Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Matriculating Students’ Opinions on Cadaveric Dissection: Maintaining Tradition in Changing Times

  • Short communication
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As medical education advances, cadaveric dissection is no longer the sole modality to teach anatomy. In light of this, there is limited data regarding how incoming medical students perceive the importance of cadaveric dissection and whether they continue to desire the experience as they consider matriculating to medical school. Surveys were sent to incoming first-year medical students concerning their views of death and dissection. Our data show a strong and temporally reproducible opinion that cadaveric dissection is important among incoming medical students. This survey also reviews the predominant emotional reactions generated in anticipation of the cadaveric dissection experience.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Data Availability

Not applicable

References

  1. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first-and second-year students. Surg Radiol Ant. 2007;29:173–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ghosh SK. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century. Anat Sci Educ. 2017 Jun;10(3):286–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40:243–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Papa V, Vaccarezza M. Teaching anatomy in the XXI century: new aspects and pitfalls. Sci World J. 2013;2013:310348. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/310348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Flack NAMS, Nicholson HD. What do medical students learn from dissection? Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(4):325–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thompson AR, Marshall AM. Participation in dissection affects student performance on gross anatomy practical and written examinations: results of a four-year comparative study. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(1):30–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marshak DW, Oakes J, Hsieh PH, Chuang AZ, Cleary LJ. Outcomes of a rotational dissection system in gross anatomy. Am Assoc Anatom. 2015;8:438–44.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pais D, Casal D, Mascarenhas-Lemos L, Barata P, Moxham BJ, Goyri-O’Neill J. Outcomes and satisfaction of two optional cadaveric dissection courses: a 3-year prospective study. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(2):127–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jeyakumar A, Dissanayake B, Dissabandara L. Dissection in the modern medical curriculum: an exploration into student perception and adaptions for the future. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(3):366–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1905.

  10. Pohontsch NJ, Stark A, Ehrhadrt M, Kotter T, Scherer M. Influences on students’ empathy in medical education: an exploratory interview study with medical students in their third and last year. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ethics Education Programme | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/ethics-education. Accessed 5 Nov 2020.

  12. Goss AL, Viswanathan VB, DeLisser HM. Not just a specimen: a qualitative study of emotion, morality, and professionalism in one medical school gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12(4):349–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hajj I, Dany M, Forbes W, Barremkala M, Thompson BJ, Jurjus A. Perceptions of human cadaver dissection by medical students: a highly valued experience. Ital J Anat Embryol. 2015;120(3):162–71.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ahmed K, Rowland S, Patel V, Khan RS, Ashrafian H, Davies DC, et al. Is the structure of anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice? Surgeon. 2010;8:318–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nwachukwu C, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(1):45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharma M, Horgan A. Comparison of fresh-frozen cadaver and high-fidelity virtual reality simulator as methods of laparoscopic training. World J Surg. 2012;36(8):1732–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma G, Aycart MA, Najjar PA, van Houten T, Smink DS, Askari R, et al. A cadaveric procedural anatomy course enhances operative competence. J Surg Res. 2016;201:22–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sheikh AH, Barry DS, Gutierrez H, Cryan JF, O’Keeffe GW. Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: what is the surgeons view? Am Assoc Anatom. 2016;9:203–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Code Availability

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Nicole M. Deming: conception, design, teaching the course and acquisition of data, drafting and revising paper, approving the paper, agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Molly L. Singer: drafting and revising paper, approving the paper, agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Guy Baratz: drafting and revising paper, approving the paper, agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Susanne Wish-Baratz: conception, design, teaching the course and acquisition of data, drafting and revising paper, approving the paper, agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole M. Deming.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent and Ethics Approval

The study was reviewed by the CWRU Institutional Review Board (IRB) and deemed exempt under 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 46.101(b)(1).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deming, N.M., Singer, M.L., Baratz, G. et al. Matriculating Students’ Opinions on Cadaveric Dissection: Maintaining Tradition in Changing Times. Med.Sci.Educ. 31, 41–44 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01139-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01139-0

Keywords

Navigation