Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Still Human: A Call for Increased Focus on Ethical Standards in Cadaver Research

  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on human cadavers is an important mechanism of scientific progress and comprises a large industry in the United States. However, despite its importance and influence, there is little ethical or regulatory oversight of cadaver-based research. This lack of transparency raises important ethical questions. Thus, this paper serves as a call for ethicists and regulators to pay increased attention to cadaver research. I argue that cadaver research ought to be considered a subset of human subjects research and held accountable to higher ethical standards. After describing current practices, I argue that oversight of cadaver research as a form of human subjects research is appropriate because cadaver research is similar to other types of human research, participants in cadaver research incur risks of harm, and a current lack of oversight has allowed the cadaver industry to entice research participation through ethically questionable practices. This paper urges greater dialogue among human subjects research ethicists and regulators about what constitutes appropriate protections for participants in cadaver research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is the language used in the Common Rule. This term is not ubiquitously used to describe the collection of tissue samples from living human subjects. However, for clarity, ‘biospecimen’ is consistently used here.

  2. As noted, a cadaver may be used for multiple purposes other than research. However, just as in Phase I oncology trials or the development of commercialized and/or therapeutic cell lines from biospecimens, the potential for therapeutic outcomes from or in parallel to research, does not negate the research nature of the enterprise and therefore any obligation to uphold ethical standards appropriate to human subjects research. In the case of cadaver research, the fact that it is third parties who receive any therapeutic benefits from a person’s participation bolsters the argument for a conservative approach to protecting participants from risks of harm (discussed below) that are not connected to any potential personal benefits (see The Belmont Report, 1979). The multiple uses of cadavers make the application of ethical research standards more procedurally difficult but not inapplicable.

  3. The analogy between cadaver research and biospecimens research raises the question of whether biospecimen research ought to be considered human subjects research and thus held to standards of informed consent. There is not consensus on this point (at 2013) and this paper cannot fully address the debate. However, as a pragmatic measure, let it suffice to say that proposed regulation and public sentiment favor protections for biospecimens research participants as human research subjects (Javitt 2013; HHS 2015; Cadigan et al. 2015).

  4. Any tissue bank that receives federal funding would be regulated under an amended Common Rule. Although tissue banks that do not receive federal funding would not be subject to such regulation, some research institutions choose to voluntarily follow federal standards.

References

  • AATB (American Association of Tissue Banks). (2008). State requirements for tissue bank licensure, registration or certification. http://aatb.org/State-Requirements-for-Tissue-Bank-Licensure-Registration-or-Certification. Accessed 31 October 2015.

  • Abt, P. L. & Feng, S. (2016). Organ donor research: It is time for much needed clarity. American Journal of Transplantation. doi:10.1111/ajt.13939.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Medical Association. (2001). Code of medical ethics. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics.page?. Accessed 29 November 2015.

  • Associated Press. (15 March 2004). A new twist in military science. The Herald-Tribune.

  • Boulware, L. E., Ratner, L. E., Cooper, L. A., LaVeist, T. A., & Powe, N. R. (2004). Whole body donation for medical science: A Population-based study. Clinical Anatomy, 17, 570–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, L. A. (2007). Regulating human tissue banks. St. Thomas Law Review, 20(1), 121–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadigan, R. J., Nelson, D. K., Henderson, G. E., Nelson, A. G., & Davis, A. M. (2015). Public comments on proposed regulatory reforms that would impact biospecimen research: The good, the bad, and the puzzling. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 37(5), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, N. (2010). After we die: The life and times of the human cadaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, L. A., & Böttiger, L. E. (1972). Ischæmic heart-disease in relation to fasting values of plasma triglycerides and cholesterol: Stockholm prospective study. The Lancet, 299(7756), 865–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carome, M. A. & Wolfe, S. M. (2016). Letter to OHRP, VA’s ORO regarding kidney transplant trial. Public citizen. http://www.citizen.org/hrg2315. Accessed 12 July 2016.

  • Christensen, A. M. (2006). Moral considerations in body donation for scientific research: A unique look at the University of Tennessee’s Anthropological Research Facility. Bioethics, 20(3), 136–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, C. S., & Lehmann, L. S. (2002). Informed consent and the process of cadaver donation. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 126(8), 964–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, A. (2015). Lithia residents pack meeting about proposed ‘body farm.’ Tampa Bay Times. http://www.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/lithia-residents-pack-meeting-about-proposed-body-farm-20150423/. Accessed 1 July 2016.

  • DeLancey, J. O. L. (1994). Structural support of the urethra as it relates to stress urinary incontinence: The hammock hypothesis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 170(5), 1713–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, J. L., Lopez-Valdes, F. J., Duprey, S., Bose, D., del Pozo de Dios, E., Subit, D., et al. (2015). The tolerance of the human body to automobile collision impact—a systematic review of injury biomechanics research, 1990–2009. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 80, 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, N. A., & Cho, M. K. (2013). Awareness and acceptable practices: IRB and researcher reflections on the Havasupai lawsuit. AJOB Primary Research, 4(4), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefenas, E., Dranseika, V., Cekanauskaite, A., & Serepkaite, J. (2011). Research on human biological materials: What consent is needed, and when. In C. Lenk, J. Sándor, & B. Gordijn (Eds.), Biobanks and tissue research: The public, the patient and regulation (pp. 95–110). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, J., & Chang, P. L. (2007). My body, your body, our bodies. Medical Law Review, 15, 34–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). (1997). 21 CFR 1270 Human tissue intended for transplantation. http://www.acessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=1270. Accessed 1 November 2015.

  • HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). (1997). 21 CFR 1271 Human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=1271. Accessed 1 November 2015.

  • HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). (2001). Informed consent in tissue donation: Expectations and realities. http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-00-00440.pdf. Accessed 25 November 2015.

  • HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). (2009). 45 CFR 46 Protection of human subjects. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html. Accessed 31 October 2015.

  • HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). (2015). Notice of proposed rule making. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-08/pdf/2015-21756. Accessed 30 October 2015.

  • Javitt, G. H. (2013). Take another little piece of my heart: Regulating the research use of human biospecimens. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(2), 424–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, J. (2000). Down on the body farm. American Bar Association Journal, 86(9), 62–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. G. (2000). Speaking for the dead: cadavers in biology and medicine. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadel, N., Boenisch, M., Teitz, C., & Trepman, E. (2005). Stability of Lisfranc joints in ballet pointe position. Foot and Ankle International, 26(5), 394–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. A. (2006). The re-gift of life: Can charity law prevent for-profit firms from exploiting donated tissue and nonprofit tissue banks? DePaul Law Review, 55(3), 943–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, J. (2012). Regenerating bodies: Tissue and cell therapies in the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kester, T. M. (2007). Uniform acts—can the dead hand control the dead body? The case for a uniform bodily remains law. Western New England Law Review, 29, 571–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Label and Transport Tissues Safely Act. (2014). H.R. 5318, 113th Congress.

  • Life Legacy Foundation. (2015). National body donation program. http://www.lifelegacy.org/national-body-donation-program Accessed 30 October 2015.

  • Macintosh, K. (2013). How uniform are the uniform anatomical gift acts? Cryonics, 34(2), 13–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masteron, M., Hansson, M. G., Hoglund, A. T., & Helgesson, G. (2007). Can the dead be brought into disrepute? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 28, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MedCure. (2015). How body donation helps science. http://medcure.org/why-body-donation/how-body-donations-help-medical-science. Accessed 30 October 2015.

  • Meyer, M. (2004). Gruesome tests on cadavers betray donors. Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/gruesome-tests-on-cadavers-betray-donors. Accessed 12 July 2016.

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed 31 October 2015.

  • Nelkin, D., & Andrews, L. (1998). Do the dead have interests? Policy issues for research after life. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 24(2–3), 261–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, C. U., Feiner, J., Swain, S., Bunting, S., Friedman, M., Crutchfield, M., et al. (2015). Therapeutic hypothermia in deceased organ-donors and kidney graft function. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(5), 405–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIH (National Institutes of Health). (2010). Frequently asked questions: Human subjects research—human specimens, cell lines or data. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/faqs_specimens.htm. Accessed 5 November 2015.

  • Pentz, R. D., Cohen, C. B., Wicclair, M., DeVita, M. A., Lederman Flamm, A., Youngner, S. J., et al. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the recently dead. Nature, 11(11), 1145–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay, J., Baudoux, E., Cornu, O., Delforge, A., Delloye, C., Guns, J., et al. (2015). Access to human tissues for research and product development: From EU regulation to alarming legal developments in Belgium. EMBO Reports, 16(5), 557–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher, G. (1984). The misfortunes of the dead. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21(2), 183–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (2005). The Human Tissue Act 2004. Modern Law Review, 68(5), 798–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randhawa, G., Brocklehurst, A., Pateman, R., Kinsella, S., & Parry, V. (2012). Religion and organ donation: The view of UK faith leaders. Journal of Religion and Health, 51, 743–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R. (2000). Property, privacy, and the human body. Boston University Law Review, 80(2), 359–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, D., Singh, H., & Mowatt, J. (2016). Effects of human decomposition on test fired bullet: An experimental research. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 6(1), 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recent research from neurosciences institute highlight findings in military medicine. (2015). Health and Medicine Week, 4097.

  • Reilly, P. R., Boshar, M. F., & Holtzman, S. H. (1997). Ethical issues in genetic research: Disclosure and informed consent. Nature Genetics, 15(1), 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2010). Public trust as a policy goal for research with human subjects. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(6), 15–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revita Life Sciences. (2016). Dead could be brought ‘back to life’ in groundbreaking project. http://revitalife.co.in/dead-could-be-brought-back-to-life-in-groundbreaking-project. Accessed 19 July 2016.

  • Safe Tissue Act. (2007). S. 2609, 109th Congress.

  • Sanner, M. (1994). A comparison of public attitudes toward autopsy, organ donation, and anatomic dissection: A Swedish survey. JAMA, 271, 284–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science Care. (2015). Understanding whole body donation.http://www.sciencecare.com/ body-donation-overview. Accessed 31 October 2015.

  • Shapiro, J. (2012). Calculating the value of human tissue donation. National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/17/156876476/calculating-the-value-of-human-tissue-donation. Accessed 1 November 2015.

  • Svoboda, M., Soukup, J., Jelen, K. & Kobovy, P. (2015). Measurement of force impact taekwondo athletes, assessing the possibility of injury of human head. In: The 20th international conference machine modeling and simulations, Terchova, Slovak Republic, 7–9 September 2015.

  • Uniform Law Commission. (2006). Anatomical gift act. http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Anatomical%20Gift%20Act%20%282006%29. Accessed 9 November 2015.

  • Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006). Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. L., Juengst, E. T., Whipple, W., & Davis, A. M. (2014). Genomic research with the newly dead: A crossroads for ethics and policy. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 42, 220–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, A. (2011). Rethinking the ethics of clinical research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicclair, M. R. (2002). Informed consent and research involving the newly dead. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 12(4), 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicclair, M. R., & DeVita, M. (2004). Oversight of research involving the dead. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. (2012). Abusing the ‘gift’ of tissue donation. The international consortium of investigative journalists. https://www.icij.org/tissue/abusing-gift-tissue-donation. Accessed 18 July 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Stephanie Solomon Cargill and Kelly Dineen for their invaluable feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Salus Center, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette, 5th Floor, St. Louis, MO, 63104-1314, USA

    Michelle C. Bach

Authors
  1. Michelle C. Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle C. Bach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bach, M.C. Still Human: A Call for Increased Focus on Ethical Standards in Cadaver Research. HEC Forum 28, 355–367 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-016-9309-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-016-9309-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation