A bone to pick
Trigger warning: Human remains (in the context of a medical museum).
Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons of England
John Hunter was a Scottish surgeon, known for being an early advocate of scientific methods and medical observation. A man of many layers, he was a teacher of Edward Jenner (who eventually invented the smallpox vaccine), but also purchased the stolen body of Charles Byrne (colloquially known as the “Irish giant”) and displayed it publicly against his wishes.
John was the younger brother of William Hunter, an anatomist and physician, and responsible for amassing the collection currently held by the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow. John Hunter also worked as an Army surgeon, served as an assistant to the dentist James Spence, and set up his own anatomy school in London in 1764. Here he eventually amassed 14,000 specimens, both from humans and from other animals.
The morality behind the display of human remains is an interesting topic, I think: the Hunterian Museum itself has a statement about this, where they say something akin to, “Yes, we have human remains; yes, you may photograph them (just not up close); but also, please don’t post them anywhere,” and I’m not sure if there is a difference between the acts of displaying, viewing, and photographing these “objects,” and then distributing these images elsewhere. Some other museums display these specimens, but don’t allow photography — the Mütter Museum in Philadelphia and the Museo di Anatomia Umana in Turin, for example.
The great problem is, of course, that most (if not all) of these human remains were obtained without consent (much like Charles Byrne’s body, ancient mummies, or the bones used to decorate ossuaries or catacombs), so that these people never agreed to be displayed in such a manner after their deaths.
In many cases, these people agreed to be (and were) buried in a certain manner, with their tombs later being disturbed in order to obtain their bodies as part of the acquisition of historical objects, which are then displayed in order to share whatever learnings they can provide with museum visitors. In this case, this disturbance, displacement, and subsequent display all go expressly against their wishes.
It can be argued that these people have been dead for a long time, that they (or their loved ones) are no longer around to mind, or that what we can learn from collecting their remains trumps allowing them to rest in peace. But none of these arguments have ever sat right with me, even as I love ossuaries, catacombs, and museums of medicine and natural history (animal remains are, for some, slightly less problematic).
What do you think?
Gold Colored Fox 