Georgina C. Stephens

Clinical anatomy education is meant to prepare students for caring for the living, often by working with the dead. By their nature many clinical anatomy education programs privilege topographical form over the donor's humanity. This inbalance between the living and the dead generates tensions between the tangible and the spiritual insofar as semblances of the humanity of donors endure even in depictions and derivatives. This article argues that considering the relevance of spirituality, and what endures of a donor's humanity after death, would enhance contemporary anatomy education and the ethical treatment of human body donors (and derivatives). In developing this argument, we (the authors) address the historical connection between spirituality and anatomy, including the anatomical locations of the soul. This serves as a basis for examining the role of the mimetic—or imitative—potential of deceased human donors as representations of the living. We deliberate on the ways in which the depersonalization and anonymization of those donating challenge the mimetic purpose of human body donors and the extent to which such practices are misaligned with the health care shift from a biomedical to a biopsychosocial model. Weighing up the risks and opportunities of anonymization versus personalization of human body donors, we propose curricula that could serve to enhance the personalization of human donors to support students learning topographical form. In doing so, we argue that the personalization of human donors and depictions could prevent the ill effects of digital representations going “viral,” and enhance opportunities for donors to help the general public learn more about the human form.