Is the dissection of cadavers a necessary part of medical education?

Abstract

Dissecting cadavers is a mainstay of medical education, but it relies on donors and poses ethical and other challenges. Roshni Shastri and Crispin Wiles argue that modern teaching has moved on, but Oliver Sweeney, Lucy Easton, and Steven Jacques say that it would be foolish to dispense with the practice entirely Traditionally, cadaveric dissection has been central to anatomy, and its historical significance in medical education is undeniable. But as curriculums evolve, its role, particularly in undergraduate education, can be increasingly questioned. We believe that high quality anatomy education depends not on any single type of approach to learning (such as dissection) but on thoughtful and educationally principled curricular design. This requires meaningful learning outcomes that are supported by a range of educational resources that will support learners in achieving them. Prosected or plastinated specimens, 3D models, surface anatomy training, and interactive tools can all be used effectively to provide inclusive, time- and cost-efficient alternatives to dissection. Cadaveric dissection poses three main challenges. First, cadaveric dissection is resource heavy, requiring specialised laboratories, embalming chemicals such as formaldehyde, and rigorous safety protocols.1 Institutions often lack the financial and spatial resources to maintain dissection labs, leading many to shift to prosection, where students observe pre-dissected specimens.2 Second, dissection (as opposed to prosection) is also time intensive, detracting from other aspects of increasingly packed medical curriculums. Although dissection is often romanticised for its perceived “hands-on” value, studies have shown that students spend disproportionate time identifying structures hidden under fat or connective tissue rather …