The American Face of British Broadcasting
At first I thought that the bones of the late (and much missed) Alistair Cooke that were reported stolen were taken by some kind of sick collector. That’s weird and disturbing enough. It seems, instead, that they were stolen by a ring of body part snatchers. How awful — and how interesting if there are in fact “rings” of people stealing parts from cadavers for transplantation. Maybe it’s time to think again about the laws governing organ transfers (since rather older laws were apparently violated by those who stole Cooke’s bones). (Here’s another helpful link on the topic.)
I recall Cooke quite fondly for his television work in the U.S. and also for very a fine collection of essays by H. L. Mencken that he edited some years ago, which I read in high school: The Vintage Mencken. His radio commentaries were also insightful and entertaining. It’s sad that the corpse of such a gentleman should have been dishonored in that fashion.
I also remember Mr. Cooke. He was the host of Masterpiece Theater in the 70th and 80ths. Earlier in the 1950s he was the host of show called Omnibus which was broadcast on Sunday afternoon with experts looking in a very enjoyable way at cultural items. It’s a pity that all these shows are probably lost.
Tom,
Your first sentence seems incomplete and difficult to understand. Am I missing something, beyond a sentence fragment?
Sorry. Fixed now.
I’m not sure what is so “awful” about stolen bones. It’s hard to imagine getting too excited by grave robbing, unless you are deeply committed to desecration taboos. And if the mere thought of uninterred bodies gives you the heeby-jeebies than I can’t imagine why organs brought to market are any less offensive than Alistair Cooke’s “stolen” bones.
I don’t get the heebie-jeebies from the thought of uninterred bodies, but I do understand why we hold on to desecration taboos. Mr. Cooke won’t notice, but his family (especially) must be horrified at the disrespect shown to him. Desecrating a grave is a much graver crime (sorry) than a physically similar criminal act against other kinds of property, much as burning a cross on someone’s lawn just isn’t the same as unintentionally starting a leaf fire during an Autumn yard cleanup. They represent acts of disrespect, in the former case against a corpse of a loved one, and in the latter against neighbors, made even worse by the fact that the physical act is combined with an implicit threat of further violence.
Merry christmas! I hope you are enjoying your holiday as much as we are.
A follow-up: Is it your contention that the deceased’s survivors wishes and beliefs are the deciding factor in these cases? I was interested in your thoughts on the matter because I often have discussions with my wife about transplants, organ donations, etc… She is very much opposed to the use of body parts for science, medical procedures or anything else. She is also a great champion and guardian of cemetaries, feeling the sort of revulsion at the sight of vandalism at these places that I just can’t find in myself. Though I don’t share her position, it seems a thoroughly justifiable Catholic philosophy. Do you consider this a question of property rights?
Once again, Merry Christmas Mr. Palmer.
Well, every such case is a case of property rights, because someone has to decide what will be done with a corpse. But that doesn’t mean that we would then invest the disposition of a corpse with the same minimal sentiment that we invest the disposition of a used candy wrapper. Normally, someone is responsible for making deciisons governing the disposition of a corpse (whether it will be buried or cremated, and where the remains will be located, scattered, etc.) But the status of the corpse is not the same as that of some other item or object. The horror most people experienced when they learned of a mortuary that had given families cement and the like rather than the ashes of their loved ones, whose bodies were left to rot on the property of the mortuary , suggests that such cases deserve to be treated with greater gravity than are financially comparable failures of contracts. (Dahlia Lithwick discussed some of the issues in Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2063222/ ).