The human cadaver, often referred to as the medical student’s ‘first patient’, is a topic of heated debate. Advocates of its use argue that the deceased body, with its unique characteristics, holds a significance that goes beyond being a mere representation. They assert that the cadaver, with its individuality, transcends the status of a model. However, some oppose this view, pointing out that the cadaver lacks a crucial aspect of a patient, that is, its vitality, and could potentially pose a health risk. To establish a distinctive role for the human cadaver within the spectrum of educational tools, we identified several properties that allow classification and comparison of educational tools: (1) vitality and activity; (2) morbidity; (3) mortality; (4) variability; (5) dimensions (two- or three-dimensional); (6) quality of haptic experience; (7) level of abstraction (individual vs. standardised model); (8) health hazard to students and staff; (9) hazard to tool; (10) availability; (11) costs per student and, finally, (12) ethical issues. We will compare (a) the human cadaver with (b) the real patient, (c) the (standardised) simulated patient, (d) the ‘virtual human’, (e) the (anatomical) model and (f) the book. In its unique role as an educational tool, the human cadaver is a non-vital, morbid, mortal, variable, three-dimensional individual. It offers a high-quality haptic experience with low health hazards and relatively moderate costs per student. Importantly, it is ethically firm and cannot be physically harmed by the students.