Mummies – A Right to Privacy?

[AnitaS]

The folks at the Science Museum of Minnesota recently took full advantage of the Halloween ambience by conducting a CT scan on one of the mummies they’ve had on exhibit since 1925.

I remember chaperoning one of my children’s field trips to the museum several years ago, and when our group came to the mummy, a fellow parent expressed her objections to putting human remains on display, as she felt it was incredibly disrespectful.

Fast-forward a few years, and now this same mummy has undergone a CT scan. Scientists hope to be able to pinpoint a more precisely hold old the person was when he died, as well as how he died, and other details of his life.

I’m curious to know how others feel about this.

On the one hand, the in-depth study of mummies enables us to learn a great deal about evolution, about past civilizations, and individuals who lived in those societies. We’re able to find answers to anthropological questions that might otherwise remain a mystery.

On the other hand, unlike those who donate their remains to science, these ancients gave no such consent, and many adhered to strong beliefs about how their bodies should be handled after death, and observed specific burial rites in accordance with those beliefs. Do we have a duty to comply with those beliefs? For the most part, modern societies have retained that reverence for our own dead, eg. it’s considered outrageous - not to mention criminal - to desecrate a gravesite.

Does it just come down to the expiration of an unwritten but understood statute of limitations? Since they and their immediate descendants are long gone, do we have the right to do with them as we please? Or, if their culture(s) clearly abhorred disturbing the dead, are we obligated to respect that?

I come down on the side of science, btw, but I think it raises some interesting ethical questions about human dignity versus scientific advancement.

[Eran]

I don’t think the tension should be between “human dignity” and “scientific advance”. After all, most people’s body decay, rot, and are eaten by worms. Where’s the dignity in that?

I think there is, however, an interesting issue with why we should respect people’s wishes after their death. After all, it is hard to see a long-dead person who (unless you believe in the after-life) doesn’t exist as a person, let alone has any ability to be hurt by anything we do today, as being a victim.

I think the reason we ought to respect people’s wishes after they die is that unless we do so credibly, people currently alive would be made to feel bad about their posthumous fate. If we, for example, decide to disregard a dead person’s will, we would be sending a message to every live person who has an emotional interest in what happens after their death. The message is - you have no control; your wishes aren’t likely to be respected.

It is with this perspective that I suggest approaching the specific issue. Are we sending the wrong message to people currently alive? I think people alive today have certain reasonable expectations. They are generally able to write a will if they have specific strong wishes. In the absence of a will, people do expect their bodies to be treated with certain standards - to be buried or cremated, rather than displayed publicly, for example.

As long as a society we maintain the default standards which people alive today expect, and strictly observe people’s explicit wishes, we are doing well.

I don’t see how people alive today can reasonably worry about the fate of their bodies after their deaths based on what we decided to do with mummies. The minority of people who do care are clearly in a position to write a will, or trust the executioners of their estate (typically close family relatives) to care of their bodies.

[AnitaS]

Hi Eran, thanks for your response.

When I spoke of human dignity, I wasn’t really referring to the physical condition of the body/mishandling the remains, as I think most musuems generally take great care with their artifacts. I was thinking more along the lines of what you termed respecting people’s wishes after their death; affording them the same dignity now that would have been bestowed on them in their own day. And I think you’re absolutely right, much of the modern relevance inherent in this issue is “What could this mean for me? Could my wishes likewise be disregarded?”

I tend to think that the passage of time makes a big difference in our general attitude; if there’s no family left to care about the wishes of the deceased, then as long as the remains are treated with the utmost care, does it really matter if those wishes fall by the wayside?

As I see it, it sort of boils to down to “should we treat them the way we would like to be treated, or should we treat them the way we know they wanted to be treated?” It sounds like you’d advocate for the former:

@Eran

As long as a society we maintain the default standards which people alive today expect, and strictly observe people’s explicit wishes, we are doing well.

I’d like to think we’d treat people as well in death as in life, but then, we’re often not so great at treating people respectfully when they’re alive…

At best, hopefully we can manage to weigh the potential gain against the disservice to the deceased, and not exploit anyone’s remains unless we had a great deal to gain by doing so.

[Humpty]

I don’t think we need to be worrying about the rights of dead people when the rights of nearly 100% of living people are being violated. Come on now.

[tentative]

You just hadda start with mummies, didn’t you? Egyptian culture was the only one where mummification was a big deal and even then, the burial was meant to be private. I think there needs to be a balance between the needs of privacy and the needs of scientific inquiry. There is too much to be learned from the scientific research to ignore examination of our genetic past, the evolution of disease, population movements, the accuracy of history, etc. At the same time, such research should be done with the utmost respect before disinterrment is reversed according to the customs and times of the original burial. I see no reason for display although that is standard fare of museums and road-side “attractions”.

Recently, the genome of Neanderthals was unraveled, and it was found that if your ancient ancestry was from northern Europe, it is likely that your genes are 4-5% Neanderthal. So if you are fair and blond, you are part Neanderthal - which goes a long way in explaining your temperament now and then… :-"

[AnitaS]

JT,
Just thought it was an interesting topic; when I read that news article it triggered that field trip memory, and it just made me wonder what others thought. But then, I’ve always been fascinated by the ancients. So advanced in so many ways.

Ahem, YOU’RE likely part Neanderthal too you know! Besides, I thought genetic diversity was a good thing when it comes to promoting fitness?

I was reading a little about the Neanderthal genome sequencing and that study published in May which strongly suggested interbreeding must have taken place. But couldn’t that 4-5% presence also simply indicate a common ancester, a line from which both Neanderthals and Cro-magnons came? Probably a dumb question, I need to read more about it – only know enough to be dangerous.

[tentative]

@AnitaS

JT,
Just thought it was an interesting topic; when I read that news article it triggered that field trip memory, and it just made me wonder what others thought. But then, I’ve always been fascinated by the ancients. So advanced in so many ways.

Ahem, YOU’RE likely part Neanderthal too you know! Besides, I thought genetic diversity was a good thing when it comes to promoting fitness?

I was reading a little about the Neanderthal genome sequencing and that study published in May which strongly suggested interbreeding must have taken place. But couldn’t that 4-5% presence also simply indicate a common ancester, a line from which both Neanderthals and Cro-magnons came? Probably a dumb question, I need to read more about it – only know enough to be dangerous.

I agree that the more we know about ancient peoples, the more we know about ourselves.

Nope, no Neanderthal in me. It’s easy to see in my sweet disposition. Only you northern blondes carry the Neanderthal genes and with winter 11 months out of the year, Some Neanderthal traits are to be expected.

Well, we know that the common ancestor came out of Africa. There is the tendency to think that each migration out of Africa of successively more developed humans was linear, but it is becoming clear that this is probably not the case. Neanderthal and Cro-magnons may have migrated in roughly the same time frame, each finding an ecosystem that fit their particular needs and skills. That there was overlap and inbreeding seems almost obvious in the latest scientific discoveries. The inbreeding is almost commonsensensical. Think about all the males you’ve met. Most of them would do a hairbrush if a convenient female wasn’t available.

[PavlovianModel146]

@Eran

I think the reason we ought to respect people’s wishes after they die is that unless we do so credibly, people currently alive would be made to feel bad about their posthumous fate. If we, for example, decide to disregard a dead person’s will, we would be sending a message to every live person who has an emotional interest in what happens after their death. The message is - you have no control; your wishes aren’t likely to be respected.

I don’t see why such a message should matter to anyone. With so many aspects of life that one has no control over, why should death be any different? Besides, anyone who cares too much about what happens to them when they die worries too much in general. I told my wife that if I go before her to do the cost-effective thing, have me cremated, put into a Tupperware and throw me in a garbage can at some public park or something.

It is with this perspective that I suggest approaching the specific issue. Are we sending the wrong message to people currently alive? I think people alive today have certain reasonable expectations. They are generally able to write a will if they have specific strong wishes. In the absence of a will, people do expect their bodies to be treated with certain standards - to be buried or cremated, rather than displayed publicly, for example.

I think that a Will is necessary with respect to financial matters that need to be resolved, and possibly for the distribution of items that may have, “Sentimental value,” to a family member or friend, but as far as what is to be done with an individual’s remains is concerned; I think people just whine too much. If there was a way to sell my body after I die, then that’s what I would go with.

As long as a society we maintain the default standards which people alive today expect, and strictly observe people’s explicit wishes, we are doing well.

(I ask this without sarcasm) Why?

[Xunzian]

As long as the bodies have no descendants to defend them, anything is fair game.

But if we want to entertain the wishes of the dead, we should also consider the culture in which they existed as opposed to the culture in which we now live. In most pre-modern cultures, including Egyptian*, immortality was predicated on the utterance of one’s name. Normally, this was also coupled with a certain ritual reverence. Irrespective of X-rays, we can agree that these Mummies are not presently receiving the ritual reverence their culture would have demanded for a “good/successful” afterlife. That leaves us with the simple question of which path leads to more people being aware of their existence? The X-ray or not. Absent the proper ritual procedures, either afterlife is pretty shitty. But the way I see it, the Mummies (from the perspective of the deceased) has the choice between three different afterlives: the successful prostitute, the destitute prostitute, or nonexistent. So, first we have to weigh the third option against the former two. If the mummy were to be hidden away in some “respectful” manner, the individual mummified ceases to exist in entirety. Given that they went to the trouble of getting mummified and didn’t just get eaten by Nile alligators, we can safely assume that they would not have wanted this option. Then we have to choose between the former two options. Well, which one makes more sense? A comfortable, if disrespected, life or an uncomfortable and disrespected life? Seems like an easy choice to me.

*Which is normally the culture we as discussing when it comes to “mummies”, if the mummies are Andean in nature, then there actually ought be living representatives for them. Other mummies can be examined on a culture-by-culture basis.

[Eran]

PavlovianModel146,
In your post you already accepted:

1. We own our own bodies, at least in the sense of being able to sell them
2. We care about what happens in the world after we die (otherwise why bother will wills?)
3. Some objects have sentimental value

Surely you can accept that while your body is of no sentimental value to you, somebody else’s body may be of sentimental value to them? That just as you would expect your Will (governing the property you leave behind) will be respected, other people have a right to include their own body (which they own) within the objects the disposition of which is governed by their wills?

[Jayson]

@AnitaS

Since they and their immediate descendants are long gone, do we have the right to do with them as we please?

Yep.

@AnitaS

if their culture(s) clearly abhorred disturbing the dead, are we obligated to respect that?

Generally speaking; we wouldn’t know this until we disturbed their dead.

[PavlovianModel146]

@Eran

PavlovianModel146,
In your post you already accepted:

1. We own our own bodies, at least in the sense of being able to sell them
2. We care about what happens in the world after we die (otherwise why bother will wills?)
3. Some objects have sentimental value

Surely you can accept that while your body is of no sentimental value to you, somebody else’s body may be of sentimental value to them? That just as you would expect your Will (governing the property you leave behind) will be respected, other people have a right to include their own body (which they own) within the objects the disposition of which is governed by their wills?

I can most certainly accept that position, but I’m not inclined to believe that holding such a position makes any sense, especially with respect to finances.

[Eran]

Personally, I agree with you.

However, much of what people value doesn’t make any sense to me. I have learned to accept people’s right not to make sense…