David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:“4.--The trafficking in human cadavers shall be limited to such medical or bona fide medical and scientific purposes and in circumstances where such cadavers are exhibited for educational or entertainment purposes and/or for gain the proprietors of any such exhibition shall be required to furnish DNA samples of each of the exhibits in order to prevent the criminal use of such material thereby providing for the discovery of the identity of the deceased person.”.

This, again, is a concern. I was horrified to see the return of an exhibition of dead bodies in the Rotunda Hospital. It was heavily advertised and approved of on radio and television and in the print media. I regard it as rather repellent. I watched the public autopsies carried out on television by a German professor. They were certainly interesting and, I dare say, for medical students they might have been of some value. However, when one is exhibiting the dead bodies of human beings, one needs to be sensitive. Recently, when I spoke about this issue in the House, I remarked on the fact that only next door in the National Museum of Ireland outrage had been expressed from some quarters about the exhibition of the bodies of bog people which had been excavated, although I am unsure how genuine it was. Their bodies had been preserved in some cases for more than 1,000 years. It was suggested they be given a Christian burial, although they might not have been Christian. I reckon that is a rather academic argument.

If people are promoting and bringing throughout the world, certainly throughout Europe and America, exhibitions of dead bodies, the provenance of which is uncertain, one is certainly touching a raw nerve in terms of respect for human beings. I have tabled the amendment because of concerns, despite the statements made, perhaps in good faith, by the proprietors of this commercial enterprise, that they are actually the bodies of people taken from China who were down-and-outs and had been found on the streets. I do not believe credible evidence was produced that this was not actually the case. It remains a suspicion that these may be the bodies of individuals whose lives were terminated for one reason or another, including profit, by the prison authorities with the connivance of the regime. I am asking that where there is such an exhibition, especially for gain, or even for education, because it was claimed that this was an educational exhibition, at the least we ask the promoters to provide DNA samples. This would not damage the exhibits.

It seems ghoulish to call them former human beings, but I imagine I can call them this, like the famous ex-parrot in the sketch on television. It would not damage the cadavers because the amount of material to be taken would be minute. At least, if we had DNA examples, it would mean the corpses would ultimately be traceable. In China traditionally they have had a reverence for the dead which has not been extinguished by communism or the ridiculous system of capitalism they now have, as well as a reverence for the human body. The families concerned would know, once and for all, if it was their family members who were being exhibited. They could then reclaim the bodies and give them a decent burial. The cadavers are not 1,000 or 2,000 years old; they are the bodies of people who, undoubtedly, have living relatives. They should be treated with respect and we have an opportunity to ensure this will take place in this country, in particular.

Once again, I look forward with great interest to hearing the explanation and response of the Minister of State who was able to demonstrate convincingly on the first amendments that the concerns expressed were addressed in other legislation. It is possible that these concerns are addressed also, but there i no mention of anything like this in the Bill. I am, therefore, keen to hear what the Minister of State has to say.