Skip to content

Of course, the cadavers, in life, donated themselves…

“Of course, the cadavers, in life, donated themselves freely to this fate, and the language surrounding the bodies in front of us soon changed to reflect that fact. We were instructed to no longer call them “cadavers”; “donors” was the preferred term. And yes, the transgressive element of…” quote by Paul Kalanithi
Download Open image
““Of course, the cadavers, in life, donated themselves freely to this fate, and the language surrounding the bodies in front of us soon changed to reflect that fact. We were instructed to no longer call them “cadavers”; “donors” was the preferred term. And yes, the transgressive element of dissection had certainly decreased from the bad old days. (Students no longer had to bring their own bodies, for starters, as they did in the nineteenth century. And medical schools had discontinued their support of the practice of robbing graves to procure cadavers—that looting itself a vast improvement over murder, a means once common enough to warrant its own verb: burke, which the OED defines as “to kill secretly by suffocation or strangulation, or for the purpose of selling the victim’s body for dissection.”) Yet the best-informed people—doctors—almost never donated their bodies. How informed were the donors, then? As one anatomy professor put it to me, “You wouldn’t tell a patient the gory details of a surgery if that would make them not consent.” Even if donors were informed enough—and they might well have been, notwithstanding one anatomy professor’s hedging—it wasn’t so much the thought of being dissected that galled. It was the thought of your mother, your father, your grandparents being hacked to pieces by wisecracking twenty-two-year-old medical students. Every time I read the pre-lab and saw a term like “bone saw,” I wondered if this would be the session in which I finally vomited. Yet I was rarely troubled in lab, even when I found that the “bone saw” in question was nothing more than a common, rusty wood saw. The closest I ever came to vomiting was nowhere near the lab but on a visit to my grandmother’s grave in New York, on the twentieth anniversary of her death. I found myself doubled over, almost crying, and apologizing—not to my cadaver but to my cadaver’s grandchildren. In the midst of our lab, in fact, a son requested his mother’s half-dissected body back. Yes, she had consented, but he couldn’t live with that. I knew I’d do the same. (The remains were returned.) In””

Paul Kalanithi

About This Quote

This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.

The shift from calling bodies “cadavers” to “donors” reflects ethical progress, yet many doctors still avoid donation, revealing tension between knowledge, consent, and emotional discomfort with dissection.

In simple terms: Changing language shows respect, but doctors often don’t donate their own bodies.

Key Takeaway

Recognize the emotional weight of medical training and advocate for transparent donor education.

Themes

ethics medical education death consent language

Mood

reflective somber

Type

narrative ethical

When to use this quote

  • medical school labs
  • family discussions about donation
  • policy making on body donation

Key Concepts

bioethics informed consent professionalism

Questions to Reflect On

  • How can medical schools balance honesty with sensitivity?
  • What responsibilities do doctors have to model donation?
A Different Perspective

Patient discomfort with graphic details can limit true informed consent.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ No ratings yet

More by Paul Kalanithi

Explore all 100 Paul Kalanithi quotes

More Cadaver quotes

Browse all 19 Cadaver quotes