Anatomy teaching and, more specifically, the use of dissection in undergraduate anatomy teaching is undergoing a sea change in Australian medical schools. Until as recently as the 1970s, all medical students in Australia underwent an extensive course in dissection, taking up as much as 700 hours of curriculum time. Today, dissection is compulsory in only a minority of anatomy departments. There has been much discussion about the use of dissection in anatomy teaching, and both sides of the argument have considerable merit. Less widely discussed have been the other benefits of anatomical dissection, such as the development of surgical skills, an appreciation of whole-body pathology, and the teaching of ethical and moral issues that are central to the development of the professional doctor. Dissection still has an important role to play in undergraduate medical education.

Mental health apps may promote medicalization of normal mental states and imply individual responsibility for mental well-being. Within the health care clinician-patient relationship, such messages should be challenged, where appropriate, to prevent overdiagnosis and ensure supportive health care where needed.

No abstract

The clinical years of medical student education are an ideal time for students to practise and refine ethical thinking and behaviour. We piloted a new clinical ethics teaching activity this year with undergraduate medical students within the Rural Clinical School at the University of New South Wales. We used a modified teaching ward round model, with students bringing deidentified cases of ethical interest for round-table discussion. We found that students were more engaged in the subject of clinical ethics after attending the teaching sessions and particularly appreciated having structured time to listen to and learn from their peers. Despite this, we found no change in student involvement in managing or planning action in situations that they find ethically challenging. A key challenge for educators in clinical ethics is to address the barriers that prevent students taking action.

Background: Health apps are a booming, yet under-regulated market, with potential consumer harms in privacy and health safety. Regulation of the health app market tends to be siloed, with no single sector holding comprehensive oversight. We sought to explore this phenomenon by critically analysing how the problem of health app regulation is being presented and addressed in the policy arena. Methods: We conducted a critical, qualitative case study of regulation of the Australian mental health app market. We purposively sampled influential policies from government, industry and non-profit organisations that provided oversight of app development, distribution or selection for use. We used Bacchi’s critical, theoretical approach to policy analysis, analysing policy solutions in relation to the ways the underlying problem was presented and discussed. We analysed the ways that policies characterised key stakeholder groups and the rationale policy authors provided for various mechanisms of health app oversight. Results: We identified and analysed 29 policies from Australia and beyond, spanning 5 sectors: medical device, privacy, advertising, finance, and digital content. Policy authors predominantly framed the problem as potential loss of commercial reputations and profits, rather than consumer protection. Policy solutions assigned main responsibility for app oversight to the public, with a heavy onus on consumers to select safe and high-quality apps. Commercial actors, including powerful app distributors and commercial third parties were rarely subjects of policy initiatives, despite having considerable power to affect app user outcomes. Conclusion: A stronger regulatory focus on app distributors and commercial partners may improve consumer privacy and safety. Policy-makers in different sectors should work together to develop an overarching regulatory framework for health apps, with a focus on consumer protection.