How does Donor Dissection Influence Medical Students' Perceptions of Ethics? A Cross‐Sectional and Longitudinal Qualitative Study

Abstract

The contribution of donor dissection to modern anatomy pedagogy remains debated. While short‐term anatomy knowledge gains from dissection are questionable, studies suggest that donor dissection may have other impacts on students including influencing medical students' professional development, though evidence for such is limited. To improve the understanding of how anatomy education influences medical student professional development, the cross‐sectional and longitudinal impacts of donor dissection on medical students' perceptions of ethics were explored. A cross‐sectional and longitudinal qualitative study was undertaken at an Australian university where student responses to online discussion forums and in‐person interviews were analyzed. Data were collected across the 1.5 years that undergraduate medical students received anatomy instruction (three semesters during first and second years). A total of 207 students participated in the online discussion forums, yielding 51,024 words; 24 students participated in at least 1 of 11 interviews, yielding over 11 hours of interview data. Framework analysis identified five themes related to ethics in an anatomical education context: (1) Dignity, (2) Beneficence, (3) Consent, (4) Justification for versus the necessity of dissection, and (5) Dichotomy of objectification and personification. The dominant themes of students' ethical perceptions changed with time, with a shift from focusing on donors as people, toward the utility of donors in anatomy education. Additionally, themes varied by student demographics including gender, ancestry, and religiosity. Together this study suggests a strong impact of donor dissection on priming students' focus on medical ethics and provides further advocacy for formal and purposeful integration of medical ethics with anatomy education.

Forced Disruption of Anatomy Education in Australia and New Zealand: An Acute Response to the Covid‐19 Pandemic

“…Furthermore, delivering anatomy education solely online or at a distance, if only for a short period, challenges the long-held educational philosophy of many anatomy educators (Pather, 2015). Additionally, for those who strive to frame their anatomy programs through a lens of ethics and humanism (Štrkalj and Pather, 2017;Evans et al, 2018;Hildebrandt, 2019), there is a need to work harder to connect students to these paradigms when educating solely within the digital realm, and in the absence of a once-living person (Stephens et al, 2019;Kumar Ghosh and Kumar, 2019). Notwithstanding these issues, the remarkable mobilization, commitment, speed, and agility of the Australian and New Zealand anatomy community, including academic and support/technical staff, presents the beginning of a historic bridge into an unknown future.…”

A review of anatomy education during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic: Revisiting traditional and modern methods to achieve future innovation

“…McMenamin et al, 2018), the audience was evenly split on the need to use cadavers to teach anatomy to medical undergraduates; and of course, this subject is controversial(Dharmasaroja, 2019) Stephens, Rees, and Lazarus (2019). conducted a crosssectional and longitudinal qualitative study to analyze the contribution of cadaveric dissection to modern anatomy pedagogy.…”

Anatomy, Education, and Ethics in a Changing World

“…In this special issue, one investigation from Australia presents findings from the largest and most comprehensive study of dissecting room experience on professionalism and ethical attitudes of medical students to donated bodies (Stephens et al, 2019), providing novel evidence for the impact of anatomy training on shaping the attitudes and perceptions of future medical professionals. There are also results from a qualitative study of emotion, ethics, and humanism in gross anatomy (Goss et al, 2019), and a first qualitative exploration of the use of unclaimed bodies and the impressions of the students that work with them (Caplan and DeCamp, 2019).…”