A medical school without a cadaver lab??

[han14tra]

Just talked to the VP of LECOM-Seton Hill and they said that they will use videos rather than cadavers in their anatomy lab. Needless to say, they just dropped down on my list. What irritates me is that they covered this up. Ughh.

What do you all think about this? Think there is any chance of them letting me transfer to LECOM-Erie?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[slim78]

Just talked to the VP of LECOM-Seton Hill and they said that they will use videos rather than cadavers in their anatomy lab. Needless to say, they just dropped down on my list. What irritates me is that they covered this up. Ughh.

What do you all think about this? Think there is any chance of them letting me transfer to LECOM-Erie?

I'm sure my opinion isn't widely shared, but I don't think it is a big deal. Our school always tells us how lucky we should feel that we have a cadaver lab, but seriously I don't think it is THAT helpful.

In my honest opinion, a LOT of the stuff you should be focusing on anyway is diagnostic imaging. Unless you are a surgeon, you won't have the benefit of opening up the body to see what is inside. And even if you did, these cadavers aren't all that representative of what things look like en vivo anyway.

In short, sure a cadaver lab is a plus, but I think they are overrated.

 

[FLDoc]

Dont take this the wrong way but AZCOM, having ~25 cadavers for 250 students divided into 2 groups so students are only present for HALF the cuts, is worse then no cadaver lab.

I'm sure my opinion isn't widely shared, but I don't think it is a big deal. Our school always tells us how lucky we should feel that we have a cadaver lab, but seriously I don't think it is THAT helpful.

In my honest opinion, a LOT of the stuff you should be focusing on anyway is diagnostic imaging. Unless you are a surgeon, you won't have the benefit of opening up the body to see what is inside. And even if you did, these cadavers aren't all that representative of what things look like en vivo anyway.

In short, sure a cadaver lab is a plus, but I think they are overrated.

 

[nlax30]

Just talked to the VP of LECOM-Seton Hill and they said that they will use videos rather than cadavers in their anatomy lab. Needless to say, they just dropped down on my list. What irritates me is that they covered this up. Ughh.

What do you all think about this? Think there is any chance of them letting me transfer to LECOM-Erie?

Interesting.....I didn't know that. Not quite sure what I think of it, but there's going to be good arguments made for both "sides".

As you probably know we have prosected anatomy lab here in Bradenton during our 10 week initial anatomy course and I think it's just enough. I didn't use the bodies a whole lot outside of normal lab time anyway. Over the summer after 1st year a few of us helped out dissecting the bodies for the new class so those who were interested at least got the chance to experience that aspect of it.

Heck it would be nice to spend a whole year just immersed in dissecting every little bit of the body and becoming intimately familiar with the anatomy through hands on dissecting but that's just not feasible, so there has to be a balance.

 

[han14tra]

They said they will use these videos:

The Tapes show you true images of real, exquisitely dissected human anatomical specimens, in three dimensions. Acland's Video Atlas uses fresh, unembalmed specimens that retain the color, texture, mobility--and beauty--of the living human body. A concise synchronized narration runs throughout the video. As each new structure is shown, its name appears on the screen. There is a self-testing feature at the end of each section.

I don't know.. I was just looking forward to getting to place my hands on another human's body and learn about the anatomy that way... I mean come on. LECOM seton hill is a DO school. We learn best by the hands-on approach.

 

[Cp22kjer]

Dont take this the wrong way but AZCOM, having ~25 cadavers for 250 students divided into 2 groups so students are only present for HALF the cuts, is worse then no cadaver lab.

Really? I think your numbers are off. Next year they'll have two gross lab rooms which surely holds more than 25 cadavers. That said some cutting is always better than no cutting.....c'mon now.

 

[engineeredout]

Speaking of seaton hill, I heard that at the LECOM-erie interview they ask you your preferences for Erie-LDP, erie-PBL, Seton hill-PBL etc... These aren't definitive choices are they? And do you get the option of going to seton hill if accepted? Like could they say "You've been accepted but only to seton hill, not to erie"?

Just that I'd go to seton hill if thats my only option obviously, but I'd much rather go to erie.

 

[Montana girl]

We used cadavars in our lab and broke up into two groups. There were 8 people in a group. 4 people disect everyother day. On the day that we were not disecting we had to come in the last 30 min. of our groups disection and learn what they disected. I think the best way to learn the gross anatomy is with hands on experence. We also have the live disection videos in our library. They are nice but not the same at all. I think the videos are a good supplement for the things that you have trouble seeing in lab on the bodies. This is just my own personal experence.

 

[slim78]

Dont take this the wrong way but AZCOM, having ~25 cadavers for 250 students divided into 2 groups so students are only present for HALF the cuts, is worse then no cadaver lab.

You really believe that? Normally I'd think you were kidding except that prefacing your statement with "Don't take this the wrong way" would lead one to believe that you were about to say something you actually meant.

You sincerely believe that splitting the dissections between two groups (which typically have 4-6 people) is worse than having no cadavers at all? You must really enjoy digging through fat and fascia.

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Dont take this the wrong way but AZCOM, having ~25 cadavers for 250 students divided into 2 groups so students are only present for HALF the cuts, is worse then no cadaver lab.

You're pre med. You couldn't possibly be objective in your opinion on this matter. You have yet to experience one side of the coin, let alone both.

 

[han14tra]

So, for you medical students out there.

Do you think this is a bad thing (that is, to not have a cadaver lab)?

I just feel that this is one of the few experiences with death that you have in medical school. As such, it's important.

 

[Dissected]

This suprises me...my undergrad even has a cadaver lab

 

[EastWestN2grt]

They said they will use these videos:

The Tapes show you true images of real, exquisitely dissected human anatomical specimens, in three dimensions. Acland's Video Atlas uses fresh, unembalmed specimens that retain the color, texture, mobility--and beauty--of the living human body. A concise synchronized narration runs throughout the video. As each new structure is shown, its name appears on the screen. There is a self-testing feature at the end of each section.

I don't know.. I was just looking forward to getting to place my hands on another human's body and learn about the anatomy that way... I mean come on. LECOM seton hill is a DO school. We learn best by the hands-on approach.

These are fantastic videos!! Of course Acland is an interesting individual a bit eccentric looking. But yes, the very colorful, fresh cadavers in the videos blew away the Beef jerky like cadavers in the anatomy lab at my school. I for one would not mind the replacement of the cadaver labs with the videos. Make sure to watch them on an HD 30+ inch TV and you'll have a good experience. And yes, there is an overview at the end of the sections which i used for test review.

 

[spicedmanna]

So, for you medical students out there.

Do you think this is a bad thing (that is, to not have a cadaver lab)?

Yeah, I view this trend in a negative light. What you learn from dissecting and viewing actual cadavers cannot, in my humble opinion as a 2nd year medical student and anatomy tutor, be replaced by video alone. You may get by just fine without having worked on a cadaver, but you are also missing out on something very wonderful. You really develop a deep appreciation for the human machine and the amazing anatomical variations out there after a whole year of working on and viewing a variety of cadavers. Truly, no two human bodies are alike. Also, nothing, in my opinion, cements anatomy in your mind better than being able to touch it and see it in 3D. I think there are some things that you'll have a difficult time appreciating seeing it only in 2D video, such as all the anatomical spaces, how the arteries and nerves flow, how things attach and relate to one another, etc.

Just my 2 cents.

I just feel that this is one of the few experiences with death that you have in medical school. As such, it's important.

You do start to develop some amount of clinical objectivity working with cadavers day in and day out for a whole year. However, as Tired stated, you'll see plenty of death and dying in your training.

 

[rddoms]

We are doing the split lab groups as well now, but anyone is more than welcome to be in the lab at any time. Personally, I think that the cadaver lab is extremely important and helpful. Netter does a great job, but there is nothing like a few hours of digging, followed by two days of smelling like formaldehyde. The way Anatomy is done here, it lines up with OTM, so that is an additional benefit. Dissection is important, and it is sad to see it being phased out.

 

[spicedmanna]

Netter does a great job, but there is nothing like a few hours of digging, followed by two days of smelling like formaldehyde.

Imagine the surprise of those who trained w/o working on actual cadavers that many, if not most, bodies don't line up perfectly with Netter's (or whatever the model happens to be), and some won't even look like the pictures at all.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

You don't really think of it in terms of an experience with death, and I don't think that is why it is an important experience.

If your cadaver is a pirate with a sweet mustache, consider yourself lucky.

I hate lab time. It is too crowded, and it is just a cluster****. Only about two people can really dissect at a given time. Sometimes three. The rest just sort of have to stand around and try to learn something. This is pretty standard at every school with this kind of anatomy course, I am told.

On the other hand, I do most of my learning in the evenings, when there aren't many people, if any, in the lab. I love going in by myself, or with one other person, and just drilling on stuff. I am a very visual learner, and I can get down pretty much everything I need to ace the practical by going in a few times before the test, for 1-2 hours each. And it really is a great way to learn. At least for me.

You take a lecture packet in there or something, and think to yourself, "I'm going to find the branches of artery x and nerve y, and see where they're going. Then I will identify them." It is really that simple.

Self-study in the anatomy lab is essential. The lab course itself is tedious, but necessary.

 

[GreenShirt]

My Dean returned last year from an international conference where the use of cadavers in medical education was heavily debated particularly whether dissection is better than prosection or whether cadavers are useful at all. There's a whole lot of disagreement in the medical education community on this issue.

The issue is that cadavers aren't very representative of the living human body (or a dead body for that matter) because of they way they are prepared. In many cases the plastic models used in lab are much more representative. One of our co-instructors in the anatomy lab was a former medical examiner and she said she got "all turned around" looking in the cadavers because they were not what she was used to seeing at autopsy.

The Ackland videos are really beautiful and show expert dissections that you will never see in your anatomy lab. The only down side is that they only cover structures Dr. Ackland feels are important. I think a multimedia approach that uses some combination of videos, models, atlases, cadavers, and real bodies is best. The most ideal way to learn anatomy would be to observe during surgery or at autopsy. The only school that comes close is Mayo clinic which uses unembalmed cadavers.

This trend is not wholly unprecendented. Common wisdom used to be that the best way to learn histology was to look at slides under a microscope in a lab. Then someone realized there was no reason that students couldn't learn histology by looking a slides on a computer while sitting at home. It's possible that the same realization will take place with anatomy.

 

[spicedmanna]

The issue is that cadavers aren't very representative of the living human body (or a dead body for that matter) because of they way they are prepared. In many cases the plastic models used in lab are much more representative. One of our co-instructors in the anatomy lab was a former medical examiner and she said she got "all turned around" looking in the cadavers because they were not what she was used to seeing at autopsy.

While I tend to agree that the preservation process does lead to some unnaturalness, I doubt this is the main issue for institutions that choose not to have anatomy labs. I tend to think the issues are more money and resource oriented rather than based on principle, but I suppose I would call my view a more cynical one.

It may be the case that preserved cadavers vary from fresh corpses, as you might view in an autopsy, but you gain so much more appreciation of relationships and variations, despite the problems, from viewing many cadavers and being able to touch and see it in 3D and in situ. If you just used plastic models, you are only getting one representation--the artist's view. Also, if you are like me, you learn by doing and working with plastic models, videos and pictures can't replicate the feel you get from actually touching and working with cadavers.

I think a multimedia approach that uses some combination of videos, models, atlases, cadavers, and real bodies is best.

Agreed.

Then someone realized there was no reason that students couldn't learn histology by looking a slides on a computer while sitting at home. It's possible that the same realization will take place with anatomy.

I'm not sure this issue is truly analogous to viewing histology slides.

 

[FutureInternist]

I HATED anatomy lab. Too much time spent looking for the smallest nerve or artery in our morbidly obese cadaver w/ not enough time spent actually looking at the course of something from origin to termination etc.
I don't see why studying anatomy purely from Netter's/Grays is such a bad idea. I would have loved to have that option.

 

[Flushot]

During my interviews, the part that excited me the most during the tour was seeing the anatomy lab. Maybe that's just the naivety in me, but I'm looking forward to it since I've never come close to any experience like this yet, in terms of hands on.

That said, I'm kind of not surprised that this is happening, but I'm very disappointed that it is. I'm also glad that spicedmanna and Tired believe it isn't the same without a cadaver, which I feel it would be (but I'm premed, what do I know ).

If I'm going to be throwing 40k at a school each year, I'd like for it to hold up the general standard that schools still do now, which is have a cadaver at anatomy lab. It might help some more than others, but at least give me the chance to decide for myself when the time comes.

 

[DPT2DO]

Personally, cadavers taught me everything about anatomy as well as neuroanatomy in physical therapy school. We had a class of 14 students working with two cadavers, male and female, for both clinical anatomy and neuroanatomy. My understanding of neuroanatomy, especially alongside the spinal column and at the site of tissue innervation, was hugely supplemented with our use of cadavers. Moreover, as a physical therapist who is constantly palpating, mobilizing, manipulating, stretching and massaging, my knowledge of the underlying structures helps me greatly in my practice. Even though I never step in the OR and rarely view MRI or x-ray imaging, my cadaver experience has proven invaluable. In addition, our exams were very practical and forced us to really spend long, intimate hours with our cadavers. For example, when tested on the upper extremities, the specimen's right upper extremity would be mostly enclosed in a box. We would reach in, palpating for a small sponge placed on an anatomical landmark, and have to ID that landmark based on palpation. Amazing, the things you can learn with a cadaver- and I can't wait to do it all over again assuming I make it into med school.

 

[GreenShirt]

While I tend to agree that the preservation process does lead to some unnaturalness, I doubt this is the main issue for institutions that choose not to have anatomy labs. I tend to think the issues are more money and resource oriented rather than based on principle, but I suppose I would call my view a more cynical one.

It may be the case that preserved cadavers vary from fresh corpses, as you might view in an autopsy, but you gain so much more appreciation of relationships and variations, despite the problems, from viewing many cadavers and being able to touch and see it in 3D and in situ. If you just used plastic models, you are only getting one representation--the artist's view. Also, if you are like me, you learn by doing and working with plastic models, videos and pictures can't replicate the feel you get from actually touching and working with cadavers.

I agree it might likely be a financial or logistical reason, but it could also mean that the money will be invested in improving other aspects in the school.

The cadavers are great for viewing the variations in the human body, which as you mentioned can't be seen in models. However, this requires the school possessing enough cadavers to view these variations (wasn't the case at my school). If anything a multimedia approach helps you learn anatomy by testing your ability to recognize structures in different representations. The same structure looks completely different in Netter's vs. Ackland's vs. a model vs. a cadaver vs. a real body. I don't think you need to test yourself in all these ways to gain a basic understanding of anatomy.

The tactile learning aspect is certainly a plus but I wonder if it's worth the enormous amount of time that goes into dissecting (through fat, fascia and standing around waiting for other's to finish dissecting etc.). For most medical students it will be more useful to have a firm foundation in physiology and pharmacology than to familiar with every little detail of anatomy.

 

[Chocolate Bear]

I agree it might likely be a financial or logistical reason, but it could also mean that the money will be invested in improving other aspects in the school.

Sadly, any money saved will probably go towards the newest Dental/Nursing/OT/PT/Whatever school on that campus. *sigh*

 

[silas2642]

Just talked to the VP of LECOM-Seton Hill and they said that they will use videos rather than cadavers in their anatomy lab. Needless to say, they just dropped down on my list. What irritates me is that they covered this up. Ughh.

What do you all think about this? Think there is any chance of them letting me transfer to LECOM-Erie?

I HATED anatomy, particularly anatomy lab-- the smell, the fat, the hair, nearly every aspect of anatomy that you can name, I hated.

However, I have to say that the cadaver lab was an invaluable experience. I don't think that I would have learned it as well as I did without it. My belief is that anatomy is a 3-D subject and is best learned in a 3-dimensional world; that is, hand's on. Whether or not it's better for the cadavers to be dissected by the students themselves or prosected is another discussion.

I guess I would be wary of a school that only has anatomy taught via videos. I think that you would be at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding anatomical relationships-- but that is just my opinion.

 

[MossPoh]

I view the anatomy lab as more of a stepping stone and part of becoming a physician. Some people learn a lot and others don't, but for the last 250 years or so, the cadaver has been the defining moment for much of the medical education. Sure, one can learn by pictures but it is never quite the same. I've seen pictures of some of the greatest cities on earth, yet (generally speaking) it is still a different experience to be walking through the city. The pictures are the ideal scenario, which is not always the case when touring around. Imaging modalities are important to learn by, but before my research was ditched, I was getting data that showed most students and non-radiologist doctors vastly overestimated their ability.

I know I'm a premed, but I've spent a fair amount of time between cadavers and normal living tissue to understand the difference is huge. Medical education is a lot of following the steps of others....anatomy is just one of the oldest representations of that. Prosected or not is another issue, but NO anatomy lab seems like a significant disadvantage to me.

 

[rajaholick]

I took an anatomy class in undergrad that didn't have a cadaver lab, then a couple years later an anatomy class for my masters that had a cadaver lab (prosected).
HUGE difference in the amount of info I picked up. When you're in there with the body looking around, you notice a lot more things than you do when looking at pictures...or atleast I did.

 

[FLDoc]

My numbers are based on the numbers given by the tour guides at AZCOM. I specifically asked if there would be an expansion based on the additional 90 students and the response was that there would be no additional cadavers.

With regards to experience, I had the opportunity to "see" dissections with ~10 ppl crowded around cadaver (useless) during undergrad. Also, I am currently in an SMP at a school that recieves ~200 cadavers/year. Granted not all of them are used by MS1s but it keeps the student to cadaver ratio at 3 or 4 to 1 and students make every cut.

My original criticism was directed at AZCOM and similar institutions that do not invest the resources necessary to teach a critical medical school course.

 

[scpod]

People, by nature, are very reluctant to change anything. If they learned something a particular way....well, they tend to believe that's the best way because they really have not experienced anything different. It can be hard to conceive a different method even working, much less being better. Also, people learn differently-- some visual, others audio for example.

Education as a whole is changing as technology changes. Medical education will change to catch up with that technology as well. Have you listened to the doctors that bitched about digital imaging ruining medicine? They couldn't give up actual film at first....but when they got used to the things you can do with it, it has really changed things for the better. We can look at things seconds after they happen in the ED now and have the patient out the door before the old films would have been developed.

Is learning Anatomy this way a good thing? Who knows....but, i'll bet these guys can pass the boards and will become just as good a physician as anyone else. They may even do better because they spend less time in lab-- more time for other subjects. Should Anatomy, even though it's the basis of all other medical sciences, really occupy as much time in the medical education model as it does? For what seems like eons Gross Anatomy has been kind of a right of passage in the physician education model. Does that mean it should still be taught the same way?

Talk to your professors. In years past they were lectured about medical sciences all the way up until time for 3rd year. Then, they were given a book and told to learn about H&P's over the weekend and report to the hospital on Monday. With all the time, effort and technology spent on training new physicians about clinical examinations these days, can you really imagine going back to that model? You now start from the very first day of classes with standardized patients and multi-million dollar simulators that help you learn about examinations. Why would you not also change the way you learn Anatomy?

It's hard for me to even imagine medical school without cadavers, but with imerging technologies doesn't it make since to at least explore other alternatives?

 

[GreenShirt]

This is an interesting debate. I think the place of anatomy in medical education gets over exaggerated as the "cornerstone of medical education" but it's really no more or less important than the the other basic sciences taught in medical school. You don't here prospective students complain about how physiology or microbiology gets taught at the institutions they visit.

I have to agree with scpod, maybe there is a better way to teach anatomy than cadavers or videos, but it hasn't been developed yet because most schools don't want to break from tradition.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

As reimbursements to physicians keep declining the cost of medical education has to stop climbing. After a four year residency an OOS student at the University of South Carolina will owe about $560,000 with interest. A LECOM grad will owe about $270,000. Are cadavers worth $290,000 to you? How can you be a pediatrician and owe $560,000?

These folks at LECOM have figured out how to shave every conceivable nickle off the cost of medical education. No cadavers and the use of video is just another example of LECOM's cost control strategy. My hat is off to LECOM.

 

[biogirl215]

^
$560,000? Really? Could you break that number down, please?

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

The tuition, fees and health insurance at the Medical University of South Carolina total $74,748 per year without any room & board. This is from the AAMC website. If you throw on $20,250 per year for instruments, books, rent, transportation and four meals a week you get an annual cost of attendance amounting to $95,000 per year.

Using my calculator of (6.57 times annual grad plus loans of $54,500 per year) + (5.82 times unsubsidized Staffords of $32,000 per year) + (4 times subsidized Staffords of $8,500 per year) you get ($358,065 + 186,240 + 34,000) or $578,305. This of course includes accrued interest. Your annual debt service payment would be $49,000. Ouch!

I am not trolling here. My kid is not applying to MUSC. If you want a seat there, it's all yours!

 

[FLDoc]

UCincy in-state: $24,777 (2006) 200+ cadavers

LECOM: $25,150 (2007) movies

edit: upon further review:

MCSC in-state: $6654 (2006)
MCSC OOS: $46310 (2006)

Yeah, I probably wouldn't apply to a school where I was subsidizing my classmate's education either.

 

[EEL08]

My numbers are based on the numbers given by the tour guides at AZCOM. I specifically asked if there would be an expansion based on the additional 90 students and the response was that there would be no additional cadavers.

With regards to experience, I had the opportunity to "see" dissections with ~10 ppl crowded around cadaver (useless) during undergrad. Also, I am currently in an SMP at a school that recieves ~200 cadavers/year. Granted not all of them are used by MS1s but it keeps the student to cadaver ratio at 3 or 4 to 1 and students make every cut.

My original criticism was directed at AZCOM and similar institutions that do not invest the resources necessary to teach a critical medical school course.

Wait, what additional 90 students are you talking about? I definitely don't feel like I need to make every cut or even see the dissection of each part of the body. If given the choice I would be all over prosections like white on rice. I don't think not having a cadaver lab at all is a good idea at all.

 

[p30doc]

A medical school without a cadaver lab is like a birthday party without cake!

 

[saylorsdad]

At sosu my ug school we had cadavers in a&p that were already cut up for us. The time spent studying was nice to say the least. I cannot see how you can learn anatomy without putting your hands on someone else though. If you cut or not isn't the question, but with or without cadavers I would say with everyday of the week.

 

[RySerr21]

Dont take this the wrong way but AZCOM, having ~25 cadavers for 250 students divided into 2 groups so students are only present for HALF the cuts, is worse then no cadaver lab.

Of the 5 schools i have visited so far, not one has given their students full responsiblity for dissection...and ALL the students seemd to be happy with it. They say it just gets to a point where you dont want to dissect anymore, you'd rather be studying it and not wasting time cutting through the body. So for example you'll have half of the class as Group A and half of the class as group B. On Mondays Group A will dissect in the morning and in the afternoon group B will come in and study what group A did. Then on Wednesday, the roles are reversed.

 

[theserbatron]

It's an age-old but important tradition in medicine, I think. Personally, lectures and videos are much better as review after having seen structures before me.

Everyone learns differently, so you'll get a ton of opinions, but medical school is one of the few times where unless youre a surgeon, you'll get a chance to get your hands into the anatomy. Yes, it's fixed and doesnt represent a 'living' person, but for me, studying out of an atlas or videos has not compared to the actual experience of cutting, dissecting, retracting, etc.

 

[slim78]

I'm starting to think maybe it is because I had cadavers in undergrad anatomy that I don't really think they are that awesome now that I'm in med school.

 

[Flushot]

That might be it. The interview tours were the closest I had ever gotten to a cadaver (that might change during my SMP I hope), so I guess I got all excited a la premed mentality.

 

[schussboarder]

its going to be personal preference no matter what....Sure ripping apart facia, and fat absolutly sucked during my anatomy lab, but for some reason it helped me learn the muscles and nerves better than a grant's anatomy book complemented with an online dissection CD could. On the other hand, many of my peers felt that the books and online videos were much more useful than spending hours on dissection. I think that there shouldn't be a problem adapting to a certain way a medical school does things (from what I have heard on this forum and from friends in med school, you have to change your studying habits that you had picked up in your undergraduate becuase they just don't work with a heavier caseload)...if you really don't like it then don't apply/take a seat at the school.

The schools aren't going to leave you hanging...if they didn't think that the videos would be adequate enough to prepare you for the boards, they wouldn't invest in them.

Just my opinion

 

[digitlnoize]

I didn't know this either...interesting.

Honestly, with all the technology and resources available today, it's not that big of a deal.

Things have changed alot in the last 10-20 years and today we can view the body on a computer in ways that weren't possible a decade ago.

I found the cadavers helpful in some cases, and less helpful in others. I'm honestly ok with it. I think they'll still learn anatomy very well.

 

[malisa]

I think if I had multiple acceptances I would definitely not choose to go to a school that did not have a cadaver lab. I really enjoy lab. Most of our bodies are prosected so we only had to go through the troubles of dissecting for a couple of things. I liked dissecting but it's not something I'd want to do for extended periods of time.

 

[SB25]

I think movies are a fantastic supplementto using a cadaver. It gives you another viewpoint and another way to learn. However, I think it's a terrible idea to do away with dissections all together. I'm sure there's nothing that can compare to having your chance to explore the human body yourself. If I'm lucky enough to have a choice in schools, I am definitely choosing a school that uses cadavers.

 

[scpod]

.... I'm sure there's nothing that can compare to having your chance to explore the human body yourself....

Oh, let's just face it-- people are just fascinated by dead bodies. Look at all the millions of people who have seen the bodies exhibits. The chance to actually cut into one and fool around with it seems really cool. Even the people who are really timid about it at first are elbow deep in the cadavers after about a week-- then it starts growing old. It's just a really cool thing to do and people want that experience. But...is it the best way to learn anatomy?

Hmmmm... I just don't know. I'll bet that if you spent the same amount of time that you do in lab watching Aclund videos, browsing thru your atlas, reading your anatomy text, doing anatomy recall questions and quizzing your friends.... well, you'd still probably learn just as much and do just as well on the exams. The only difference is you don't get to do something really cool that few other people get to experience. Is it really essential for learning anatomy, though? Probably not for most folks.

 

[SB25]

You're right. It is fascinating, which is why I want to experience it. Maybe that fascination wore off early for you. For others it will never grow old. Some people may find no benefit from dissections. Some need that hands on application to truly understand what they are learning. I don't think there is just one right way to learn anatomy. I believe the vast majority of people can benefit from both dissection and videos. They have the ability to complement each other incredibly. But if I had to choose between the two, I would choose dissection because I will already have a book I can reference. Why watch a video (simply with more pictures in addition to a text book) when you have the opportunity to figure out the structures and their locations on your own, hands-on? I know I would benefit, and I'm sure others out there would agree.

 

[spicedmanna]

I think it depends on what you mean by "learning anatomy." Yes, I do think you can do well on boards with just reference material, but is that really the final object? I tend to think not. It's obviously important to do well in boards, but there is much more than that.

Think of it this way: pilots do some training with flight simulators with great utility, but at some point in their training, they are going to train using actual planes. Yes, actual flight time is a necessary part of training and certification. Would you want to fly with someone who only ever used computers as a means to train? I sure as heck wouldn't. I'd want my pilots to have logged at least the required amount of actual flight time, since there are things that would be difficult to learn and/or appreciate (some of which are not easily measured) in simulation. There is a degree of unpredictability, touch, discovery, and realness that I think would be difficult to replicate in simulations. Honestly, I'd have trouble saying that someone knows how to fly, unless they have actually flied. As such, I believe there is value in getting hands-on with cadavers beyond preparing for boards.

 

[InductionAgent]

I think it's a shame that the AOA COCA would accredit any school that doesn't have cadaver dissection. Of course the cadavers are different from living people. Guess what, all those classic case presentations you're reading about are different from real patients, too.

Aside from the fact a lack of cadaver dissection fuels the notion that our medical education is cut-rate and inferior, the anatomy lab has occupied an important place in osteopathic medicine since its inception, as evidenced by the early intricate preparations of the human nervous system. While I do not mourn some of the departures from rigid osteopathic tradition, cadaver dissection is one that we should hold on to.

Seeing the anatomy repetitively in three dimensions makes the radiographic anatomy so much easier to interpret. Also, there is a confidence when doing invasive procedures that is helped by having some idea of what is underneath the skin. This is not limited to surgeons. All fields of medicine need to place central venous catheters, do lumbar punctures, etc. at some point in their career, even if only as an intern.

 

[scpod]

Think of it this way: pilots do some training with flight simulators with great utility, but at some point in their training, they are going to train using actual planes. Yes, actual flight time is a necessary part of training and certification. Would you want to fly with someone who only ever used computers as a means to train? I sure as heck wouldn't....

But, in your example the ultimate goal is to fly a real plane. Thus, you need more than simulator time. If your ultimate goal was to dissect cadavers, then I'd say you need more than a simulation. Yet, in order to become a doctor, not an anatomist, you really don't need to cut up cadavers to learn about anatomy. The amount of anatomy you really need to know is very small if you look at the total picture-- an amount easily learnable with new technologies.

Again, if you're gonna make a living cutting up cadavers....then, you probably need some practice on real ones. To be a doctor, you probably need more practice on H&P's.