway,
but I'd better hurry, coz methinks yer man is going to be run out on a rail
and soon.
K.
-
--
Kevin O'Gorman - spideyATmaths.tcd.ie - http://stunbunny.org
Graham Clark
> What I don't understand is why he wasn't arrested.
A report has apparently sent to the prosecutor's office. Maybe the
police decided against interrupting it because of the possible public
order problems with the sizeable audience? In any case, there hasn't
been a case like it in living memory. Maybe they just wanted to leave
the decision to those whose job involves carrying that particular can.
> I dunno, I was planning to go to the Bodyworlds exhibit at some point anyway,
> but I'd better hurry, coz methinks yer man is going to be run out on a rail
> and soon.
You have until February.
Covgoth
> Artists used to study gross anatomy to help
> them draw the human form - they can't do that now.
I would agree with you here, but that is also why you have a life drawing
class. There are also some very good books on anatomy for artists (one
being 'Anatomy for the artist' by Jeno Barcsay)
> There aren't many other contexts available for morbid anatomy.
Operations
> can be shown, but obviously what can be demonstrated there is limited by
the
> need to put the patient back together again afterwards.
What about biology classes. I dont know what it's like here, but back when
I was in school in SA, we were taking compulsory Biology to the age of about
16. We were able to handle ox hearts, see how they work etc.
According to the news reports and a channel four guy, they were passing the
organs around on trays aroudn the audience.
While I think that perhaps this kind of thing can be a valuable educational
source for certain groups, I'm not so sure about it being paraded about on
tv.
Perhaps they should do this kind of thing in the universities, charge people
to see it if they want to etc, rather than flaunt it on tv.
Graham Clark
> > Artists used to study gross anatomy to help
> > them draw the human form - they can't do that now.
>
> I would agree with you here, but that is also why you have a life drawing
> class. There are also some very good books on anatomy for artists (one
> being 'Anatomy for the artist' by Jeno Barcsay)
I'm familiar with anatomy texts and with dissection. There's a gulf.
If you have a friend who doesn't mind being poked, prodded and having
outlines drawn on them for a few hours, then this can help, of course.
> What about biology classes. I dont know what it's like here, but back when
> I was in school in SA, we were taking compulsory Biology to the age of about
> 16. We were able to handle ox hearts, see how they work etc.
Yes. This doesn't though, show you how the heart lies in a human chest,
which is an interesting and potentially useful thing to know. Again, some
of this can be done with diagrams or models, but I would say that theres a
place for public anatomy, and a valid role.
> While I think that perhaps this kind of thing can be a valuable educational
> source for certain groups, I'm not so sure about it being paraded about on
> tv.
It depends how it's done. And regardless of what I think of the style,
it's notable that nobody else is actually doing it.
Covgoth
drawing
> > class. There are also some very good books on anatomy for artists (one
> > being 'Anatomy for the artist' by Jeno Barcsay)
>
> I'm familiar with anatomy texts and with dissection. There's a gulf.
> If you have a friend who doesn't mind being poked, prodded and having
> outlines drawn on them for a few hours, then this can help, of course.
It pays good money apparently :)
(life models anyway)
> It depends how it's done. And regardless of what I think of the style,
> it's notable that nobody else is actually doing it.
The legality of it may having something to do with it ;)
WideRedDragon
"Kevin O'Gorman" <spi...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote in message
news:arirn3$16gi$1...@gosset.maths.tcd.ie...
> Captain M <mon...@clara.co.uk> writes:
> >I didn't see it, and I have to say that I find the concept of autopsy by
> >television somewhat distasteful. I can't help feeling that this was a
circus
> >aimed at entertainment rather than edification.
>
> I wasn't paying too much attention to it (flicked past a couple of times),
> but I'd have to agree. What I don't understand is why he wasn't arrested.
> He was warned against it, he proceeded to commit a crime, and he wasn't
> protesting against some ridiculous UK byelaw but one that is still
relevant
> in protecting public health, if nothing else. (Not that I'm saying that
> without it there'd be crack-smoking autopsy parties or wild autopsies in
> the streets or anything, though that would be funny.)
The thing about it was that that body used was 8 months dead and plasticised
so it had kind of an unreal look to it,
or maybe it's down to many many gorey films watched from a young age
AFAIK there was no real health issue as the body was in the same state
as the body at the exhibition.
no fluids, except for some from the gall bladder, but that was it I think.
It just didn't seem that real.
but then again what is real?
the boundaries have been blurred so much between entertainment
and real life over the past few years how can we really believe anything?
I think most people that watched did so simply for the
'no way!!' aspect. I know I did for one.
As did several of my friends, as I'm sure did a large part of the audience,
even though they tried to cover that up with them saying it was for purely
'educational purposes'
In that way it was sensationalised in a way
Same way that Damien Hursts cow a few years ago had similar effects
If it was done for an artistic reason, art is generally designed as a medium
to create an emotional response in the viewer, good or bad.
It's there to make you think?
Or did it just degrade what many see as the last bastion of 'don't go there'
We can cut up and exhibit animals, they get stuffed and displayed.
but people is a different matter.
Whether it's a religious, medial or political issue.
I guess time will tell
or not.
<WRD>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 20/11/2002
Captain M
> Captain M <mon...@clara.co.uk> writes:
>> At least that's how I interpreted it. Personally, I'd rather experience the
>> human internal anatomy vicariously, such as through a good perusal of
>> 'Grey's Anatomy', than watching Mr C.A. Daver being carved up on live TV.
>
> There's a world of difference between diagrams in a book and seeing
> organs and their layout in the flesh. Many years back, during my abbreviated
> attendance at medical school, I studied and passed the anatomy course,
> including dissection of human cadavers. I do think that this is a very
> worthwhile thing for interested members of the public to be able to learn
> about. Obviously it's not to everyone's taste, but I don't see why the
> current situation is justified. Artists used to study gross anatomy to help
> them draw the human form - they can't do that now. Nurses and
> physiotherapists could arguably get a lot of benefit from this too.
That's very true: there is an obvious need for a range of people to
experience autopsies first hand and a very good case for enabling the wider
public to gain a direct insight into anatomy through the medium of
television. Provided, that is, it's conducted in an appropriate manner. With
all the hype surrounding last night's programme and the expectation of a
live police bust, I felt that it had more to do with ghoulish titillation
than with providing an educational experience.
Captain M
Random Redhead
doing it for the wrong reasons but I do think that all people should
know what is involved in an autopsy and why they are done. To my
knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong anyone who knows, most
people are autopsied to confirm the cause of death. You must have seen
your doctor with in a fortnight and have a condition likely to have
caused death at that time for a death certificate to be issued without
an autopsy.Well in Scotland anyway, but I doubt its different in
England
I agree with the Irish woman interviewed by the C4 bloke, there is a
huge taboo surrounding death that we need to dispell. The knowledge
that is gained from autopsies is vital to medical research and people
shouldn't be so squeemish about the whole thing.
What I am trying to get at is that everyone should have the opertunity
to see one as at the end of our lives we are likely to be there and in
the meantime people we know will go through them before we get to bury
or cremate them. Cheerful thought eh?
RR
Girl the Bourgeois Individualist
"Random Redhead" <ging...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3c61871.02112...@posting.google.com...
> I agree with the Irish woman interviewed by the C4 bloke, there is a
> huge taboo surrounding death that we need to dispell.
Cristina Odone? The Deputy Ed of the New Statesman? Dark haired woman between
the two doctors? She's Catholic, but AFAIK, she's not Irish.
Personally, I agree there's too much of a taboo surrounding death, but I think
6 Feet Under deals with it better. As for the programme, on TV it was no worse
than fake autopsies on crime programmes, and the cutting up of the brain just
reminded me of an old style butcher shop with the butchers cutting stuff
behind. It might have been more powerful if you were there, but on TV? That
said, I really had no issue with the reasons behind it, I respect the
doctor/artists wish to push boundaries in whatever style, I think that, once
you're dead, you're dead, and it doesn't matter what they do with the body
(and I wouldn't be surprised if far less respect is shown behind doors in
hospitals if the organ theft stories here and in Ireland are anything to go
by). I was far more bothered by the tour of Ireland by bits of St Therese of
Liseux.
Girl.
Dag
> But having said all that, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong
> in televising operations or even autopsies provided it's done in the right
> context. However, judging from its tone, yesterday's broadcast appeared to
> be in the wrong context.
I think the problem is that it was, until yesterday, not possible to do
in any context. By doing it in the 'wrong' context there will at least
be debate which may hopefully lead to it being done in different
contexts. Someone has to be first and the first person will almost
always be the one who takes the bullet. And as such it seems have been
done a lot more tastefully than it could have been had been done purely
for shock and entertainment values.
Dag
Matthew North
innovative due to there falling audience figures.
Matt
Jodi
>I would agree that it was done in the wrong context and the man was
>doing it for the wrong reasons but I do think that all people should
>know what is involved in an autopsy and why they are done. To my
>knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong anyone who knows, most
>people are autopsied to confirm the cause of death. You must have seen
>your doctor with in a fortnight and have a condition likely to have
>caused death at that time for a death certificate to be issued without
>an autopsy.Well in Scotland anyway, but I doubt its different in
>England
I'm not sure of the exact criteria in England, but unless the deceased
has died in suspicious circumstances, the consent of the next of kin is
required to perform an autopsy. Proportionately fewer autopsies are
done in England than in many Continental European countries, where it is
much more routine.
Jodi
I am angry I am ill and I'm as ugly as sin
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking
- Magazine, "A Song from Under the Floorboards"