Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41423708›Full record

ReviewAnatomical sciences education2026

The rise of informed consent and retreat from dependence upon unclaimed bodies in anatomy: An overview and assessment.

David Gareth Jones

Abstract readReviewHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Review in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David Gareth JonesDepartment of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4671-6819

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of anatomy has been marked by ethically questionable practices. This has been because the dissection of human bodies has always existed on the periphery of conventional society, necessitating a range of dubious ways of obtaining dead bodies for educational and research purposes. Chief among these has been the use of unclaimed bodies, those obtained without the consent, and on occasion, knowledge of living relatives. This raises the question of the moral status of dead bodies and the place of informed consent in the practice of anatomy. While informed consent has become mandatory in the legislations of many countries, some argue that it is a Westernized concept. The argument here is that informed consent is a crucial ethical requirement for anatomists. By the 1960s legislation in the United Kingdom and similar countries, plus increasing awareness of ethical issues, brought to the fore informed consent and the necessity of using only body donations. This trajectory was strengthened by inquiries into organ retention scandals following postmortems that highlighted the basic ethical values for dealing with the remains of the dead. Nevertheless, there has been continued use of unclaimed bodies internationally, ushering in continued efforts to understand why this is the case and reasons why some indigenous groups reject body donation. It is concluded that except where there are mitigating circumstances, anatomists continuing to rely upon a supply of unclaimed bodies are neglecting the trajectory of ethical debate over the past 40 years.

Indexed as

AnatomyDissectionInformed ConsentTissue and Organ ProcurementCadaverHistory, 20th CenturyHumansUnited Kingdombequestsethical valueshuman tissue actsinformed consentlegislationretained organs scandalsunclaimed bodies

Identifiers

PMID41423708
PMCPMC12996733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.