Master of Arts, The Ohio State University, 2020, Bioethics

For decades, discussions related to informed consent have been at the forefront of medical research. Guidelines, protocols, and regulations have evolved and continue to be modified at national and international levels. However, while the specifics of informed consent have been defined in more detail when testing is conducted on live research participants, there has been little written about what informed consent should consist of when it comes to whole-body donation and who should provide that consent. With other research projects, there are several international guidelines along with federal regulations that specify the extent of information that must be provided to participants (Nuremburg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, Common Rule). Federal protections for whole-body donors are nearly absent and state regulations vary greatly and are often minimal. Commonly, donors consent to their body being used for “educational and research purposes” which conveys minimal information at best to the donor or donor's family as to what will happen with the body. In parts of the United States, the bodies of unclaimed dead are still used for research, absent any type of informed consent. Furthermore, when the studies have been completed, it is not always clear if all or only part of the human remains will be cremated and returned to the family. When consent is obtained from the person donating their own body, should medical institutions also be required to receive informed consent from those who possess the legal right of disposition since what happens to the body is generally a concern to the family? The literature addressing these questions appears to be minimal or even absent. This thesis addresses these issues and others in an attempt to bring more transparency and accountability to whole-body donation and to stimulate further discussion of these topics. Just as respect for live research participants takes precedence over the results of the studies in which they (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Dana Howard PhD (Advisor); Courtney Thiele JD, MA (Committee Member); Joy Balta MSc, MATLHE, Phd (Committee Member) Subjects: Ethics; Health Education; Health Sciences; Human Remains; Medical Ethics; Medicine

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2023, Anatomy

Introduction: Human body donors play a crucial role in anatomical education, research, and clinical skills training. Those interested in anatomical donation may choose to bequeath their bodies to body donation programs (BDPs) housed by academic institutions across the country, state anatomical boards, or for-profit willed body programs. These programs rely heavily on the gift of body donors in order to continue to supply students and researchers with an invaluable educational resource. Despite recommendations from anatomical societies about best practices for BDPs, previous research has shown little uniformity or transparency throughout the donation consent process. While the literature contains numerous opinions from anatomists regarding whole body donation, the perspective of registered donors is underrepresented. The aim of this project was to assess current operations of BDPs across the United States and gather input from registered donors on the body donation process. Although previous research has focused on specific elements of donation, the current study focused on a comprehensive view of donation across the country in order to analyze trends, draw comparisons between programs, and evaluate the donor perspective. Methods: The data in this project was gathered through multiple Qualtrics surveys. The first survey was sent to 125 BDPs across the United States in order to gather information about the trends and protocols at these institutions, and 72 program leaders (57%) responded to the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were analyzed to summarize the similarities and differences between programs. The second survey was sent to 2,145 individuals that were currently enrolled in The Ohio State University's BDP, and responses were received from 862 registered donors (40%). Results were analyzed to compute descriptive statistics and assess the relationship between demographics and survey responses. Results: Results from the first survey showed that collecti (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Claudia Mosley (Advisor); Joy Balta (Committee Member); Courtney Thiele (Committee Member); Derek Harmon (Committee Member); Dana Howard (Committee Member); Kirk McHugh (Committee Member) Subjects: Anatomy and Physiology; Ethics

Master of Public Health (MPH), University of Toledo, 2016, Occupational Health (Industrial Hygiene)

Occupational formaldehyde exposure occurs during the embalming and preservation of cadavers as well as other work involving cadavers including moving, dissection, transportation, and cremation. This study examined formaldehyde exposure during the transportation of cadavers and dissected cadavers between medical universities in Ohio and during transportation between an Ohio and a Michigan medical university. Three events were sampled: one employee in one van during event one and two employees in separate vans during event two. Personal replicate samples were collected from the breathing zones of the workers during the cadaver transport. Transportation time included loading and unloading cadavers. A control vehicle was also sampled. Time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to formaldehyde ranged from 0.36 parts per million (ppm) (0.44 mg/m3) to 0.49 ppm (0.60 mg/m3). Eight-hour TWAs were below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit of 0.75 ppm (0.92 mg/m3). The eight-hour TWAs were below the OSHA action level of 0.5 ppm (0.62 mg/m3). All eight-hour TWAs exceeded the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) ceiling value of 0.3 ppm (0.37 mg/m3). The formaldehyde concentrations by transportation method demonstrated a statistically significant difference between exposures during the cadaver transport, dissected cadaver transport and the control.

Committee: April Ames PhD, CIH (Advisor); Farhang Akbar-Khanzadeh PhD, CIH (Committee Member); Sheryl Milz PhD, CIH (Committee Member); Michael Valigosky PhD, CIH (Committee Member) Subjects: Occupational Health