The Ethical Disposal of Human Teaching Skeletons
<div style=' background:#FFFFFF;color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;width:auto;padding:5px;max-height:100%;'><span><p>The ethics surrounding the disposal of human skeletons used for medical education has become a growing concern in Australia. These skeletons, often sourced from India in the 19th and early 20th centuries, raise questions about consent, respect for the deceased, and the existence of better alternatives.</p><p>Edna Granot's story exemplifies this dilemma. For over 50 years, her family unknowingly cohabited with a skeleton nicknamed "Sheila," purchased by her husband during his medical studies. As Ms. Granot decluttered her home, the ethical considerations of Sheila's disposal arose.</p><p>This situation is not uncommon. Medical student Jonathan Coman's research revealed many Australian doctors possess such skeletons, often unaware of their potentially unethical origins. Many are unsure how to relinquish them respectfully.</p><p>The crux of the issue lies in the historical sourcing of these skeletons. Dr. Sabrina Agarwal, an anthropology professor, explains that most Western medical schools relied on India for skeletons due to a lack of domestic supply. This trade, particularly during British rule, is believed to have involved stolen bodies from graves and cremation sites. It's estimated that millions of skeletons were exported from India before the practice was outlawed in 1985.</p><p>While the trade is illegal, a domestic market for these remains persists in India. Dr. Coman's research found that many Australian doctors, unaware of the ethical concerns, either want to keep the skeletons or lack a clear path for disposal. Some have resorted to gifting, selling, or even cremating the remains – practices raising further ethical concerns.</p><p>Australian authorities currently lack clear guidelines for disposal. The Coroners Court of Victoria advises reporting all suspected human remains, but the process varies across states. Dr. Samantha Rowbotham, a forensic anthropologist, suggests a centralized approach with readily available information on relinquishing these remains. </p><p>Dr. Rowbotham emphasizes the importance of examining the remains by a forensic anthropologist to ensure they are indeed medical teaching sets and not something else. If confirmed, they can be curated by a School of Anatomy for educational purposes. She believes these remains should be treated with respect, reflecting the individuals they once were.</p><p>However, Mr. Coman advocates for a more radical approach. He argues that the use of human bones in medical education should be phased out entirely, particularly given the increasing availability of sophisticated alternatives like synthetic replicas, 3D printing, and digital resources.</p><p>The issue of repatriation to India is complex. Dr. Agarwal highlights the impracticalities of returning millions of skeletons and the potential disrespect in simply discarding them without proper historical investigation. She suggests open dialogue with South Asian descendants to determine the best course of action. This approach is already underway with regards to Indigenous and African American remains in other countries. </p><p>Dr. Agarwal emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the stories behind these skeletons. Current practices with donated soft tissue often involve sharing the donor's life story. A similar approach, "empathetic pedagogy," could be applied to these skeletons, restoring some of their humanity and moving away from objectification.</p><span></div>
