You Can't Keep Your Relatives' Skulls
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
It turns out there's currently a huge oversupply of articulated skeletons in the UK, as the "Human Tissue Act 2004" [1] means (tldr) you now have to have a license to own one. An amnesty means the few institutions that have such licenses have more skeletons than they can possibly use.
Apparently as many as 8 a week are dropped off, grinning from the back seat and enjoying their day out.
If that's the case, then how do Skulls Unlimited (US based company) do their thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skulls_Unlimited_International
They've been around for 30+ years, and reduce human heads to skulls.
A common "Today I learned"-frontpager on reddit is about composer Tchaikowsky's skull, which was donated to be used in Hamlet, described on Wikipedia here:
After reading TFA I wonder how they got him deboned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Tchaikowsky#Skull
But I guess deflected is the right term in this context
I had a vague notion that some day my own skull might become part of the properties of my own theater troupe. It's probably a very bad idea and it's more than half a joke, but it's a bit disappointing to hear that it's not really possible.
On the other hand, if it were not regarded as killing, you may find healthy people being preserved based on oversold promises of revival from cryonics practitioners.
Perhaps the best compromise for the time being is to regard it as euthanasia, and legalise that with some sensible safeguards. I wonder whether in any countries where euthanasia is legal, opting for direct cryopreservation would be permissible.
* It can be challenged on the grounds that its provisions are unlawful. Leaving all your money to your cat might be an example.
* It can apparently be challenged on the grounds that it is unfair; deceased parents leaving their children destitute by leaving all their money to a pet-care charity might be an example.
* Many wills are deliberately couched in terms that are vague or confusing; this may be in the service of avoiding inheritance taxes, but it opens the way for challenges.
* There may be evidence outside the will itself that the testator has deliberately contrived his legacy so as to avoid his debts.
As far as I can see, your will is really just an expression of your intentions. You can't enforce it (of course). If your executor egregiously violates the express intentions of deceased, they can be sued by relatives. But in general, executors seem to have considerable latitude; it is assumed that, having been appointed by the deceased, they are reasonably familiar with their intent.
Anyhow, I don't think your corpse is part of your estate; I don't think executors can dispose of it in the same way they might dispose of land, paintings and investments.
Incidentally, Freedom of Speech laws are quite rare. I don't know of any country other than the USA that has constitutional protections for speech. Certainly there is no legal protection for speech in the UK, other than the vague principle that "anything that is not forbidden by law is permitted by law".
I think freedom of speech is almost universally considered an inalienable human right. It tends to be protected by international treaty obligations (which usually have the force of law?). Wikipedia says:
>> Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Regarding the UK, the English Bill of Rights protects free speech and I believe it still has the force of law and is cited in legal cases.
>Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Germany has even stronger caveats to freedom of speech. The US stands alone (to my knowledge) in the way it treats freedom of speech because of the wording and interpretation of the first amendment, which is why there is so much debate in the field of first amendment jurisprudence and philosophy as to what its limits are and what they, in the views of many researchers, what they should be. See Susan Brison's arguments on that point. Countries such as the UK and Germany frequently allow concerns of discrimination, the silencing power of speech, and other factors to override pure freedom of speech.
To my knowledge, the bill of rights only applies in England and Wales, and it is extremely infrequently used, and hasn't been, to my knowledge, used to protect freedom of speech (at least not any time recently).
The point is that an act that is explicitly authorized in a will should not qualify as abuse of a corpse, not that no laws should apply to the disposal of a corpse.
If your will stipulates that your body be used to commit a criminal act, the should be prevented by the normal application of the law. Laws should not impact an individual's right for self determination of the disposal of a their body without a clear set of harms that are being ameliorated (such as in other exceptions to the prohition of prior restraint)
I am a bit surprised with the pushback here. Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice.
There's a lot of leeway in enforcement of all laws and if you could present evidence that the treatment the corpse received was consistent with a religious practice you'd probably be fine, though there would be levels where the conduct is limitable (eg: public display of the corpse as it decomposes for example).
For all the language of "shall make no law" or "shall not infringe" there are many laws that make limitations on freedom of speech, religion, and bear arms. It's hard to imagine any law standing up to a maximal interpretation of freedom of religion for example because a religion can be anything and hold any precepts.
Remains treatment laws were actually addressing a need and harm at the time where corpses were being dug up for medical study against the wishes of the deceased and the restrictions work because they're largely in line with the majority of religions especially in the US. It hasn't really been challenged because very few people actually want to do something against the law with their relatives corpses.