In America, those in the medical profession who directly handle the disposal, treatment, or research involving cadavers are bound by the ethics that society has dictated. Society, in general, has directed that the bodies must have been donated with general consent from the deceased. But what society does not dictate is what can be done to these bodies in the name of “research.” Unfortunately, many in the medical profession take these cadavers and make them commodities by buying and selling them for a profit. Both Diana Taylor, author of False Identifications, and Thomas Friedman, author of The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention, take a look at the ways in which humans can turn others into commodities and how humans can then turn themselves into objects to be bought and sold.
Mary Roach, author of The Cadaver Who Joined the Army, then takes this view one step further by investigating the ways in which cadavers are used for military advancement and the ethical implications of such testing. In this paper, I will argue that the only case in which it would be ethical to use a body as a commodity is when the living person gives specific consent as to how the body will be used upon his or her death.
Diana Taylor wrote specifically in False Identifications about the ways in which Princess Diana's image was commercialized and idolized after her death. Although her image is not strictly her body in the literal sense, Taylor spoke of her image as being directly connected to her body, explaining “She was never (but is always) live and here everywhere, haunting our present. A virtual Di, her image outlives her death; the signifier has no need of the signified, except as authenticating remains” (pg. 203). By this Taylor portrays an image of Princess Diana living on in the souls of others, her image becoming a body by inhabiting the body of the world as a whole.
Being the fact that Princess Diana was so widely adored, her image after her death was vastly marketed, her face plastered on numerous items including dolls, plates, and posters. Her image, or her body in this sense, became a commodity. But unfortunately, prior to her death, Princess Diana did not give express consent to her image, her body, being globally commercialized and being turned into this commodity. If you were to agree with Taylor's premise that Diana's image was considered the use of her body as a commodity then under these conditions the marketing of her image becomes highly unethical and now because it has become unethical, using her image for profit is as unethical as selling a kidney to pay for a car payment.
While Diana Taylor spoke of the use of Princess Diana's image as a commodity, Thomas Friedman, author of The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention, wrote about suicide bombers and the ways in which they essentially donate their bodies to terrorism by participating in the acts of violence that will claim their lives. Friedman wonders “How do you recruit so many young men "off the shelf" who are ready to commit suicide in the cause of jihad, many of them apparently not even Iraqis? And they don't even identify themselves by name or want to get credit - at least not in this world” (pg. 64). It seems, as Friedman explains, that these young men are willingly donating their bodies to terrorism and by desecrating their beings, make their bodies commodities through the simple act alone.
Unlike Princess Diana, who never gave consent to her image being commercialized, the terrorists who “donate” their bodies to these horrendous acts are essentially giving consent to their donation the moment they choose to follow through with the deed of killing themselves. Although this means of donation is unorthodox and many would consider their acts of violence unethical, in this sense, their choice to donate their bodies to terrorism has become just. While many would disagree with this statement, I would argue that since the terrorists chose to sacrifice their bodies in the name of terrorism, they were well informed that their bodies would be reduced to pieces of flesh and bone upon their death. The moment they chose to die, they chose what would happen to their bodies and due to this choice, I would argue, their means of donation have now become ethical.
But let's get away from what's ethical and what's not for a moment and discuss the possibilities of what may happen to the bodies upon donation to the world of science. While some bodies may go to medical schools to be studied by the medical students and others may be used for organ donation, Mary Roach speaks about the use of cadavers in ballistic testing. She deftly paints a picture of one of the first documented instances of military testing on cadavers by a man named Louis La Garde back in 1892.
