Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42394384›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2026

Custodians of Controversy: Navigating Stewardship Challenges With Non-Consensual Anatomized Human Skeletonized Individuals in South Africa.

A Alblas, V E Gibbon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

A AlblasDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0969-4163
V E GibbonDepartment of Human Biology, Division of Clinical Anatomy & Biological Anthropology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7875-3297

Funding

South African National Research Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

South Africa, like many countries, holds collections of human skeletonized individuals historically acquired through anatomical dissection programs. This paper examines non-consensual anatomized and unclaimed (NCAU) state-directed skeletonized individuals, whose presence in collections pose significant legal, ethical, and professional challenges. Although the National Health Act (2003) outlines procedures for body donation, the inclusion of unclaimed and destitute persons obtained without consent raises ethical concerns. As curators and custodians, a perspective is provided, assessing the legal and ethical implications of retaining NCAU skeletonized individuals and highlighting inconsistencies between South African regulations and international standards that prioritize informed consent and dignity-in-death. The complexities surrounding the retention, use, or disposition of these decedent bodies, and parts thereof, are discussed, offering recommendations for institutional decision-making to navigate these complexities. A structured and multidisciplinary approach is provided we advocate for transparent and ethically responsible stewardship of NCAU collections. Furthermore, the pressure placed on curators is noted, who face potential personal and professional repercussions, and emphasizes the need for institutional support, training, and resources to guide ethical management and facilitate informed decision-making of these sensitive collections.

Indexed as

AnatomyHumansInformed ConsentSouth AfricaTissue Donorsanatomical donation programsanatomical educationbody donationcadavericcurator perspectiveethicsskeletal collectionsunclaimed

Identifiers

PMID42394384
PMCPMC13329213

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.