Who’s holding the stakes ? Contextualisation of the stakeholder-theory in ethical dilemmas concerning historical human remains Part 1 Contextualisation of the stakeholder-theory in ethical dilemmas concerning historical human remains Part 1 Applied Anatomy, Retreat Day, September 2010

The initial problem ✦ Invasive research methods outside of accessible ethical discourse (vs. clinical research that is always linked to an ethical board and an extensive discussion among peers) ✦ leads to a destruction of the standard of bodily integrity (cf. ‘do no harm’) ✦ Absence of consent ✦ creates a void of intentions, wishes, interests and refusals ✦ concerning bodily integrity ✦ concerning personal privacy ✦ concerning the ‘after-life’ of their bodily remains ✦ undisturbed peace

absence of consent ethical standards contemporary to the remains researcher’s ethical standards Dangers: Advantages : Disadvantages: ✤ cultural dispersion ✤ lack of precise knowledge of a culture ✤ assimilation of an individual into the strongest group of a culture ✤ false reconstruction of values ✤ cultural falsification ✤ reconstruction by hist. analysis ✤ wish to ‘change history’ when a ruling culture takes over, i.e. jewish historical chronicles ‘deleting’ the Samaritain line of priests of the ‘Temple’) ✤ based on a consideration of a the culture of the individual during life: ‘remains’ become an individual again ✤ based on interdisciplinary exchange between domains (humanities & sciences etc.) ✤ our research today is unprecedented and would probably always be denied by a former state of culture ✤ former cultures believed much more in a bodily integrity as part of their ‘after-life’ as a need (moral implications) ✤ only ‘bad’ people lost their bodily integrity to ensure their ‘death’/torture etc. in the after-life (cf. traitor punishment in MA England) ✤ modern needs are taken into account ✤ clinical implications ✤ historical value ✤ altruistic impetus, moral motivations ✤ no unity of ethical standards today ✤ personal moral values vs. standardised theory of action ✤ valorisation of the saving of ‘modern’ lives will always dominate the need and wish to respect ‘old’ human remains ✤ no taking into account of any cultural standards of the time of the remains ✤ disrespect of the individual’s wishes

absence of consent ethical standards contemporary to the remains researcher’s ethical standards decisional result for research: ethically unacceptable ethically acceptable the stakeholder theory

The Stakeholder Theory ✦ theory of organisational management ✦ originally an extension of the shareholder theory ✦ takes into accounts every member of an enterprise regardless of their shares ✦ defines not only new groups of actors, but also the situations under which they should be considered ✦ vs. an absolute fixed model of organisation ✦ normative theory ✦ typology for finding the stakeholders ✦ power influence ✦ legitimacy ✦ urgency ✦ applications of the stakeholder theory: ✦ law ✦ enterprises Text Donaldson, T.; Preston, L. E. (1995): “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications”, Academy of Management Review (Academy of Management) 20, (1): 71. Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R. Wood, D. J. (1997): “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”. Academy of Management Review (Academy of Management) 22 (4), ✦ not a general theory of social (inter)action ✦ it has no underlying theory of moral validation ✦ clashes with the cultural differences in the world today ✦ vs. our standard of cultural relativism ✦ its origins presuppose an interest

Outlook ✦ Advantages: ✦ varied groups of potential stakeholders can be found ✦ possible adaptation for various situations concerned with Mummy research ✦ Dangers: ✦ knowing about the problem implies solving the moral problem ✦ stakeholder theory presupposes a good interest for the mummy by the potential stakeholder ✦ cannot account for abusive, exploitative interests ✦ the problem of posthumous harm is transferred, but not solved ✦ as long as someone else, a stakeholder, sanctions a procedure, we’re clear ✦ assumes the advancement of science as an absolute value that would be shared by anybody would they know about it (continuous positivism)