13th February 2009, 02:33 PM
A lot of people seem to favour the retention of human remains for long term study or even for display in museums, and as such have said so; people have also said their views on folks (like Oddie) claiming responsibility for prehistoric human remains.
But i'm wondering wether these are the right questions we should be asking- surely, before we start debating who has jurisdiction over human remains we should be asking -Do we have the moral right to keep such remains for longer than is necessary? if the only reason graves are being disturbed is because of development,then what right do we have to keep them boxed up or on display solely for the benefit of science.
This could probably be better debated on a whole new topic, my view is that after a reasonable time for research and analysis then all human remains should be re-buried.
But i'm wondering wether these are the right questions we should be asking- surely, before we start debating who has jurisdiction over human remains we should be asking -Do we have the moral right to keep such remains for longer than is necessary? if the only reason graves are being disturbed is because of development,then what right do we have to keep them boxed up or on display solely for the benefit of science.
This could probably be better debated on a whole new topic, my view is that after a reasonable time for research and analysis then all human remains should be re-buried.