Human dead bodies or cadavers have been used in medical education and research since ancient times. However, in recent times, with more focus on human rights and the growth of biomedical ethics, the use of cadavers for educational, research, and transplantation purposes have come under debate. While some people feel that using cadavers is ethically wrong, there are others who feel that it is perfectly acceptable to use human remains for productive issues such as education, research, and organ transplants. Thesis Statement: When we consider both sides of the argument in a balanced manner, the use of a cadaver is quite acceptable on the basis of the rationality that it is not abused but rather used for the welfare of other human beings.
Subjects such as anatomy and physiology have been taught from ancient times through the dissection of a dead human body (Parker, 1). However, with the advancement of digital technology, alternate methods of teaching anatomy and physiology, such as the use of computer graphics and simulation programs, have emerged. There are atlas reference guides that allow the medical students to remove structures from the body layer by layer and build it up again. The layering effects of these computer models allow the student to understand the structure and features of the skeleton. These programs also provide insights into the relationship that exists between different body structures. A study by Rajendran et al. has confirmed that computers do function as a learning tool in the context of medical education (Berube et al. page 1 ).
However, survey-based research by Berube et al. (1999) reveals that medical students often feel that the computer is inadequate in helping students understand complex relationships between the anatomical structures using a two-dimensional computer screen. In this survey, most of the respondents supported the use of cadavers to obtain “the sensations of human tissue and to gain a respect for the human body” (Berube et al., page 2). According to these respondents, the computer cannot facilitate the students to experience “the pathology and differences among humans” (Berube et al., page 2). Only through cadaver dissection, students found it possible to see the actual structures of the human body, cut through various layers of the body, and understand the interrelationship of various body systems. Thus, from the viewpoint of students, lessons in anatomy and physiology are best understood only through cadaver dissection.
Protesters of the use of cadavers for removal, storage, and use of human tissue or organs and the storage and use of whole bodies for education purposes argue the dead human body cannot be totally commoditized, and hence any activity based on ownership and commercialization of the human body should not be allowed. Another argument from the side of the protesters is that during transplantation, organs are taken from bodies that are brain dead and sustained by medical technology – and not from totally dead bodies. Renée Fox has named this a “desolate, profanely ‘high tech’ death” and one that cannot be considered as a natural death. Thus, two of the arguments of protestors of cadaver use are: the cadaver should not be commoditized as it is partly representative of the person; brain death cannot be equivalent to natural death.
In the context of these arguments, it may be pointed out that in recent times many parts of the human body are already being sold like commodities. For example, human cells and genes for research and educational purposes are openly sold by catalog or through the internet: 250ƒÊg of RNA of the human adrenal gland from one company in the U.S. is 255 U.S. dollars. Blood, hair, and spermatozoa are also traded as regular commodities (Awaya, 3.1). Organs are on the way to becoming total commodities, and the cornea is the first organ that has been almost totally commoditized – which means a price is attached to a freely donated cornea. At present, the price is just 100,000 Japanese Yen (about 770 U.S. dollars). It is a fixed price (Awaya, 3.1). As transplant medicine continues to advance, more organs, tissues, etc., are becoming “medical resources,” and their commercial value as commodities is increased (Awaya, Page 1). This is a new reality that should be accepted. Next, the second argument implies that organs are being harvested even before the donor is really dead. This is not the fact. According to Wesley J. Smith, the organ procurement protocol, known as “nonheart beating cadaver donor,” removes organs from people who died from irreversible cardio/pulmonary arrest and not from people who are just clinically brain dead (Smith, Para, p. 1).
To conclude, it must be said that the use of cadavers in the study and research of medicine is essential to help the students understand the human body and its functions in a structured realistic manner. Transplants help thousands of people with faulty organs to get a new lease on life, and in this process, it is important to note that this does not come at the cost of another life, but only through the use of a cadaver kept functionally alive through technology. Hence, with respect to changing times, changing values, changing perspectives on life, and quality of life, one must learn to accept the use of cadavers in inevitable circumstances.
Works Cited
- Berube et al (1999). Cadaver and computer use in the teaching of gross anatomy in physical therapy education. Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 1999. Web.
- Parker M. Lisa (2002). What’s wrong with the dead body? MJA, Vol 176.
- Smith, Wesley J. (2007). Irresponsible Headline: “Organ Harvesting Begins Before Brain Death”. Web.
- Awaya, Tsuyoshi (2007). The Human Body as a new commodity.
- Awaya, T. (1999). “Organ Transplantation and the Human Revolution,” Transplantation Proceedings, Vol. 31, No.1-2, 1996.
- Rajendran K, Tan CK, Voon FC. The effective learning of spatiotemporal concepts of human structure. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1990; 19:758-760.