Early this morning, I saw a news piece on Apple Daily, with an excerpt below:
To improve public perception, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has renamed “cadaver skin” (Shi Pi) to “macroscopic skin” (Da Ti Pi Fu)… Some doctors used “five-letter profanities” on Facebook to denounce this, believing that populism has overridden professionalism… Specialists also… directly called the renaming “absurd,” stating that the extent of avoiding death or corpses… is breathtaking. Doctors pointed out that a dead person is a corpse, and the term “cadaver skin” neutrally explains its nature. Changing the name will not change its essence, nor will it make the donor more respected; it will only make the public more confused about its source and may even lead to the misconception that it is another variant of artificial skin. Doctors gave an example: if we said “macroscopic heart” or “macroscopic kidney,” who could immediately associate it with a donor’s corpse heart or corpse kidney. They believe that simply changing to a roundabout alias is not called respect; “while accepting the donation, one should also understand the weight of the donated item,” understanding that it comes from another person’s dead body is the most basic respect for the donor.
“Renaming Cadaver Skin is Absurd” Doctor: Avoiding Death and Corpses Becomes a National Movement
The editor feels that the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s renaming of cadaver skin to macroscopic skin is not only not absurd at all but can even be called a professional act… It is a kind of professionalism that thinks for the people.
For doctors, “cadaver skin” is a very direct term, easy to understand, a scientific quality trained by rational academic thinking. If you are a doctor or a scientist, using “cadaver skin” is very professional and necessary, reducing irrational thinking and focusing on solutions.
But the question is, is it necessary for this professionalism to be so professional for the general public?
If we all hoped to be this professional, we would have all become doctors or scientists long ago.
Furthermore, although the term “Da Ti” (macroscopic/grand body) has many debates in the country—some think it’s hypocritical, some think it’s full of the concept of “Tao,” some think it’s a translation error, and some think it fits religious meaning—regardless, is there anyone who doesn’t know that ‘Da Ti’ represents a corpse (Si Ti)?
Why would using “Da Ti skin” be mistaken for artificial skin? Does the doctor think it will overlap with the “Da Ti” brand? That would be as ridiculous as the “LuBianTan” (Roadside Stand) brand.
Why can a translation be “Si Ti” (corpse) but not “Da Ti”?
“Da Ti” has long transcended the meaning of a simple corpse in the country and entered a higher spiritual level as a proper noun, already a socially accepted term.
Just as the doctor’s professional term is “corpse,” the general public’s professional vocabulary is “Da Ti.” The former is a scientific name produced under rational professionalism, while the latter is a common name born under emotional thinking; each has its own needs and considerations.
As for why doctors oppose the name “Da Ti” so much, I can only say this is the arrogance unique to rationality.
Because doctors believe that what they say is the truth, believing that when the whole world uses the word “Da Ti,” it must conform to the knowledge they were trained with in school in the past.
As for other citizens criticizing the Ministry of Health and Welfare? I can still only say that what the world lacks least is audience members clapping and cheering from the sidelines.
Artificial skin is already a well-known term. Based on what do these protesting doctors or citizens judge that after the Ministry of Health and Welfare renames cadaver skin to “Da Ti” skin, artificial skin will no longer be artificial skin?
Whether it’s the doctor shouting five-letter profanities, the doctor stating it’s absurd, or the many scolding citizens, aren’t you also populists? More accurately, you are an inferior populist with a sense of superiority because you are more arrogant.
From another perspective, death and corpses inherently contain a “tranquil” way of thinking in Eastern thought. People don’t proactively ask their friends, “When are you going to die?” People don’t laugh and play when passing by a cemetery.
And now nearly five hundred people have suffered moderate to severe burns; the news media will undoubtedly broadcast continuously, and you cannot stop this behavior.
Since it cannot be stopped, yet the news broadcasts death and corpses all day long, I want to ask the doctors who have received professional medical training: do you really think this will be better?
I believe that since you are all highly educated professionals, you certainly won’t be unaware of what kind of atmosphere will be generated in society after such an incident and the media’s added reports.
I believe you professionals should know better than I do that the so-called Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome is not limited to the disaster victims themselves but also includes the general public.
What the Ministry of Health and Welfare is doing now is to minimize the direct impact on ordinary viewers when media broadcasts news. This is a professional decision based on crowd psychology.
“Cadaver skin” is professional, yes, but for most people, it really is a kind of unnecessary professionalism.
Finally, I want to ask one more thing: Doctor, are you really qualified to talk about populism?
I seriously feel it’s just a green-brained lapdog protesting for the sake of protesting. 迫