In their survey of selected Australian emergency departments, the practice of teaching resuscitation techniques using the bodies of newly deceased patients was found to be widespread but relatively infrequent. Consent from relatives was rarely obtained, and most emergency departments had no written policies governing this practice. Ginifer and Kelly question the educational need for such experience and raise ethical and legal issues. The performance of emergency thoracotomy for any reason in the emergency department is exceedingly rare, typically being undertaken only by surgeons on patients with penetrating chest trauma with profound shock or recently lost vital signs. When it is performed in these circumstances in the hope of restoring life, the procedure is outside the terms of this debate.
Endotracheal intubation is a lifesaving procedure.
It is self-evident that the former cannot be harmed, while the latter, even with the closest supervision, may potentially suffer from any of the complications of the procedure. It is pertinent to note that the need for clinical training in resuscitation techniques, its benefit to society and the educational value of practice on the newly deceased have not been seriously questioned in the medical literature. However, legal and ethical issues will inevitably arise. If law reports are any guide, this issue is not one of great public, judicial or coronial concern. In Australia, and even in the litigious United States, I have been unable to find a single successful criminal or civil prosecution of a doctor or hospital for permitting or performing a minimally invasive resuscitation technique on a newly deceased person.