Anatomists as Gatekeepers to Public Engagement, Public Display, and Public Dissection of Human Remains
Saved in:
| Title: | Anatomists as Gatekeepers to Public Engagement, Public Display, and Public Dissection of Human Remains |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jason Mussell (ORCID |
| Source: | Anatomical Sciences Education. 2025 18(12):1447-1457. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Anatomy, Scientists, Public Opinion, Social Attitudes, Laboratory Procedures, Human Body, Human Dignity, Ethics, Responsibility, Exhibits, Informed Consent, Accountability, Guidelines, Best Practices, Foreign Countries |
| Geographic Terms: | United States, United Kingdom |
| DOI: | 10.1002/ase.70114 |
| ISSN: | 1935-9772 1935-9780 |
| Abstract: | Sharp contrasts exist between recent examples of public dissection. This includes for-profit public dissections and not-for-profit, consented dissection and documentation. All have frequently become conflated and met with concern by the anatomical community. However, historically, anatomy and human tissue were accessible to all, as public dissections, in museums, and as curated exhibits. Changing societal values in response to criminal activities led to regulations that restricted access to human remains, reserving it to those privileged with training in the field of medicine. These protections of deceased humans, while vital, have unintentionally limited public engagement and potentially spurred ethically dubious practices. Now, public desire for anatomical understanding clashes with professional responsibilities to uphold dignity, respect, and consent. Recent for-profit public autopsies ostensibly aim to educate but also raise questions about commodification and consent. This article argues that the ethical acceptability of public dissection and display hinges not on the acts themselves but on adherence to informed consent, respect for human dignity, and transparent processes. While appeals to public good (e.g., science or education) are common justifications, they must be balanced against the rights of the deceased and their communities. As anatomists, at a transformational period, we must understand the spectrum of reactions and develop better guidelines to meet both public and professional needs. In the US and UK, responsibility often falls to the anatomy community. In an attempt to uphold "best practices," has the community, unintentionally, closed the gate on public knowledge, and unintentionally, precipitated egregious ethical failures? |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1491547 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Sharp contrasts exist between recent examples of public dissection. This includes for-profit public dissections and not-for-profit, consented dissection and documentation. All have frequently become conflated and met with concern by the anatomical community. However, historically, anatomy and human tissue were accessible to all, as public dissections, in museums, and as curated exhibits. Changing societal values in response to criminal activities led to regulations that restricted access to human remains, reserving it to those privileged with training in the field of medicine. These protections of deceased humans, while vital, have unintentionally limited public engagement and potentially spurred ethically dubious practices. Now, public desire for anatomical understanding clashes with professional responsibilities to uphold dignity, respect, and consent. Recent for-profit public autopsies ostensibly aim to educate but also raise questions about commodification and consent. This article argues that the ethical acceptability of public dissection and display hinges not on the acts themselves but on adherence to informed consent, respect for human dignity, and transparent processes. While appeals to public good (e.g., science or education) are common justifications, they must be balanced against the rights of the deceased and their communities. As anatomists, at a transformational period, we must understand the spectrum of reactions and develop better guidelines to meet both public and professional needs. In the US and UK, responsibility often falls to the anatomy community. In an attempt to uphold "best practices," has the community, unintentionally, closed the gate on public knowledge, and unintentionally, precipitated egregious ethical failures? |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1935-9772 1935-9780 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/ase.70114 |
