more on "Bodies"

Touchstone published an essay by Christoph Reiners on the "Bodies" exhibit. (Unfortunately, it is not available on-line.) The editor then published my response as a letter to the editor (below). Although I wish the original article was available, my response still speaks to some things on which I recently blogged about this exhibit.


I thought Christoph Reiners’ essay on the “scientific” exhibition of bodies was valuable and provocative. More broadly, I appreciate Touchstone’s attention to—and perspective on—this topic. The subject is important but often ignored. That said, I thought Reiners was sloppy in places, undermining his points and conflating potentially troubling issues.

Reiners raises an important point—whether the bodies were donated or taken coercively. But when he uses the Somalia anecdote, he ignores the same category. The Somalia incident may be horrific for many reasons, but since the bodies were taken coercively and brutalized, one cannot tell whether the horror is in the coercion, the brutality, or both.

Reiners raises two important questions, paraphrasing Paul: Should it be done because it can be done? Should we go because we can? But then he asserts that viewing the bodies is “entertainment” and “a kind of pornography”—rather than education. He assumes that it’s ok for medical school or research, but apparently not to show my home-schooled children. Actual human bodies are said to be “not necessary”, but why is a close simulation acceptable? (Is virtual porn ok in this context?) Perhaps for-profit shows of this nature are troubling, but is it ok if it’s non-profit?

Reiners claims that such an exhibit “cheapens the value of the dead”. But for my family, it enhanced our wonder at Creation and the Creator. Indeed, the body is not just a machine; it is a wonderfully and fearfully masterpiece made by our Amazing God.