164
Thomas L. Muinzer
been extracted, it can be used in further research. Equally, it is likely that if given the opportunity to make an informed choice, living
people with acromegaly will leave their bodies to research or participate in it while alive, or both. Finally, for the purposes of public
education, a synthetic archetypical model of an acromegalic skeleton
could be made and displayed. Indeed, such skeletons are now used in
medical education throughout the world.
In light of these observations, an argument favouring the withdrawal of
the Byrne exhibit on moral grounds seems overwhelming. Given that
the deceased desired burial, the removal of his skeleton from public display should precede the respectful and considered burial of the remains
(Muinzer 2013).
Conclusion
These conclusions place a duty on the Hunterian Trustees. Although
Hunter’s pivotal actions took place some two centuries ago, the Trustees
and the members of the medical community involved in Byrne’s narrative today have an obligation to think humanely about their own role in
his story. As anatomist D Gareth Jones emphasises in Speaking for the
Dead (Jones 2000: 150):
. . . scientists as moral agents must not hide behind a veil of ignorance of moral philosophy. The move from living healthy adults and
children, to living damaged adults and children, and on to cadavers
and skeletal material is a subtle one