TY - JOUR A1 - , T1 - Consent in Body Donation JO - Eur. J. Anat. SN - 1136-4890 Y1 - 2020 VL - 24 SP - 239 EP - 248 UR - http://www.eurjanat.com/web/paper.php?id=190294tf KW - Altruism – Body donation – Consent – Medical education N2 - This article explores potential threats to the valid-ity of consent in body donation and potential re-sponses to such threats. To minimize abstract generalizations, the article draws particularly on United Kingdom regulations but each of the issues it explores is applicable in many countries. Meth-ods used were searches of relevant (e.g., medical ethical) literatures using pertinent search terms (e.g., consent) and discussions with multiple stake-holders (e.g., family members of body donors). The main threats identified were: (1) failing to ade-quately acknowledge relatives’ roles in donation, particularly as donation often cannot be completed without relatives’ active participation; (2) failing to ensure that donors are informed enough to be able to give valid consent, especially given ‘specification’ and ‘temporality’ problems inherent in establishing consent for body donation; and (3) failing to genuinely prioritize donors’ motives and concerns during and after obtaining their consent. Possible ways of countering these threats include layering information given and made available to potential donors and having donors consent not to ‘donation and anything that might follow’, but in-stead to ‘relative-acknowledged donation, selective explicit consent, and delegated decision-making’. The latter involves donors specifying and relatives acknowledging donors’ key preferences and prohi-bitions, among which is nomination or acceptance of specified proxies who may make decisions on donors’ behalf after their death. By making such changes, the validity of consent for body donation could be substantially improved in ways that also increase respect for both donors and their autono-my. These changes may also increase the number of completed donations. ER -