Naming the body (or the bones): Human remains, anthropological/medical collections, religious beliefs, and restitution.
Human bones and biological remains conserved in anthropological, medical, and archaeological collections are foci of ethical debate, as recently illustrated by the affair of Charles Byrne's bones. In the near future, curators will have to choose between global conservation of all (or almost all) anthropological collections and systematic restitution to their original communities or families. Various proposals and examples of restitution and nonrestitution are given (with justifications) in order to support the concept that the body (especially the dead body) is not property. We propose that the only element supporting arguments in favor of restitution could be the name of the individual, highlighting the importance of all identification processes for such "artifacts." This is undoubtedly a universal value: naming the dead, identifying and then burying the person, i.e., reversing the progression along the timeline from individual to scientific specimen. Such elements could be of great interest to all universities and medical institutions that keep human remains in their collections for educational or historical purposes when they are confronted with ethical problems and/or repatriation requests.
Section of Medical and Forensic Anthropology, UFR of Health Sciences (UVSQ/AP-HP), 2 avenue de la source de la Bièvre, 78180, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Philippe
P
Charlier
D000885:Anthropology, Physical / Q000941:ethics*; D001293:Attitude to Death; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D002102:Cadaver; D018594:Human Body; D006801:Humans; D012067:Religion
anthropology; biomedical research; body property; ethical principles; medical collection; repatriation