Bodies: Rep Fleck Wants Them Respected

**UPDATE 3/11/08: 49 total co-sponsors to date. See new additions at bottom.

On Friday, PA State Rep Mike Fleck of Huntingdon & Mifflin Counties introduced HB2299 which would regulate the use of human remains in for-profit exhibitions like the one currently running at the Carnegie Science Center.

“Bodies: The Exhibition” and its counterpart “Bodyworlds” have caused controversy and outrage as they have moved across the country. The displayed cadavers in these exhibits are deceased Chinese individuals who many fear are executed political prisoners. The remains have passed through U.S. Customs under the questionable classification of “plastic models” and bodies at the Carnegie have no paperwork showing the deceased have given their permission to be sliced, diced and displayed for profit. The Science Center and other exhibitors only have the Chinese government’s “word” on the matter, and for many this is not nearly good enough.

Fleck’s bill seeks to interject a bit of sanity into this shockingly barbaric situation. As written, it 1) Seeks to regulate the public display of human remains so as to “protect individual bodily integrity as well as the social and cultural values of the Commonwealth.” 2) Requires that exhibitors provide evidence of informed consent from the deceased individual being displayed. 3) Requires county permitting for such exhibitions.

Fleck’s bill has been co-sponsored by representatives:
Matthew Baker (Bradford/Tioga Counties)
Robert Belfanti (Columbia/Montour/Northumberland Counties)
Kerry Benninghoff (Centre/Mifflin Counties)
Karen Beyer (Lehigh/Northampton Counties)
Karen Boback (Columbia/Luzerne/Wyoming Counties)
Scott Boyd (Lancaster County)
Joseph Brennan (Lehigh/Northampton Counties)
Martin Causer (Cameron/McKean/Potter Counties)
Paul Clymer (Bucks County)
Craig Dally (Northampton County)
Dan Frankel (Allegheny County)
Jaret Gibbons (Beaver/Butler/Lawrence Counties)
Robert Godshall (Montgomery County)
Neal Goodman (Schuylkill County)
Glen Grell (Cumberland County)
Tim Hennessey (Chester County)
John Hornaman (Erie County)
Rob Kauffman (Cumberland/Franklin Counties)
William Kortz (Allegheny County)
Daylin Leach (Montgomery County)
Tim Mahoney (Fayette County)
Barbara McIlvaine Smith (Chester County)
Daryl Metcalfe (Butler County)
Thomas Murt (Montgomery/Philadelphia Counties)
Bernie O’Neill (Bucks County)
Eddie Pashinski (Luzerne County)
Michael Peifer (Monroe/Pike/Wayne Counties)
Tina Pickett (Bradford/Sullivan/Susquehanna Counties)
Marguerite Quinn (Bucks County)
Kathy Rapp (Forest/McKean/Warren Counties)
Brad Roae (Crawford County)
Sam Rohrer (Berks County)
Stan Saylor (York County)
Mario Scavello (Monroe County)
Curt Schroder (Chester County)
John Siptroth (Monroe/Pike Counties)
Samuel Smith (Armstrong/Indiana/Jefferson Counties
Jerry Stern (Blair County)
Richard Stevenson (Butler/Mercer Counties)
RoseMarie Swanger (Lebanon County
Katie True (Lancaster County)
Randy Vulakovich (Allegheny County)
Katherine Watson (Bucks County)

This controversy grows by the day, but the Carnegie Science Center still stands by their exhibit. They will shut it down only if they have to.

“We have hosted this exhibition absolutely in line with existing state and federal guidelines. If that landscape changes, we'll continue to evaluate the situation and act accordingly," Science Center Director Joanna Haas said. "We certainly believe it's the Pennsylvania Legislature's right to legislate the use of human bodies and to create structures for such exhibits. We would certainly intend to comply with any legislative parameters that may be put into place."

Okay, so let’s change the landscape and put these bodies to rest. Contact your local representative and tell him/her to support this bill. A listing of representatives by district number and their contact info can be found here.

************** UPDATE 3/11/08 *************

The following representatives have added their support to the bill:
Michele Brooks (Crawford/Lawrence/Mercer Counties)
Mauree Gingrich (Lebanon County)
Sandra Major (Susquehanna/Wayne/Wyoming Counties)
Bob Mensch (Montgomery County)
Rosita Youngblood (Philadelphia County)

Co-sponsors to date: 49

NAFTA-gate: Was The Wrong Name Leaked?

Bag of Health and Politics dug up an interesting article in Canada’s Globe and Mail which says it was actually a Hillary aide who gave NAFTA the wink-wink-nod-nod. One way or another, seems like Harper’s gonna get to the bottom of the leak.

Kraus Moves To Hold Sign Resolution For One Week

“My own goal for bringing this resolution forward was to make sure the people and process are protected. I believe in principles before personalities.”

The resolution Kraus spoke of in his above statement was one whereby Council would ask the Mayor to direct City Zoning to rescind the permit they issued to Lamar Advertising for a 1200 sq ft LED sign on the new Transportation Center. The Kraus resolution additionally asked that the Exec Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority rescind the lease agreement between that body and Lamar.

After issuing his opening statement, Bruce Kraus said he would be willing to hold the resolution for one week, giving Lamar Advertising time to voluntarily pull the permits they were issued. Kraus and the majority of council believe the permits were issued in error because due process was entirely ignored.

As usual, Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne were the two members who clearly voiced their support of the administration, whatever the administration does, and therefore their displeasure with the resolution before them. As usual, Motznik and Payne put forth a host of arguments. And as usual, none of them were germane to the issue at hand. The Pist-Gazette believes this is a calculating, oft-used tactic Motznik purposefully employs to muddy the waters, hoping to pull victory out of mayhem. We believe Payne, on the other hand, comes by her confusion honestly. She never seems to grasp the meat of the point in front of her.

Motznik argued that Lamar was a “good neighbor” and only followed “a process they were given.” He handed out pictures of many unsightly billboards Lamar had “voluntarily” removed and had replaced with the more visually-pleasing LED variety. Payne kept harping on the fact that Neighbors in the Strip, a citizens' group in her district, was in favor of the large LED.

Bruce Kraus, Ricky Burgess and Bill Peduto all had to once again remind Motznik and Payne that the issue before council was not one of judging the merits of the sign, or lack thereof.

Kraus: “The decision here is not about merits of the sign. My sole concern is the voice of the people in this process.”

Burgess: “My concern is not about the merits of the sign. That’s a discussion for another day.”

Peduto: “My issue today is not about the billboard. My issue is whether we have the same set of rules for everyone. It’s about fair and equal application of the law for everyone. We have a responsibility to not only write the law, but to also make sure it is carried out.”

Once again, Patrick Dowd took an oddly impassioned stance in favor of doing nothing one way or another. "At the present time." So impassioned was his non-committal, Patrick admitted he had heated words with Peduto prior to the start of Council’s session.

“I’m still not clear that it’s appropriate for us to be speaking on this matter. I have questions as to our role on Council. As individuals, we can certainly speak as to how we feel on this matter. But as a body, there is a different point. I’m not sure of the point where our authority begins and where it ends. For now, I’m not going to voice my opinion on the sign or the process. I will at the appropriate moment, but we’re not there yet.”

It was a point in time, however, for Payne to again became unclear as to what day it was, what planet she was on, or what she had just heard. “I hear the majority of you in favor of this resolution say that the process was flawed. Since we are all so worried about process (her fingers motioning quotes around the word process), maybe we should just change the process.”

Using the most patient, kindly voice he could muster considering Council had just recently endured a 6-hr session on whether or not a sign was in fact a sign….. And speaking as slowly as he could choosing small, simple words so that Payne would be certain to understand ….. Kraus leaned over and said, “The process is not flawed. The process was not followed.”

Doug Shields had the last word: “URA Executive Director Pat Ford said in our 6-hour session the other day that ‘We must agree to disagree.’” Well, that cannot be the outcome. There must be a resolution. I believe the code is clear. But at the end of the day it is a simple matter. A judge will wind up making a finding of fact. And that is how it should be.”

A Body By Any Other Name

Pictured above is a Lamar Advertising sign which may not be a sign, advertising “real human bodies” which may not be real human bodies. (There is starting to be a certain cosmic symmetry to all of this, now isn’t there?)

The Bodies being advertised and displayed are those of deceased Chinese persons who may or may not have been executed prisoners, may or may not have been “unclaimed”, may or may not have given permission to be part of the titillating, traveling exhibit.

Yesterday afternoon, KDKA radio personality Chris Moore spoke to Dr. Todd Olson, chair of the Anatomical Committee of the Associated Medical Schools of New York. Dr. Olson is squarely in the camp of those who think the exhibits should be shut down.

“In our view, [the Bodies exhibits] are here illegally,” Olson charged.

Putting aside moral and ethical considerations for the moment, Olson explained that there are practical and legal reasons the exhibits should not be here.

“They are brought into this country under false pretenses. Their customs declaration says they are plastic models, not human bodies. If they had been listed as preserved human remains, they would have had to have been accompanied by proper documentation. Documentation we require for any body for burial. They do not have that documentation.”

Dr. Olson continued that since these bodies are not classified as “real human bodies” for customs, they do not come under the jurisdiction of our health department. “This is why there are laws regarding bodies. The law tells us who may have a dead body and who may not. It tells us where bodies can be displayed and where such a display would be improper or pose a health risk.”

Olson was referring to the growing number of patently exploitative, obviously-not-educational locations where the Bodies are put on view: *At the Tropicana Hotel in Las Vegas where you can gawk at dead bodies at one end of the hotel and then catch live burlesque bodies at the other end. *At Union Station where you can shop, eat at a restaurant and then take in a dead body or two after dessert.

“That is the loophole they are exploiting.”

Now once the bodies get past customs, their status changes dramatically. Suddenly, to the likes of the Carnegie Science Center and other purveyors of art and science, they become “Real Human Bodies” because the general public is not going to plunk down $20 - $40 just to gape at “Real Plastic Models.”

What can we do? What should we do?

“Call your congressman,” says Olson. “Call your local health department. These [bodies] are individuals in the prime of their lives. This is not Grampa Charlie. This is not the type of body any anatomist ever sees in the U.S. This is suspicious.”

How does KDKA host Chris Moore feel about the Bodies? Chris, who is a Vietnam vet and who has seen more than his fair share of dead bodies in his lifetime?

“These people are Chinese,” said Moore. “I wonder …. If in Iraq, one of our soldiers had been killed, and then preserved, and then posed kicking a softball … How would we feel about that? Wouldn’t we feel horrified and outraged?”

Ms. Pist is not Chinese. Ms. Pist is not Iraqi. But Ms. Pist is pist and horrified and outraged nonetheless.

Call your health department. Call your congressman. In Pennsylvania, Rep. Michael Fleck is trying to return some sanity if not some ethics to our state. We all need to do whatever we can to stop this horror.

A Sign By Any Other Name

PITTSBURGH, Pa, Probably sometime in the future -- URA Executive Director Pat Ford recently beat allegations that he improperly approved an LED billboard for an advertiser's use by arguing that the billboard was not an electronic sign, it was instead a "glowing device for public enjoyment".

"There are no city codes regulating the usage of glowing devices," said Ford. "So in no way did I do anything that was improper."

The Carnegie Science Center and casino-owner Don Barden jumped right on this stroke-of-genius reclassification strategy to solve controversies plaguing their own organizations.

The Science Center filed court papers asking that plastinated bodies in their "Bodies" exhibit be re-classified as "bio-system containers." Barden followed suit claiming that the proposed 20-story garage for his casino was not a garage at all.

"It's a bridge of cutting-edge design which diverts traffic from one end of my property to the other," Barden explained. "There are no height limitations for bridges that I'm aware of. So construction of my casino bridge must therefore proceed immediately as any further delays will seriously jeopardize my bottom line."

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said all three parties seem to have a point. "Whatever needs to be done, we'll do it of course. But it's kinda hard to argue with such sound logic."

Let The Games Begin .....

FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY
CONTACT: COUNCILMAN BRUCE A. KRAUS, 412-255-2130
SUBJECT: GRANT STREET TRANSPORTATION CENTER SIGNAGE

COUNCILMAN BRUCE A. KRAUS ASKS MAYOR TO RESCIND APPROVAL

Voices Concerns About Process and Absence of Public Scrutiny

Pittsburgh, February 29, 2008….City Councilman Bruce A. Kraus announced today that he will introduce a resolution on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, asking Mayor Luke Ravenstahl to rescind the LED sign zoning approval granted to Lamar Advertising for the Grant Street Transportation Center. The approval was granted without being brought before the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board, or City Council.

The no-bid agreement was the subject of a lengthy special meeting this week during which Council Members questioned Planning Director Noor Ismail, Zoning Administrator Susan Tymoczko, City Solicitor George Specter, URA Director Pat Ford, and Pittsburgh Parking Authority head David Onorato.

“Though Council had the opportunity to engage in an extensive review of the events leading up to the deal with Lamar, there are just too many significant questions that remain unanswered,” said Kraus. “Council needs to understand whether the intent of the law was followed and how the absence of proper process excluded any possibility of public input or scrutiny.”

The Councilman is also asking David Onorato, Executive Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, to rescind or invalidate the lease agreement. “A lease agreement has the potential to provide significant revenue to the city,” said Kraus. “However, just like the zoning matter, the lease did not receive Board Action.”

Kraus notes that City Council recently joined in signing a pledge with the Mayor and Controller’s Office that is to improve governance in Pittsburgh. “It is critical that we adhere to that pledge,” said Kraus. “Whenever public property and public funds are involved, it is incumbent upon elected officials to assure our citizens that their government is working in their best interest.”

(Will Of Council Below)

********************************************

WHEREAS, following a recent fact finding meeting held by City Council on the issue of an LED Sign for the new Transportation Center, City Council believes the Zoning Department, in consultation with the Urban Redevelopment Authority, acted in error regarding its interpretation of the language and regulations contained in the Pittsburgh Code; and

WHEREAS, while language is often subject to legal interpretation, it is clear that the authors of the Home Rule Charter and the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances clearly intended to ensure that the right of the people to participate in major decisions, particularly land use matters, was the foundation for the very existence of the Regulations; and

WHEREAS, given the current controversy over the zoning process, and the fact that the Mayor and all Members of City Council recently signed a formal pledge that prioritized “excellence in service, increased access to and confidence in all City services by ensuring equity for all Pittsburghers;” and also committed to “improve the quality of life for future generations by identifying current land use opportunities and challenges facing the City” and “ensure the ethical operation of the offices,” it is only appropriate that the matter of the LED Sign be rescinded at this juncture.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pittsburgh hereby requests that the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh direct the City Zoning Administrator to take the necessary steps to rescind the current permit issued to Lamar Advertising for approval of an LED Sign on the Transportation Center, and direct that a new application be filed and processed under the guidelines of a Conditional Use Application as outlined in the City Code; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pittsburgh also requests that the Executive Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority rescind the Lease Agreement between Lamar Advertising and the Pittsburgh Parking Authority.



SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN BRUCE A. KRAUS

And The Cheese Stands Alone .....

WQED’s “On Q” hosted a special edition town hall meeting on the controversy surrounding “Bodies: The Exhibition”. Moderated by Chris Moore, the show’s expert panel included Director Joanna Haas from the Carnegie Science Center (host of the exhibit) as well as other area leaders in the fields of religion, science and ethics.

The evening provided not one, not two, but actually three surprises. The initial surprise was that the Carnegie Science Center agreed to appear in such an unscripted, public forum. I wrongly surmised that there must be a fair amount of support for the Center among the other panelists or the Center would not have braved the event in the first place. But I was wrong. The only panelist and maybe the only person in the entire studio to communicate any meaningful support for the exhibit was Dr. Karl Williams, the Allegheny County Medical examiner. Every other expert guest expressed varying degrees of moral and ethical concern. Every audience comment, whether on camera or off, was not a happy one. Groans and heavy sighs were commonplace.

The final surprise of the evening was the weakness and often downright silliness of the arguments put forth by the Science Center. Every flawed statement uttered by Ms. Haas was immediately put down by multiple parties. I would have felt sorry for her had the subject matter not been so very gruesome.

Ms. Haas opened by saying the decision to host the exhibit was a strategic one. The exhibit would provide the general public with a view of the human body previously only afforded the medical profession. Since their mission was to promote science education to the masses, they reasoned this unique opportunity was one they could not pass up.

Dr. Alan Meisel, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Bioethics and Health Law agreed there was obvious educational benefit to the exhibit. He cautioned that there was just something inherently wrong with this display, however. “In 50 years we will look back at this like it was a circus side-show. There are other ways to educate the public. Even now, frog dissections have been abolished in high school. Out of respect for the frog, we do the dissections by computer. Shouldn’t we respect a human as much as we respect a frog?”

Dr. Meisel went on to say that sometimes the best educational method may actually be the most undesirable choice. “I would imagine that the best way to teach Sex Ed would be to provide paid-for sex partners. But I can’t imagine anyone would think this approach would be appropriate no matter how successful the results were.”

Dr. Scott Miller, Chief of Medical Ethics at Allegheny General Hospital agreed with Dr. Meisel. He said the exhibit provided some educational value, but the same end results could be achieved in a different manner. He was troubled by the controversy of how the bodies had been obtained.

Ms. Haas tried to convince the crowd that all possible “due diligence” had been done. “Even 20/20 ended their show saying there was no conclusive evidence one way or another. We have belief in our documentation. These are unclaimed bodies or people who have given their consent.”

Bad move on Ms. Haas’ part. The crowd took off their gloves at this point.

“Do we really need absolute proof,” chimed Dr. Miller, “or is reasonable doubt good enough with something this important?”

Dr. Meisel agreed that the due diligence standard in this instance should be extremely high but opined that the standards applied by the Science Center “were not high enough for me.”

Father Jim Wehner from the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh said that moral framework was extremely important and that the end never justified the means. “The church was initially provided with information [from the Science Center] which said a good faith effort had been made to authenticate the bodies. But was there really enough investigation?”

Rabbi Daniel Schiff of the Agency for Jewish Learning pulled no punches. “This is no way to treat our dead. We have a responsibility to treat an unclaimed body with the same respect that we’d give a relative. And the question of consent is not even part of the issue. At issue is what moral standards do we wish for our society and culture? If I were to give consent to offer my body as food, for example….. If I agreed to have my body cut, packaged and sold at the grocer’s ….. Would our culture agree and abide with my wishes? Of course not. I am condemning this exhibit. We’re not importing cheese here. These are human beings we are talking about.”

Ms. Haas said their intent was the best. She reminded the panel that the Center had engaged many of them prior to contracting the exhibit as part of their “due diligence” on community perceptions and concerns. The Science Center was a prestigious organization after all and would never engage in anything untoward. Besides, the body exhibits had been touring the country for a few years by now. Pittsburgh and the Science Center were not the first to host the bodies. Other cities had concerns but had already worked through them. Ms. Haas was sure we would work through our concerns as well.

Another bad move.

Dr. Meisel lit into her. “I hate to have to remind you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You can’t just say, ‘Oh well, everyone else is doing it.’ And, ‘We’re prestigious and we’re making a lot of money.’ These are not good excuses.”

“Sure, you consulted with us at first,” the Rabbi said to Haas. “But you already had your mind made up. You were going to believe Premier no matter what we said and we knew it.”


Dr. Jim Weber, Professor of Business Ethics at Duquesne University sort of came to Ms Haas’ defense. “Just because something is profitable does not make it unethical. However we need to be very careful as to where these bodies come from. There is a pattern with China that raises questions. I have my concerns. I think we need greater certainty.”

You would think Haas would decide to just shut up and smile at this point. But no. She embarked upon the silly segment of her justification. She proudly proclaimed that the exhibit had prompted patrons to adopt a healthier and more responsible lifestyle. She anecdotally recounted how many people said they would quit smoking after seeing the diseased lung. And a surprising number of people had filled out organ donor cards, she chirped.

Groans were audible at this point.

“If this is such a fantastic way to get people to quit smoking …… then why are you charging a fee for this exhibit? Don’t you wish poor people to be healthy too? If this is in fact the case, the government should just take our cigarette tax money and pay for these exhibits to come to every school in every city instead of you charging admission to a few.”

Commander Maurita Bryant, Head of Pittsburgh Homicide, simply said she had not seen the exhibit and didn’t have plans to go. “I see too many dead bodies in my work every day. The hard part is trying to comfort the family of someone who’s been murdered. But there are always strangers who also gather around just to look and laugh and make jokes. Its hard to see this too. I wouldn’t want to go to the exhibit and have to see people pointing and laughing at those bodies there.” Commander Bryant went on to say she was currently an organ donor, but was now reconsidering that decision.

Everyone but Haas laughed. She had no more arguments. She finally decided it was time to just shut up and smile.