Donating your body to cannibalism

[Splush]

This isn't the most serious of subjects, admittedly, but I thought about it last night and it's been buzzing around my head since, and the other active threads are so serious just now I thought this was kind of fun. Also, while it's a laughable concept on the surface, I think it can serve as a metaphor for less fancifully situations.

Basically, if somebody writes in their will that they want their body to be donated to a hungry cannibal immediately upon their death (either a nominated friend or a random stranger on a first-come-first-served basis), is there a rational reason to stop it happening?

There was that famous story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes#Murder_and_cannibalism) of the German men who met each other online and then one of them volunteered to be killed and have his body turned into 10 month's worth of frozen meals. This is obviously a rather shady way of going about it, and I think a decision like this would at least have to go through thorough psychological analysis before being given the green light, but in principle it's hard to put my finger on the reason why the state would have to get involved in something that two people of right minds mutually agreed on that doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights.

I suppose there is an arguement to be made that it would legitimise cannibalism and generate more interest in it, although I tend to think that most of the appeal of such practices lies in their taboo nature, and legitimation might actually cause them to die out.

P.S. if cannibalism isn't nasty enough for you can replace it with necrophilia, you sicko!

[maldirth]

I'd be a dish best served cold.

[Zhyl]

Is cannibalism technically legal? If yes, then it would live on to be an anecdote of that solicitor at parties until he himself dies, and may make it into "100 silliest wills" books.

If no, then, well, no.

[Socks]

No. Absolutely not.

Cannibalism. True, I feel sorry for the thousands upon thousands in the world who follow this path. But, If I donate my body, I'll just be another body. I would rather donate my body to a uni; they always need more doctors in the world.

[Darkscull]

in the case of the german guys it was illegal because it was murder (or at least assisted suicide), rather than the cannibalism. i'm not sure whether the cannibalism bit would be illegal or not if the death was from other causes, or if it was part of the will.

i'm of the opinion that, however horrible it is in concept, if someone wants something to be done with their body after they die (whether donating to science, being stuffed, or eaten, or stuffed with sage and onion and then eaten :p ), and it doesn't affect anyone else (except voluntarily), then there's no reason to disallow it.

of course, whether or not the deceased wishes are carried out is up to the family (if there is one), so I doubt this would happen that often.

I think cannibalism is (or should be) illegal only in tandem with other things. for example, killing and eating someone, or stealing a corpse and eating it, it's the killing/stealing that is illegal, rather than the eating.

[Splush]

in the case of the german guys it was illegal because it was murder (or at least assisted suicide), rather than the cannibalism. i'm not sure whether the cannibalism bit would be illegal or not if the death was from other causes, or if it was part of the will.
Yeah he was initially found guilty of manslaughter, but I'm sure even if his dinner had killed itself and there had been a written agreement between them he still would have gotten locked up for something. For him to have any chance of getting away with it the victim's mental stability would have to be officially certified and the written agreement would have to be legally ratified, but I can't imagine any self-respecting psychologists or lawyers getting involved in such a business.

This sort of question really interests me because it's something that seems wrong at an instinctual level, but I can't express why in a rational sense.

[Midget]

it's probably illegal to actually be in the possession of a dead body, so they could say no on those grounds

that could be not be true of course, but it's an idea

[katt]

I bet if someone tried to do this..donate their body to be used as food.. there would be a huge media circus about it.

In the united states it would probably end up at some higher court where they would probably eventually rule it illegal on the grounds of health and safety (because cannibalism can cause prion related diseases such as BSE in cattle...and there is a similar trend towards prion-related disease seen in some cannibalistic human populations).

That is, if there are not already laws about cannibalism. It would not surprise me if there were. If they had to give a reason i bet they would say health and safety even though its probably has a lot to do with the fact most people thing it is weird and gross and do not want to live in a country where it happens.

[Roachy]

This sort of question really interests me because it's something that seems wrong at an instinctual level, but I can't express why in a rational sense.

That's actually just struck a chord with me. You're right. It feels wrong but rationally there is no explanation why it should. Perhaps it's just that the values and norms of our society teach us that cannibalism is abnormal, therefore we see it as something that is not to be done.

Technically though, if it is written in will, I'm not sure it would be illegal...

I agree with Darkscull and Midget in that they would probably base the illegality on something other than eating the corpse.

[katt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29

Here is a link to a page about Kuru which is one disease that develops from cannibalism

[Smokey]

Canibalism must be illegal since the earliest laws came from religous texts and were then edited as the times changed. Canibalism has never been socially acceptable and was looked down on in Europe years before the birth of Christ.

I can't quote you the law, but eating another human unless absolutely necessary (desert island) is illegal.

Also, I believe the German guy ate some of his own penis before he died :shock:

[Bappel]

On the whole cannibalism thing. A swedish host of a show wanted to see what human flesh tasted like. So he removed a piece of his arse and fried it and then ate it. According to him it tasted like chicken(as most new things taste like according to people). He got helped to remove the arse part by his cohost.

[razielskorp]

[QUOTE=-Roach-;1786977]
Technically though, if it is written in will, I'm not sure it would be illegal...

[QUOTE]

Just because it's in a will, doesn't mean you can do it. for example, if you put in your will that at your death you wanted you body to be cut up and scattered around your back garden for crows to eat, there is no way you would be allowed to do it. (extreme example, i know, but makes the point)

edit: damn, buggered up the quote thing again......

[Zhyl]

I bet if someone tried to do this..donate their body to be used as food.. there would be a huge media circus about it.

In the united states it would probably end up at some higher court where they would probably eventually rule it illegal on the grounds of health and safety (because cannibalism can cause prion related diseases such as BSE in cattle...and there is a similar trend towards prion-related disease seen in some cannibalistic human populations).

That is, if there are not already laws about cannibalism. It would not surprise me if there were. If they had to give a reason i bet they would say health and safety even though its probably has a lot to do with the fact most people thing it is weird and gross and do not want to live in a country where it happens.

To be honest, I doubt it would even make the he front page of any papers. If it fits through the system but is only controversial because it's not all that common, not because its doing anyone any particular harm, then I doubt any of the papers would print it in any section that would count as "news", more in the section of interesting or weird things that are happening in the world. I sincerely doubt it would make it to the high court.

But, you know, it might happen.


Just because it's in a will, doesn't mean you can do it. for example, if you put in your will that at your death you wanted you body to be cut up and scattered around your back garden for crows to eat, there is no way you would be allowed to do it. (extreme example, i know, but makes the point)


I see no reason why not. It's their body, after all.

[Darkscull]

well, there are laws about disposal of bodies... you aren't allowed to bury a body just anywhere, for example, not even if you own the land.

so the scattering would be illegal... it might not be if you fed it straight to the crows though.

i'm not sure what the exact laws are (and of course it'll vary from country to country), it might be that they are positive rather than negative laws* (that is, ones that list things you can do, rather than ones that list what you can't do), in which case i doubt that cannibalism will be listed under appropriate disposal of bodies :p




*I don't know whether there are any actual terms for this in legal language, but the brackets explain.

[Splush]

On the whole cannibalism thing. A swedish host of a show wanted to see what human flesh tasted like. So he removed a piece of his arse and fried it and then ate it. According to him it tasted like chicken(as most new things taste like according to people). He got helped to remove the arse part by his cohost.
Man, that would totally beat whatever's on British TV right now.

To be honest, I doubt it would even make the he front page of any papers. If it fits through the system but is only controversial because it's not all that common, not because its doing anyone any particular harm, then I doubt any of the papers would print it in any section that would count as "news", more in the section of interesting or weird things that are happening in the world. I sincerely doubt it would make it to the high court.
I have a feeling it would be a big deal in this country. The main reason I'm interested in this idea is that I'd like to watch the political/madia fallout following it, if it just flew under the radar it would be such an anticlimax!

Do you remember when Gunther von Hagens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_von_Hagens) performed an autopsy live on Channel 4? I believe that was technically illegal and they were warned not to do it, but nobody actually stepped in to stop it happening. I thought it was quite an exciting media event because of the tension over whether it was right or wrong. I'm glad it was broadcast in the end because what other chances do I have to get such a visceral tour of human anatomy?

From wikipedia:

Prior to performing the autopsy, von Hagens had received a letter from Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy, the British government official responsible for regulating the educational use of cadavers. The letter warned von Hagens that performing a public autopsy would be a criminal act under section 9 of the 1984 Anatomy Act. The show was attended by officers from the Metropolitan Police, but they did not intervene and the dissection was performed in full. The autopsy was shown in November 2002 on the UK's Channel 4 television channel; it resulted in over 130 complaints, but the Independent Television Commission ruled that the program had not been sensationalist and had not broken broadcasting rules. A planned public dissection in Munich was cancelled.

130 complaints? I bet Top Gear gets more than that every week.

[Roachy]

Do you remember when Gunther von Hagens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_von_Hagens) performed an autopsy live on Channel 4?

I watched those programmes. They had some new ones on recently, you know. I've been watching them too. They're interesting.

[Gabber-Baby]

Gunther Von Hagens is a legend. He just doesnt give a shit, to be honest i dont know how people can sit there and watch a deceased old lady get turned inside out. It's interesting yeah and quite shockingly amazing aswell but my stomach isnt strong enough to watch it properly.

Back to the whole cannabilism thing though, in my opinion, i think anyone who wants to be donated to a cannibal after their death has to be pretty screwed up anyway.

Who the hell wants to end up as some wacko's shit?

[Roachy]

if you put in your will that at your death you wanted you body to be cut up and scattered around your back garden for crows to eat, there is no way you would be allowed to do it.
Why not? Like Zhyl said, it's your body.

[Splush]

If you were literally scattering chunks of corpse in your garden which people can potentially see into I think that could be considered public indecency of some kind.

Although I don't know when a chunk of dead flesh goes from decent to indecent, I doubt anybody was very offended by that Swedish TV presenter eating a chunk of his own buttock because a chunk of buttock doesn't have any recognisable humanness about it, it could be a chunk of tissue from any animal.

Also, If you cut anything up small enough it becomes less nasty. Every child learns that lesson with broccoli, I'm sure it can be applied to anything!

[Darkscull]

Why not? Like Zhyl said, it's your body.

As i said, there are laws (pretty much everywhere i think) about proper disposal of bodies.

I was going to say this before, but then i didn't:

in the news a while back (and this was proper, not a random made up story), there was a case where a widow had buried her husband in the garden, but had to have him dug up when the authorities found out (i'm not sure exactly which department it'd be under though), because you can't bury human bodies except in proper places (there's a permission of some sort that you need).

so if you can't bury it, i doubt you'd be allowed to effectively just leave it outside (even if it is in various different places)

[InstaCpu]

Gunther Von Hagens is a legend. He just doesnt give a shit, to be honest i dont know how people can sit there and watch a deceased old lady get turned inside out. It's interesting yeah and quite shockingly amazing aswell but my stomach isnt strong enough to watch it properly.

Back to the whole cannabilism thing though, in my opinion, i think anyone who wants to be donated to a cannibal after their death has to be pretty screwed up anyway.

Who the hell wants to end up as some wacko's shit?

As opposed to worm shit? :p Well, I think the legal aspects are covered as others have said by health issues. I personally think the taboo against cannibalism is so strong it would override individual wishes in this case.

[Smokey]

So you think it wouldn't be a problem if people just left their bodies outdies to rot? Do you have any idea what diseases would be spread and how bad it'd smell?

Just because something is in a will doesn't mean that it's legal to carry out. If someone died and wanted their vast fortune to be spent making a hundred foot statue of their genitals it wouldn't be allowed. Besides, I'm pretty sure that canibalism in any way, shape or form is illegal. It's just plain wrong.

[Splush]

It's just plain wrong.
But the point is why is it wrong if the person who is to be eaten chooses that fate and is of sound mind? I agree that it probably wouldn't be allowed to happen, but all of the suggested reasons why are just technicalities which don't really get at the real meat (hurr) of the question.

[Sebas]

To be honest, I wouldn't mind being eaten after my death at all. I mean, we eat loads of animals, why would eating humans be so much worse? Plus, I'm dead anyway. I'll rot, get eaten by bugs, or burned otherwise, so I might as well be of some use.

So yeah. Guys, when I die, barbecue at my place. BYOB.

[katt]

But the point is why is it wrong if the person who is to be eaten chooses that fate and is of sound mind? I agree that it probably wouldn't be allowed to happen, but all of the suggested reasons why are just technicalities which don't really get at the real meat (hurr) of the question.

I think we probably find it instinctively wrong because in our cultures (well most cultures that have a lick of good sense) human beings are never ever to be considered food because we are special to ourselves and to each other (hopefully). Therefore even someone offering themselves as food is offensive and a threat to the slippery slope of complete chaos where human lives/beings are not valued as much as they should be.

I think even the lifeless human body has some importance to many people because of all the fuss people have gone through for centuries to bury the dead in elaborate ceremonies. The human body, even in death, is still symbolic of humanity and the individual who died. To eat such a symbol triggers a primal reflexive judgment that it is disrespectful to human life/humanity.

And that buttock cooking thing is horrible :X oh my gosh. oh yeah that reminds me..another reason is it is simply gross.

[Roachy]

As i said, there are laws (pretty much everywhere i think) about proper disposal of bodies.

I was going to say this before, but then i didn't:

in the news a while back (and this was proper, not a random made up story), there was a case where a widow had buried her husband in the garden, but had to have him dug up when the authorities found out (i'm not sure exactly which department it'd be under though), because you can't bury human bodies except in proper places (there's a permission of some sort that you need).

so if you can't bury it, i doubt you'd be allowed to effectively just leave it outside (even if it is in various different places)

But surely scattering pieces that would be eaten or rot quickly is basically the same as having your ashes scattered. There's no law against having your ashes scattered after creamation as far as I know, because people have had it done all over the place.

[Darkscull]

But surely scattering pieces that would be eaten or rot quickly is basically the same as having your ashes scattered. There's no law against having your ashes scattered after creamation as far as I know, because people have had it done all over the place.

I heard from somewhere that there are strict guidelines about the sorts of places you can scatter ashes, but I don't know whether that's true. there are definitely only certain types of places where you can scatter as in throw to the wind.

anyway, it's only just legal to scatter bits of dead animal around on private property (if it is, health and safety and all that might have something to say), and in some cities there are rules about all rubbish disposal, to try and keep back the rats.

so given that there are laws about the proper disposal of bodies (although i still don't know what they actually say, i may need to look that up for this), that combined with a few other things makes me think it is highly unlikely that scattering an (unprocessed) human corpse would be legal.

[katt]

that combined with a few other things makes me think it is highly unlikely that scattering an (unprocessed) human corpse would be legal.

this struck me as funny for some reason

prolly would be illegal under the whole 'disturbing the peace' thing. haha. chucking human remains about is disturbing the peace cause it would freak people out even if it was in someone's will

Alternatives to burial found on wikipedai

Ash jump: skydivers may elect to have their cremated remains released during freefall.
Burial at sea is the practice of depositing the body in an ocean or other large body of water instead of soil. It may be disposed in a coffin, or without one.
Funerary cannibalism is the practice of eating the remains. This may be for many reasons: for example to partake of their strength, to spiritually "close the circle" by reabsorbing their life into the family or clan, to annihilate an enemy, or due to pathological mental conditions. The Yanomami have the habit of cremating the remains and then eating the ashes with banana paste.
Cremation is the incineration of the remains. This practice is common amongst Hindus.
Ecological funeral is a method of increasing the rate of decomposition in order to help fertilize the soil.
Excarnation is the practice of removing the flesh from the corpse without interment. The Zoroastrians have traditionally left their dead on Towers of Silence, where the flesh of the corpses is let to be devoured by vultures and other carrion-eating birds. Alteratively, it can also mean butchering the corpse by hand to remove the flesh (sometimes referred to by the neologism "defleshing").
Gibbeting was the ancient practice of publicly displaying remains of criminals.
Hanging coffins are coffins which have been placed on cliffs. They can be found in various locations, including China and the Philippines.
Resomation involves disposal through an accelerated process of alkaline hydrolysis.
Sky burial involves placing the body on a mountaintop.
Space burial is the practice of firing the coffin into space. The coffin may be placed into orbit, sent off into space, or incinerated in the sun. Space burial is still largely in the realm of science fiction as the cost of getting a body into space is prohibitively large, although several prominent figures have had a sample of their ashes launched into space after cremation.
Note that cryonics is often mistakenly assumed to be an alternative interment method but is in fact a medical procedure carried out to physically preserve the body in the hope that it will one day be technologically possible to revive the individual. See also information theoretical death; clinical death

[feeshy]

I agree with Sebas; you're dead, so who gives a stuff? You care less than anyone else, you can't care, you're dead. I'd probably try human, just out of curiosity. I don't really think it's a question of legal or not- it's different to leave a body in the middle of the high street on a table to rot than to sneak a nibble of a cadaver.

[Splush]

Alternatives to burial found on wikipedai
Mm, I bet the banana paste really takes the edge off it.

[katt]

i also read on the wikipedia section on cannibalism that it is supposed to taste just like veal.

the only thing that went through my mind after that was an image of aliens colonizing our planet to grow us on a globally encompassing 'norwegian veal substitute' farm