Maintaining the anonymity of cadavers in medical education: Historic relic or educational and ethical necessity?

Abstract

Throughout the modern history of anatomical dissection by medical and other health science students, cadavers have been anonymized. This has meant that students have been provided with limited, if any, information on the identities or medical histories of those they are dissecting. While there was little way around this when the bodies were unclaimed, this need not be the case when the bodies have been donated. However, with a few exceptions, no efforts have been made to change this model. Recent attempts to move anatomy teaching in a more humanistic direction, by emphasizing the cadaver as the students' first patient and with the growth of commemoration services following the dissecting process, raise the question of whether cadavers should continue to be anonymized. In laying a basis for discussion of this matter, we outline what appear to be the virtues of anonymity, and the form that alternatives to anonymity might take. The options identified are nonidentification, low information; nonidentification, moderate information; and identification, full information. The virtues and drawbacks of each of these possibilities are assessed by analyzing their value for students, and also for donors and their families. Policy issues raised by alternatives are also considered. This article provides a basis for continued discussion and suggestions for further research in this area. Anat Sci Educ 10: 87-97. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

Survey of body donation programs in the US concerning the use of donor personal information with medical students

“…What constitutes donor personal information is a broad spectrum, as outlined by Jones and King (2017). Donor personal information may include any data that identifies an individual.…”

“…The reaction of medical students to their body donor, which is often emotionally charged and handled in various ways by students, has been wellexplored (Talarico, 2013;Tseng and Lin, 2016). The experience that medical students have with their body donor can be used to help students realize increased empathy and gain greater insight into the patient experience (Bohl et al, 2011;Gest et al, 2003;Williams et al, 2013;Jones and King, 2017).…”

Medical student use of Facebook to support preparation for anatomy assessments

“…With this increased ease of image acquisition and distribution there is a concomitant potential for abuse, by both students and staff (Bond, 2013;Anonymous, 2014). Issues relating to the ethics of cadaver donation and how they can be visualized are well discussed in the literature (Cornwall et al, 2015;Winkelmann, 2015;Jones and King, 2017), but there still remains a paucity of empirical evidence to support and guide the appropriate utilization of images. Donor trust, however, is of paramount importance to support the continuing utilization of cadavers in anatomy teaching (Winkelmann, 2015), and it is therefore important that the potential issues of confidentiality and social media are made aware to students.…”

Anonymous body or first patient? A status report and needs assessment regarding the personalization of donors in dissection courses in German, Austrian, and Swiss Medical Schools

“…It should also be noted that the survey of body donors only sought their opinion on the provision of information in accordance with the preservation of anonymity. But this is in alignment with the “Recommendations of good practice for the donation and study of human bodies and tissues for anatomical examinations” of the IFAA (), with the legal recommendations in Germany concerning post‐mortem confidentiality (Roebel et al, ), and with the suggestion of Jones and King () of “nonidentification and moderate information about the donor.”…”