post mortem

RE: post mortem

Guys, you are missing the point. Your own sensibilities are not at stake.

The fact remains, everyone involved gave their consent freely. If a person consents to be publicly chopped up after they die, and a doctor agrees to do this, and there is no public sefety issue, I do not understand how anyone can have any reason to object?

The morality of it all is strictly an issue for the doctor and for the specimen before he died.

RE: post mortem

Would that be “Ready Steady Croak!”:+

RE: post mortem

Damn, beaten by my own smugness! 🙂

RE: post mortem

“Apparently he’s going to do a Christmas special with Delia Smith?”

I didn’t know she’d died…..

Regards,

kev35

RE: post mortem

Apparently he’s going to do a Christmas special with Delia Smith?

RE: post mortem

T5

“It’s obviously not a disgusting procedure, it happens every day….”

Having seen one as part of my training I think there are two ways of looking at it. From a medical and training point of view it is amaxing to see the ‘workings’ of the human body. However, I feel I learned far more from being scrubbed in theatre during an operation, where the body is live and you can see the functionality of body parts as they function. From a personal point of view, it is a horrendous experience. If you think about the actual person the procedure is being carried out on it takes on a whole new aspect. Organs are removed, inspected, dissected, weighed and in some cases retained. Let’s just say if the pathologist removes an organ it’s not going to go back the same way it came out.

“but I think that whoever made the decision to screen it on Channel 4 needs their head examining.”

In many ways this would have been no more controversial than many shows available on tv now. The quality of entertainment provided by some channels is appalling. While no great moralist, I question the entertainment value of a program where couples are tempted and encouraged to cheat on each other, bands are manufactured before our very eyes and with our co-operation.

“I also would be interested to know from audience members on the night “how was it educational” like they kept saying? They were there for fun, a good night out etc..!!”

I think they were there to be shocked, which I think is a desire many people have, look at the Exorcist, for example. As to it’s educational value? Unless you were interested in pathology I would question anything other than it’s shock value.

Regards,

kev35

RE: post mortem

Sorry, had to bring this one back – I must have missed it when I was away.

We managed to see it after a friend recorded it for us and I am starting to wonder what sort of things goes through some people’s minds. I never knew the cost of a ticket was £12, we were wondering this and made a few guesses.

What posesses some people to do such disgusting things? Watching it on the television is not too much of a crime in my eyes. If you have only terrestrial TV, you have access to just 5 channels and so it’s really in your face. BUT to pay to watch such a pointless session which had no purpose at all is unacceptable.

Apparently the guy responsible for the supposed “Autopsy” was arrested after the show as what he was doing has not been done for over a century and is illegal. “Jolly Good” I say.

It’s obviously not a disgusting procedure, it happens every day but I think that whoever made the decision to screen it on Channel 4 needs their head examining.

I also would be interested to know from audience members on the night “how was it educational” like they kept saying? They were there for fun, a good night out etc..!! What complete and utter nutcases.

RE: post mortem

Yeah, it’s interesting kev.

The person disected, consented to this before they died, in full knowledge of what it involved.

The audience had full knowledge of what would happen, as did the TV viewers.

Where’s the problem?

RE: post mortem

“Interesting! Gunther von Hagen is doing a good job of challenging preconceptions and the fuddy duddy attitudes of the establishment.”

No, what he is doing is charging 500 people £12 each to watch him cut up a corpse in the name of art. If you think that’s ok perhaps you should reccommend Dr. Mengele for the Turner prize.

It was not even a post mortem. The purpose of a post mortem is to establish the cause of death. This was not the case here was it? Did he carry out toxicology screening, histology etc?

You don’t only see a post mortem, you hear it and you smell it. It is fascinating from a medical point of view but it is hardly mainstream entertainment as evidenced by the reactions of the audience many of whom were seen to be looking away. It certainly isn’t art….

Regards,

kev35

RE: post mortem

Interesting! Gunther von Hagen is doing a good job of challenging preconceptions and the fuddy duddy attitudes of the establishment.