Miles Steven H
Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, USA.
Am J Bioeth. 2004 Summer;4(3):39-43. doi: 10.1080/15265160490496741.
Medical ethicists have assumed a role in justifying public voyeurism of human "curiosities." This role has precedent in how scientists and natural philosophers once legitimized the marketing of museums of "human curiosities." At the beginning of the twentieth century, physicians dissociated themselves from entrepreneurial displays of persons with anomalies, and such commercial exhibits went into decline. Today, news media, principally on television, promote news features about persons that closely resemble the nineteenth century exhibits of human curiosities. Reporters solicit medical ethicists for soundbites to affirm the newsworthiness and propriety of public voyeurism of these medical stories. Ethicists' soundbites are usually ambiguous or self-evident and rarely enable viewers to morally engage the issues. The precedent of early twentieth century physicians disengaging from such exploitive public shows is a useful example for medical ethics.
医学伦理学家在为公众对人类“奇闻轶事”的窥视行为进行辩护方面扮演了一个角色。这一角色在科学家和自然哲学家曾经使“人类奇闻博物馆”的营销合法化的方式中有先例可循。在20世纪初，医生们不再参与对身体有异常者的商业展示，此类商业展览也随之衰落。如今，主要是电视新闻媒体，推广与19世纪人类奇闻展览极为相似的关于人物的新闻特写。记者们向医学伦理学家征求简短的评论，以肯定这些医疗故事的新闻价值和公众窥视行为的正当性。伦理学家的简短评论通常含糊不清或不言而喻，很少能让观众从道德层面参与到这些问题中。20世纪初医生们不再参与此类剥削性公众展示的先例，对医学伦理学来说是一个有用的范例。
