The question then becomes, was it necessary, once the likes of Vesalius had pretty much figured out the basics, for every student of anatomy to get right in there and figure them out all over again? Why couldn't models and preserved prosections be used to teach anatomy? Do gross anatomy labs reinvent the wheel? The questions were especially relevant in Knox's day, given the way in which bodies were procured, but they are still relevant today.
The passage raises the issue of whether it was necessary for each student of anatomy to dissect and explore the human body when anatomists like Vesalius had already outlined the fundamental aspects of human anatomy. It questions the efficacy of hands-on learning in comparison to using models and preserved specimens for teaching. This suggests a potential redundancy in the dissection process, prompting a reevaluation of educational methods in anatomy.
This debate was particularly significant during Knox's time due to ethical concerns related to the procurement of cadavers, and it continues to be relevant today. The ongoing discussion about whether gross anatomy labs simply reaffirm established knowledge rather than introduce novel insights underscores a broader dialogue about medical education and the methods used to teach complex subjects like anatomy.
