Differentiate the Medico Legal Autopsy and Hospital Autopsy

Pathologists need to understand who has the authority to consent to an autopsy. Historically, common law principles have been followed, stating that a “corpse has no value.” [3, 4] This doctrine was put to the test in Patterson v Patterson [5], where the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the next of kin have the right and duty to bury the body of the deceased. Ultimately, the court in Foley v. Phelps [6] concluded that the body of the deceased is held by the next of kin as a “sacred trust” and therefore had the right to protect the body from an unauthorized autopsy. The responsibility attached to those who violate this right of property is imposed with the intention of enforcing the doctrine that, although there are no property rights associated with the corpse, the next of kin have the right to prevent the autopsy and disfigurement of the body. The court ruled that the next of kin had a constitutionally protected property right over the deceased`s brain and had the right to notice the organs before disposing of them and to have the opportunity to recover them. Following a summary judgment for the plaintiffs in 2005, a notice of proposed settlement was issued to more than 900 class members in June 2007. The settlement required that $5.9 million be distributed among more than 900 class members. It also required the coroner to notify the next of kin of the organ retention and to comply with the family`s decision on the final decision. [31] In response, the Ohio General Assembly passed a law in 2006 that classified retained autopsy samples from medico-legal cases as medical waste and authorized the coroner to dispose of them in accordance with federal and state regulations.

[21] The actual procedures for clinical autopsies versus forensic autopsies are often largely the same, but there are also important differences. All our autopsies are performed/verified by an experienced forensic pathologist. These include limited or complete autopsies necessary to achieve the purposes of the type of autopsy we perform. We can work with you to determine the type and scope of autopsy services that best answer your questions and meet your needs. In Pedroza v. Bryant [57], the liability imposed on the hospital was limited to negligent medical acts committed within the limits of the hospital environment. In addition, in pedroza, the court concluded that the standard of care for hospitals is the standard established by the Joint Accreditation Commission for Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) (“Joint Commission”) and should be included in the hospital`s statute. [57] In addition, hospitals are required by the trust company to comply with their by-laws, including the JCAHO standards for end-of-life treatment. This is illustrated by St. Elizabeth Hosp v.

Garrard, where the court found that the hospital had negligently inflicted emotional stress because it had not performed a licensed autopsy. [35] For families, autopsy offers both psychological and tangible benefits. Uncertainty about the cause of a person`s death can delay the payment of insurance benefits. Autopsy can also reveal genetic or environmental causes of diseases that could affect other family members. (Our services may include DNA testing for family members in cases where an autopsy reveals a genetic condition that may affect them.) NB: A domestic fall of an elderly person that results in immobilization and delayed death in an institution is not subject to a medico-legal autopsy in most countries. This category of deaths accounts for a significant proportion of non-natural deaths in many countries with aging populations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recognized the U.S. Supreme Court`s doctrine that state law largely governs property interests. In 1991, the Sixth Circuit Brotherton ruled against Cleveland [25] and ruled that under Ohio law, there is a property right in the deceased body with respect to the autopsy by establishing a “legitimate claim.” [26] Although the Ohio District Courts held that there was no “quasi-right” associated with the deceased body, the Sixth Circuit found that the “substance of the right” to receive the body for burial established a “legitimate claim” in the corpse.

[26] The provision of natural light and suction is essential for the autopsy room of a forensic department. The absence of small bruises on the fingertips in case of strangulation and sexual assault due to poor lighting leads to a misdiagnosis of the cause of death or a negative autopsy with catastrophic consequences. Good suction ensures that no foul-smelling gas accumulates by breaking down the bodies in the autopsy room. “(2) Unless otherwise authorized by law, no autopsy may be performed without the written consent of the surrogate mother in accordance with section 765.202, provided that such an autopsy has been designated. If no surrogate mother has been appointed for health care, the written consent of the spouse, the next of kin or, in the absence of such a relative, the person who took custody of the body for the purpose of burial may be granted. If two or more people take bodyguard for this purpose, the consent of one of them is sufficient to approve the autopsy. More than occasionally, the medico-legal autopsy shows unexpected results. In Sweden, for example, among ∼5500 forensic autopsies performed each year, about 5 to 10 previously unexpected homicides and 5 previously unknown suicides are detected each year. In addition, ∼30 suspected homicides (out of a total of 100 <) and ∼70 suspected suicides (out of a total of ∼1200) are classified as natural accidents or deaths (Hasselqvist and Rammer, 2003; Janko and Druid, 2009).

The first three questions (which, when and where) are almost never a problem with an autopsy performed in the hospital in the event of a death from natural causes. But in the forensic environment, the identity, time and place of the body in the event of death can make the difference in attributing guilt or establishing an alibis of an alleged perpetrator. The next two questions (why and what happened) focus on the cause and manner of death. The answer to the last question (which did) is the interpretation of injuries – both fatal and “accidental” – to recreate the final events of the victim and the physical relationships with the environment and/or perpetrators.