Comments on: Use of human cadavers as crash test dummies?

By: Blueshelled » Blog Archive » Lifegem jewelry: Because your loved ones can still give even when they’re dead

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:47:01 +0000

[...] there was a fantastic discussion on my blog about what happens to cadavers when they are donated to science. Many ethical questions were explored and I’m still bouncing [...]

By: Leon aka Husband

Leon aka Husband — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:54:34 +0000

Yeah, I would have no problem with that. Lots of people die in car crashes; more than many kinds of diseases. Helping to prevent car crash deaths is no less important than preventing many kinds of disease. Plus, as Neil notes upthread, a lot of time they are just going to otherwise be used as practice for med students. That’s necessary as well, but still is probably not what most people had in mind when they made the decision to donate.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Sat, 30 May 2009 04:54:20 +0000

That’s a good point, too. Then it comes down to viability of who they are testing for, as well. I wonder if they test bodies of varying ages? I’m sure they do.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sat, 30 May 2009 04:52:56 +0000

I agree with what most everybody else says. There are corpses that are most likely not much use for testing or transplants. One point is, a person donates their body to help other people in regards to disease or transplants. If an elderly person dies of natural causes, most of the parts are useless, we know the elderly person died of old age, and a one hundred year old heart isn't much use for a heart transplant. I'm sure if they knew they just saved a million people in car accidents, they would be happy. Elizabeth’s last blog post..How to make extra with Google Adsense

By: Jillian

Jillian — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:13:23 +0000

So, it’s different for the person giving their body than it is for the loved ones? Interesting perspective. Makes sense.

By: Natalie

Natalie — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:09:28 +0000

I don't know, Jill. For a less objective and slightly incoherent, sleep-deprived point of view, I would be okay with my dead body used like this, but not my children's bodies. Natalie’s last blog post..the long weekend

By: Jillian

Jillian — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:26:21 +0000

That is a great book. I listened to the abridged version on CD on a long car trip one time. It does lead to another discussion, as well, though. Should people be informed of all the possibilities for their body prior to them signing a release or should it be left purposefully vague? Good thoughts here, Mike. I like the brainstorming here with you and Neil.

By: Mikethemasterdater

Mikethemasterdater — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:11:24 +0000

There is a really good book on the subject called "Stiff" I guess in the past they used to use pig carcases but it didn't really work well. Cadavers worked beautifully and there has never been an effective substitue. I would be fine knowing I saved a few lives this way. As far as I know there are even worse things done to cadavers, this is probably why they will never disclose to the public what happens after the fact. Mikethemasterdater’s last blog post..The most powerful (frightening) form of power balance in a relationship 5 of 5

By: Neil_Stevens

Neil_Stevens — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:47:42 +0000

That would definitely be a point to research if you wanted to make an issue of it.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:47:18 +0000

No, I don’t either, but I wonder if it may be out of greed? Is a human cadaver cheaper than a well made anatomically correct dummy?

By: Neil_Stevens

Neil_Stevens — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:45:36 +0000

To tell the truth, I don’t know if a decaying cadaver is more realistic in simulating a living person than the finest in crash test dummy technology.

But I think these experts are saying it is.

They may be wrong. But I can’t imagine they’re doing this out of malice.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:44:15 +0000

Yes, but isn’t a cadaver equal to a dummy? The tissue is decaying, which means it tears faster than living flesh. The bone marrow isn’t living, which also creates a problem with the bone matter. So, if we have the option of using a dummy or a cadaver, what is the difference, truly?

By: Neil_Stevens

Neil_Stevens — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:42:10 +0000

Following up since we took the chat to IM,

It occurred to me that a good example here is Buster on Mythbusters. They go to greath lengths at times to give Buster bones, pressure sensors, and whatever it takes to make realistic tests of the effects of myths on people.

But no matter what, it’s never the same. No matter what material they use, foam or ballistics gel or whatnot, it’s always unlike the real thing.

Same is true here.

And even though it is true that for the purpose of testing, an anatomically correct dummy is equivalent to a cadaver, the ability to create a truly anatomically correct dummy, right down to the physical properties of tissue, is just beyond our means.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:26:32 +0000

You have some really great points. I need to carefully consider what you said.

By: Neil_Stevens

Neil_Stevens — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:05:44 +0000

Why is it desecrating a body to perform on it what the person’s last request was: to have his body used to save lives?

I mean, is it dignified to get cut up by a group of yawning 22 year olds who are checking their watches to see how long until lunch?

Maybe, maybe not. But it’s what the person wanted done with his body. By donating it, the person is saying “It’s not me anymore. Make use of it, no matter how weird or disgusting. Cut me up, throw parts of me away. Do what helps. Use your best judgement.”

If you want to argue that these experiments don’t help, that’s one thing. But desecration for a greater purpose is effectively what these people are asking to have done to their bodies, so I don’t really think it’s a useful objection.