A Sydney exhibition featuring real human bodies—including specimens posed in sexual positions—has prompted an ethics debate, with an anatomy lecturer questioning whether donors fully understood how their remains might be displayed after death.

Dr Joyce El-Haddad, a senior lecturer in anatomy and histology at UNSW, has raised concerns about whether donors provided informed consent for the specific uses and presentations of their bodies.

Body Worlds: The Anatomy of Happiness uses real human bodies preserved through plastination, a process that replaces bodily fluids with durable materials. The exhibition has drawn millions of visitors worldwide since its launch more than two decades ago.

“The organisers claim that the bodies have been donated,” Dr El-Haddad said.

“The bodies are displayed in many different ways—some riding a horse, some in penetrative sexual positions, some with a basketball—and the list goes on.”

She said informed consent should involve more than simply signing a form and called for closer consideration of who donated the bodies, what they understood they were agreeing to and how specific the consent process was.

“Respect, dignity, transparency and context do not disappear simply because somebody signed a form,” she said.

Exhibition organisers say the body donation program, established in 1982, has registered more than 21,000 donors around the world and represents the “ethical cornerstone” of Body Worlds.

The program has been managed by Germany’s Institute for Plastination since 1993. It is no longer accepting new donor applications after reaching capacity.

A review of the institute’s donor consent documents found that donors agree their remains may be used to create “anatomical works of art” intended for the “medical enlightenment of laypeople” in museums and exhibitions.

The forms also state that donors understand their bodies may be supplied to organisations operating on a commercial basis.

Donors may indicate preferences for how their bodies are used, including requests for particular poses, although the institute says it “cannot guarantee” those wishes will be met.

The agreement further allows photographs and other images of plastinated bodies to be used indefinitely for educational, scientific and public information purposes.

Body Worlds is promoted as an educational experience aimed at improving public knowledge of anatomy, health and disease.

ALSO READ: Patrick Clancy Says He Suffered Panic Attack During Lindsay’s Trial

However, Dr El-Haddad questioned how much visitors could learn about health, illness, ageing and wellbeing without knowing more about the lives and experiences of the people whose bodies are displayed.

“Think about your everyday encounters with people. How much do you assume about someone before you’ve spoken with them—before you’ve heard about their experiences, challenges, choices and circumstances?”

‘The exhibition claims that it is educational….okay, but: Education requires more than information.

‘We often assume that simply looking at something means we are learning from it.

‘A diseased lung can show us what happened. It cannot tell us about addiction, socioeconomic disadvantage, environmental exposures, access to healthcare, culture, or the lived experience of disease.

‘Without that context, visitors are left to construct their own narratives and make their own assumptions.

‘And if the exhibition is also open to children, what assumptions are they taking away?’

Dr El-Haddad said her concerns also stemmed from the long and often controversial history of displaying human remains to the public.

Human bodies and remains have previously been exhibited in cabinets of curiosity, travelling fairs, medical museums, carnival sideshows and so-called ‘human zoos’.

She noted such displays have at times been linked to racism, ableism, colonialism, sexism, classism and exploitation, and questioned what distinguished modern body exhibitions from those historical practices.

‘So my question is – what shields modern day human body exhibitions from the same condemnation?’

Despite her concerns, Dr El-Haddad said attending the exhibition was ultimately a matter of personal choice.

‘Well, ultimately that is up to you and I hope this post helps you make a better informed decision that aligns with your values.’

The organisers of the exhibition have been contacted for comment.

Meryl Streep’s reported casting as the voice of Aslan in the next Narnia movie has triggered strong criticism from some Christian viewers, while others have condemned the decision as a “woke” gender swap.

Greta Gerwig, the filmmaker behind Barbie (2023) and Little Women (2019), is writing and directing Netflix’s upcoming adaptation of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew.

The fantasy film is scheduled to arrive in cinemas on February 12, 2027, ahead of its Netflix debut on April 2.

Streep, 77, is set to provide the voice of Aslan, the powerful, talking lion whose role in C.S. Lewis’ Narnia stories is widely understood as an allegorical parallel to Jesus Christ.

Liam Neeson previously voiced Aslan in the three Narnia films released between 2005 and 2010. Together, those movies earned approximately $1.5 billion at the global box office.

News of Streep’s casting prompted a wave of responses on X, with critics questioning the decision to have a female actor voice the traditionally male lion and some Christian users accusing the production of undermining the character’s religious symbolism.

One social media user argued that Aslan’s connection to Jesus made the casting difficult to understand, pointing out that both the biblical figure and Lewis’ lion are presented as male.

Another commenter, who said they had admired Streep’s work for four decades, urged her to reconsider the project. They claimed the actress was being used to insult Christians and questioned whether that was how she wanted her career to be remembered.

The longtime fan ended the message by identifying themselves as a lifelong supporter of the actress and asking her to “stop now.”

Elsewhere, an X user dismissed the casting as another example of “woke” Hollywood, predicting that the decision would alienate audiences and hurt the film financially.

Another critic questioned why a male lion would be voiced by Streep, calling the choice “ridiculous” and arguing that it did not fit the character.

A further post accused Gerwig of mishandling Lewis’ classic story, saying its Christian undertones should not be removed. The user described what they saw as Hollywood’s treatment of the source material as both troubling and prejudiced.

Another commenter maintained that taking away Narnia’s Christian themes would fundamentally transform the story rather than simply modernize it.

They added that Hollywood appeared to want the imagery and appeal of Christian art without retaining its central references to Christ.

One fan called the decision “insane,” emphasizing that Aslan is portrayed as a male lion, the “king of beasts,” and a figure representing Christ. The commenter predicted that the film would fail before release.

Another user described the casting as a bold but potentially damaging move for a story with strong Christian influences, comparing the controversy to the backlash surrounding Snow White and asking why Hollywood continues to make similar choices.

Another said, ‘CS Lewis is cringing from beyond the grave,’ and one wrote, ‘Can’t wait not to watch. You know what would be unique these days? A faithful adaptation. This subversion is old and boring af.’ 

‘That’s okay, we already have great Narnia movies. This one just won’t exist in my household,’ an X user shared. 

One wrote, ‘Should not be called The Chronicles of Narnia. This is by far the worst adaptation of a book.’ 

Others voiced their thoughts on social media, including political commentator Isabel Brown.

‘In case there’s ANY confusion, CS Lewis literally intended Aslan to be the incarnation of Christ inside the world of Narnia.’ 

She also wrote, ‘Aslan is more than an allegory for Christ, he *is* how the creatures of Narnia experience Christ in their world just as we experience Jesus Christ as an incarnate MAN in ours. 

ALSO READ: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Says Washington Proposed AI Incident Alert System in China Talks

‘To cast Meryl Streep as Aslan in Greta Gerwig’s Narnia is a slap in the face to the genius of Lewis, but also a deliberate mockery of Christianity that is 100% intentional. So deeply disappointing.’

Some, however, expressed interest and support in the casting. 

One said, ‘Meryl streep voicing aslan with a david bowie inspired design? that is such a wild combination, but i’m very c[u]rious to see how greta gerwig pulls it together.’ 

Daily Mail has reached out to reps of Streep for comment, but has yet to hear back. 

Gerwig recently opened up about the casting of Streep in the upcoming Narnia film during an interview with Empire. 

‘I wanted someone who was profound but not pretentious, who had gravitas but not morose self-seriousness,’ the filmmaker told the outlet. ‘Someone who could communicate depth and pathos as well as joy and delight.’ 

Gerwig continued, ‘I wanted someone who was older than 70, so there was a wisdom of experience, but who also had the capacity of fresh wonder, like a child. 

‘And also to be one of the greatest actors to ever do it. That list is not a long one.’ 

She additionally explained that singer David Bowie had been one of the inspirations behind her version of Aslan and the film itself. 

In the book titled A To Z With C.S. Lewis, author Louis Markos discussed Aslan and Christ with Lewis.

‘Though many readers assume that Aslan, the lion king of Narnia who dies and rises again, is an allegory for Christ, Lewis himself disagreed,’ Markos wrote in an excerpt, per The Gospel Coalition. 

‘According to his creator, Aslan is not an allegory for Christ but the Christ of Narnia. The distinction is vital. 

‘Were Aslan only an allegory, a mere stand-in for the hero of the Gospels, he would not engage the reader as he does.’

Markos added, ‘In fact, as Lewis explained, Aslan is what the second person of the Trinity (God the Son) might have been like had he been incarnated in a magical world of talking animals and living trees. 

‘As such, Aslan takes on a force and a reality that speaks to us through the pages of the Chronicles of Narnia.’ 

The Magician’s Nephew is an ‘origin story for Narnia’ and ‘is the first ever adaptation’ of Lewis’ sixth book in the Narnia series, but appears as the first volume.

Gerwig explained that she first read The Magician’s Nephew as a child ‘and I fell in love with the gorgeously improbable but completely brilliant concept of a cosmic lion singing the world of Narnia to life,’ per an official statement. 

She gushed that it is an ‘honor of a lifetime’ to bring the story to life. 

After reading the Narnia series, the actress and filmmaker added that she ‘believed in magic and hidden worlds and adventure. I believed that anywhere could be enchanted and that anyone could be swept up into an epic. 

‘That wonder and awe was available to everyone, even ordinary people like me… It transformed me.’ 

A bitter war of words has erupted between two men named Charles over the arrangements for Princess Diana’s funeral.

In a devastating memoir, Charles Spencer claims that an enraged Prince Charles told him, just days after Diana’s death: “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough.” The full extract can be read here in the Daily Mail.

A Palace spokesman challenged the Earl’s account last week, warning that grief between brothers can “cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory”.

The dispute has also divided Daily Mail columnists.

MORE STORY: Patrick Clancy’s First Interview: Key Takeaways From Grieving Dad

Jan Moir says she cannot accept the idea that the then-Prince Charles took pleasure in the death of his former wife.

Meanwhile, A.N. Wilson says an anecdote Earl Spencer shared with him years ago leaves him 100 per cent convinced that Spencer’s account is truthful.

Which Charles do you believe? Cast your vote in our poll below.

By PETER VAN ONSELEN, POLITICS AND ECONOMICS EDITOR, AUSTRALIA

Jim Chalmers is signalling the possibility of further income tax cuts as Labor’s political fortunes continue to weaken.

The Treasurer suggests the government’s amazing financial management has created room to offer taxpayers more relief.

The timing is undeniably convenient: the claim has emerged just as the government is searching for a compelling message to take to voters.

Chalmers is using the seventh Intergenerational Report to showcase Labor’s economic credentials while presenting a vision of a more prosperous Australia in the decades ahead.

But neither claim should be accepted simply because the Treasurer makes it.

Consider the Budget first. Across the forward estimates, the government continues to record deficits as far into the future as the projections extend.

An improved result compared with earlier forecasts is welcome. But borrowing less than expected is not the same as having money available to spend.

Tax cuts may still be justified. Workers deserve income tax relief, and reducing the penalty on work should be a central economic goal. However, permanent tax reductions require sustainable funding, whether through spending restraint, additional revenue or a credible combination of the two.

A more favourable long-term projection does not remove that responsibility.

Nor should Chalmers receive unlimited credit for returning money raised through bracket creep. When wages increase in nominal terms while tax thresholds remain unchanged, average tax rates rise—particularly during periods of high inflation—even when people have not experienced a real increase in purchasing power. Returning part of that money is not an act of extraordinary generosity.

Australia needs a broader tax debate covering income, consumption, land and investment, with compensation for people who require it. Property tax changes could form part of that discussion, but they would not resolve the wider questions surrounding incentives, the revenue base and the level of government spending that base must fund. That spending remains too high.

The real test is whether a tax package improves the system while strengthening the Budget. A pre-election hint about another income tax cut does neither.

RELATED: Imran Khan’s Sister Arrested and Jailed in Pakistan

The Intergenerational Report’s handling of the fertility debate also warrants close examination.

The report also projects that households could save up to $4,300 a year by 2050 through electrification, solar panels and batteries. Given steadily rising energy costs—and the broken pre-2022 election promise by Albo to cut power bills by $275—it is difficult to imagine many Australians accepting that forecast without question.

Before treating the claimed $4,300 as a genuine improvement in household finances, voters need to understand precisely how the figure has been calculated and which costs are included. The important details are likely to determine the answer.

Renters cannot install solar panels, while households without savings may struggle to finance the required equipment. An average saving can conceal major differences in who can access it. At this stage, the promises look decidedly uncertain.

These concerns relate to the policy’s detail and distribution, not to the case for cleaner energy itself.

More fundamentally, long-term improvements in living standards depend on productivity improvements. Assumptions about technological progress must be tested against weaker alternatives, rather than allowing hoped for gains to become evidence of present policy success.

One very simple way of lifting productivity in an era of population ageing would be to remove the barriers to people claiming old aged pensions to also work. 

The economist Leith van Onselen has done substantial work on this, and the benefits are compelling, but the government won’t even consider it now because One Nation has expressed support for the idea.

Chalmers also distinguishes those who exploit economic disconnection from those seeking to alleviate it. His government naturally occupies the more flattering category.

But voters judge governments by results. Describing their insecurity doesn’t resolve people’s problems, and opponents drawing attention to said problems aren’t responsible for creating them.

Intergenerational reports should expose difficult choices. The Treasurer’s presentation instead invites Australians to credit him for benefits that remain contingent, distant or unspecified.

After more than four years in office, he owes us a funded reform programme with measurable outcomes. Promising another tax cut when the polls turn ugly is no substitute for substance.