TY - JOUR

T1 - The social life of the dead

T2 - the role of post-mortem examinations in medical student socialisation

AU - Goodwin, Dawn Samantha

AU - Machin, Laura Louise

AU - Taylor, Adam Michael

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Social Science and Medicine. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Social Science and Medicine, 161, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.038

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Dissection has held a privileged position in medical education although the professional values it inculcates have been subject to intense debate. Claims vary from it generating a dehumanising level of emotional detachment, to promotion of rational and dispassionate decision-making, even to being a positive vehicle for ethical education. Social scientists have positioned dissection as a critical experience in the emotional socialisation of medical students.However, curricular revision has provoked debate about the style and quantity of anatomy teaching thus threatening this ‘rite of passage’ of medical students. Consequently, some UK medical schools do not employ dissection at all. In its place, observation of post-mortem examinations - a long established, if underutilised, practice – has re-emerged in an attempt to recoup aspects of anatomical knowledge that are arguably lost when dissection is omitted. Bodies for post-mortem examinations and bodies for dissection, however, have striking differences, meaning that post-mortem examinations and dissection cannot be considered comparable opportunities to learn anatomy. In this article, we explore the distinctions between dissection and post-mortem examinations. In particular, we focus on the absence of a discourse of consent, concerns about bodily integrity, how the body’s shifting ontology, between object and person, disrupts students’ attempts to distance themselves, and how the observation of post-mortem examinations features in the emotional socialisation of medical students.

AB - Dissection has held a privileged position in medical education although the professional values it inculcates have been subject to intense debate. Claims vary from it generating a dehumanising level of emotional detachment, to promotion of rational and dispassionate decision-making, even to being a positive vehicle for ethical education. Social scientists have positioned dissection as a critical experience in the emotional socialisation of medical students.However, curricular revision has provoked debate about the style and quantity of anatomy teaching thus threatening this ‘rite of passage’ of medical students. Consequently, some UK medical schools do not employ dissection at all. In its place, observation of post-mortem examinations - a long established, if underutilised, practice – has re-emerged in an attempt to recoup aspects of anatomical knowledge that are arguably lost when dissection is omitted. Bodies for post-mortem examinations and bodies for dissection, however, have striking differences, meaning that post-mortem examinations and dissection cannot be considered comparable opportunities to learn anatomy. In this article, we explore the distinctions between dissection and post-mortem examinations. In particular, we focus on the absence of a discourse of consent, concerns about bodily integrity, how the body’s shifting ontology, between object and person, disrupts students’ attempts to distance themselves, and how the observation of post-mortem examinations features in the emotional socialisation of medical students.

KW - United Kingdom

KW - medical students

KW - post-mortem examinations

KW - dissection

KW - emotional socialisation

KW - consent

KW - bodily integrity

KW - object-person ontologies

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.038

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.038

M3 - Journal article

VL - 161

SP - 100

EP - 108

JO - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

ER -