The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Teaching anatomy without cadavers
Abstract
Background Anatomy learning is generally seen as essential to medicine, and exposure to cadavers is generally seen as essential to anatomy learning around the world. Few voices dissenting from these propositions can be identified. Aims This paper aims to consider arguments relating to the use of cadavers in anatomy teaching, and to describe the rationale behind the decision of a new UK medical school not to use cadaveric material. Discussion First, the background to use of cadavers in anatomy learning is explored, and some general educational principles are explored. Next, arguments for the use of human cadaveric material are summarised. Then, possible arguments against use of cadavers, including educational principles as well as costs, hazards and practicality, are considered. These are much less well explored in the existing literature. Next, the rationale behind the decision of a new UK medical school not to use cadaveric material is indicated, and the programme of anatomy teaching to be employed in the absence of the use of human remains is described. Curriculum design and development, and evaluation procedures, are briefly described. Issues surrounding pathology training by autopsy, and postgraduate training in surgical anatomy, are not addressed in this paper. Future directions Evidence relating to the effect on medical learning by students not exposed to cadavers is scant, and plainly opportunities will now arise through our programme to gather such evidence. We anticipate that this discussion paper will contribute to an ongoing debate, in which virtually all previous papers on this topic have concluded that use of cadavers is essential to medical learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.139 · Cited by 991
Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future
McLachlan, J. C., & Patten, D. (2006) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02401.x · Cited by 462
Self-citationIwanaga, J., Loukas, M., Dumont, A. S., & Tubbs, R. S. (2021) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.23655 · Cited by 328
Jang, S., Vitale, J. M., Jyung, R. W., & Black, J. B. (2017) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.009 · Cited by 320
The relative effectiveness of computer‐based and traditional resources for education in anatomy
Khot, Z., Quinlan, K., Norman, G. R., & Wainman, B. (2013) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1355 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- McLachlan, J. C., Bligh, J., Bradley, P., & Searle, J.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-11
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 418-424
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W1994774023
- Cited by
- 602
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teaching anatomy without cadavers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01795.x
- The paper
- McLachlan, J. C., Bligh, J., Bradley, P., & Searle, J. (2004). Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01795.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.