Dickson Poon School of Law, Centre of Medical Law & Ethics, King's College, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Med Law Rev. 2021 Aug 11;29(2):252-283. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwab008.
The retention and display of the remains of Charles Byrne, an Irishman with acromegaly, by the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons has been contentious for some years, and the moral case for his release for burial has been repeatedly made. This article makes the legal case through five arguments. The first three concern common law rights and duties; Byrne's right to burial, the duty of the State to ensure his burial where others do not, and the right of his friends to assume that duty. The fourth concerns Byrne's common law right to direct his disposal, and, related to this, not to be retained and displayed. The fifth, which underpins the rest, is that Byrne is not, and has never been property, and it is in fact intuitively and legally arguable that he, like other corpses, remains a person. The article finally outlines three options available to those wishing to ensure Byrne finally has the burial at sea that he sought to ensure in 1783.
多年来,皇家外科学院亨特博物馆保留并展示爱尔兰巨人症患者查尔斯·伯恩的遗体一直存在争议,人们多次提出释放遗体进行埋葬的道德理由。本文通过五个论点提出了法律论据。前三个论点涉及普通法权利和义务:伯恩的埋葬权、国家确保他人埋葬的义务,以及他的朋友承担该义务的权利。第四个论点涉及伯恩对自己处置方式的普通法权利,以及与之相关的,他不应被保留和展示。第五个论点是伯恩不是财产,而且从直觉和法律上可以争辩说,他和其他尸体一样仍然是一个人。本文最后概述了希望确保伯恩最终按照他在 1783 年所希望的那样进行海葬的人可采取的三个选择。