ArticleMedical science educator2026
Scalpels and Standards: What Students Consider Ethical, Unethical, and Ethically Challenging in the Anatomy Lab.
Article in Medical science educator, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Objectification, Desensitization, and Personification: Medical Student Strategies for Engaging with Donor Bodies in the Anatomy Lab.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Human dissection in medical education presents an ethically complex terrain shaped by institutional norms, peer culture, and personal values. While formal codes and donor protections have evolved, little is known about how students themselves define and interpret ethical conduct in the gross anatomy lab. This qualitative study explored medical students' perceptions of ethical behavior during dissection. Methods: Twenty students from all four years of medical school at a single U.S. institution participated in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using open coding to identify recurring themes. Credibility was enhanced through analyst triangulation, reflexive dialogue, and use of illustrative quotes. Results: Three overarching themes emerged: (1) Ethical practices were linked to faculty role-modeling, peer and self-monitoring, and mindfulness during dissection; (2) Unethical practices included inappropriate jokes, careless handling of donor bodies, and unprofessional behavior; and (3) Ethically challenging situations involved uncertainty about donor consent, tension between objectification and personification of the body, and unspoken norms discouraging emotional expression. These dynamics often went unaddressed by formal instruction or policy, leaving students to navigate them independently. Conclusions: Students engage with dissection not only as a technical task but also as a moral experience. While institutional rules and professional standards are necessary, they are often insufficient on their own to help students smoothly navigate the ethical and emotional complexities of the anatomy lab. Anatomy education should incorporate structured opportunities for ethical and emotional reflection, reinforce transparency around body donation, and foster a culture that validates emotional responses. These practices may better support professional identity formation and align ethical conduct with students' lived experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.