User blog comment:MooseJuice/Moose Sez: Protecting The Dead/@comment-5993341-20130211042052

Maybe this is a stupid question, but would you also include Victorian era postmortem photographs in that canon? That was a fairly popular practice back in the nineteenth century, often arranged by families before a person with a terminal illness or health level was dead. And what about people who volunteered to be taxidermied and displayed publicly?

While I understand that exploitation of the dead is despicable, I also wonder how despicable it really is when the deceased wanted said explotation to happen. I remember reading a story back in the ninties (from which I can't remember any of the specific details) of a man who not only volunteered, but insisted that he be taxidermied and displayed in a museum upon his death. That's creepy as hell, but would it count as exploitation if, say, a picture of this man's taxidermied corpse happened to end up in the image gallery? No disrespect meant; I'm just asking.