4.3 Article

Body Donations Today and Tomorrow: What is Best Practice and Why?

期刊

CLINICAL ANATOMY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 11-18

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ca.22641

关键词

anatomy; body donation; ethics; guidelines; plastination; surveys; unclaimed bodies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is considerable agreement that the use of human bodies for teaching and research remains important, yet not all universities use dissection to teach human gross anatomy. The concept of body donation has evolved over centuries and there are still considerable discrepancies among countries regarding the means by which human bodies are acquired and used for education and research. Many countries have well-established donation programs and use body dissection to teach most if not all human gross anatomy. In contrast, there are countries without donation programs that use unclaimed bodies or perhaps a few donated bodies instead. In several countries, use of cadavers for dissection is unthinkable for cultural or religious reasons. Against this background, successful donation programs are highlighted in the present review, emphasizing those aspects of the programs that make them successful. Looking to the future, we consider what best practice could look like and how the use of unclaimed bodies for anatomy teaching could be replaced. From an ethical point of view, countries that depend upon unclaimed bodies of dubious provenance are encouraged to use these reports and adopt strategies for developing successful donation programs. In many countries, the act of body donation has been guided by laws and ethical frameworks and has evolved alongside the needs for medical knowledge and for improved teaching of human anatomy. There will also be a future need for human bodies to ensure optimal pre- and post-graduate training and for use in biomedical research. Good body donation practice should be adopted wherever possible, moving away from the use of unclaimed bodies of dubious provenance and adopting strategies to favor the establishment of successful donation programs. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据