Search

In dealing with human corpses, notions of dignity play a decisive role, especially within legal texts that regulate a corpse’s handling. However, it is quite unclear how the claim “Treat human corpses with dignity!” should be understood and justified. Drawing upon examples and problems from forensic medicine, this paper explores three possible lines of interpreting such demands: (a) positions that closely link the dignity of the human corpse to the dignity of the former living persons and (b) accounts that derive the dignity of the dead from consequentialist considerations. We argue that both lines heavily rely on contestable metaphysical claims and therefore propose an alternative account for the dignity of the dead. Our proposal (c) focuses on action-guiding attitudes and the symbolic value of the dead. Such a conception allows for a variety of morally appropriate groundings of individual attitudes. It avoids metaphysically troublesome premises and, at the same time, allows to classify certain actions and manners of acting as clearly inappropriate and blameworthy.

Working with the dead is a very specific kind of work. Although a dignified handling of the corpses is demanded by the legislator and by the general public, neither the legal status of the corpse is undisputed nor is it obvious what a dignified handling of the deceased should consist of. In our hypothesis generating pilot study, we asked which concrete considerations are involved in daily practice of forensic specialists. We used an online questionnaire (invitations via e-mail) consisting of questions with single choice, multiple choice, and free text entries. The answers to single or multiple choice questions were displayed in pivot tables. The data was thus summarized, viewed, descriptively analyzed, and displayed together with the free text answers. 84.54% of the physicians and 100% of the autopsy assistants stated that considerations concerning the dignity of the deceased should play a role in daily autopsy practice. 45.87% stated that the conditions surrounding the autopsy need improvement to be ethically suitable. The analysis of the survey’s results was based on Robert Audi’s ethics, according to which three aspects need to be lightened in order to evaluate the conduct of a person morally: the actions, the motivation, and the way in which the actions are carried out. This systematization helps to identify the need for improvement and to make the vague demands for a dignified handling of corpses more concrete.

Since a number of years, popular and scientific interest in resilience is rapidly increasing. More recently, also neuroscientific research in resilience and the associated neurobiological findings is gaining more attention. Some of these neuroscientific findings might open up new measures to foster personal resilience, ranging from magnetic stimulation to pharmaceutical interventions and awareness-based techniques. Therefore, bioethics should also take a closer look at resilience and resilience research, which are today philosophically under-theorized. In this paper, we analyze different conceptualizations of resilience and argue that especially one-sided understandings of resilience which dismiss social and cultural contexts of personal resilience do pose social and ethical problems. On a social level such unbalanced views on resilience could hide and thereby stabilize structural social injustices, and on an individual level it might even lead to an aggravation of stress-related mental health problems by overexerting the individual. Furthermore, some forms of fostering resilience could be a latent form of human enhancement and trigger similar criticisms.