solarmind said:
SAO thank you for such a explanatory point of view. But did you watched the video?
No problem, and I have!
solarmind said:
I still disagree and feel more like Tracy Ane, that we don't have any right to use any part of any person without respect to it, let's call it that way.
And I respect your and Tracy's opinions. I do see how some people would be uncomfortable having their pathologies displayed, even with full privacy as to their identity, to the world for any reason. So of course preferably she would have permission. It looks like she's working with dead people's pathologies a lot - so the permission would have to come from family there. I don't think what she's doing, even without explicit permission, is really so bad, but I also understand that some wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
In things like this I try to put myself in the place of the patient or their family. My dad had a liver transplant a few years ago, and my mom went through breast cancer. How would I feel, or how would they feel, to have pictures of the organs/pathologies on the internet? My first reaction, is that this is personal and private so I wouldn't like that. But then I question where that discomfort is coming from, and if I'm honest with myself, I don't really have any good reason for it. It doesn't hurt me or anyone, it doesn't threaten me, it's not for the purposes of some perversion or simply humor, etc. So if anything, it seems like it would be my insecurity, or some fear of being judged or made fun of, and I identify with the pathology/organs as "part of me" so it's almost like it's me personally who is "on display". But it's not, at least not any part of me that matters to me. So personally I'd be fine with it after having worked through it in my mind, and realizing my initial discomfort is unwarranted.
solarmind said:
Many here commented when you don't see a face it is not violating privacy .. um well, what about blind people, they can't see anything so we can show their face right?
Others could still recognize them so nope.
solarmind said:
This is very interesting discussion indeed, as apart form having feeling of getting lecture about she is okay and doing "scientific" research, I still didn't gent any prove for that, apart form long exp lanaiton how I might be wrong in not seeing how actually she is doing great stuff?
Speaking for myself, I just meant that her job is important, and valuable to others. The pictures are not part of that job, but they have value to others too.
solarmind said:
.. This is very confusing, as I don't relay want to have a wrong opinion that something is abused for self promotion, while obviously there so many of you who think it is profound scientific work, but as I said I still can't see that form your comments. Can you help a bit more with some examples from her stuff that will by your opinion be representative of what you trying to say to me?
It doesn't seem like it's just for self promotion, tho she does gain popularity from what she does. At face value it seems like she just wants to show the world what is often not shown, and sometimes point out some interesting/peculiar aspects of it just because it may be interesting for others.
solarmind said:
ps. As about abduciotns we can say that it was not kidnaping, but it was more like out of ignorance of the person who gave permition, by not knownig what will happen. Ushualy as much as I know, that happend to those who ask for some kind of outerwordly expirience. Ushualy we see dualisitc interpreatiton of that, some are so happy that thya have been abduceted some are horrified. But many people still beleive that they are comeing to make a better world for us. So that is kind of a big misunderstandnig going on there.
Thanks for that, I now understand better how you related it to abductions. I still think that there is a difference between abducting someone (with or without their permission), and displaying an organ (with or without permission). One violates free will, the other doesn't. It's a polite thing to do to ask permission, but it's not a violation of their privacy, free will, security, or anything else if you don't. It may make them uncomfortable, but there is no actual harm. Not all discomfort is justified. People sometimes get uncomfortable when someone questions their beliefs, or black people get the right to vote, or they smell cigarette smoke - but not all discomfort should be honored, and the devil is in the details.
