Letter: Post-mortem ethics

James Underwood
Friday 10 December 1999 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: The distressing experiences of Jeremy and Sandra McKenzie ("Baby organ scandal", letter, 9 December) highlight the need for bereaved parents and other relatives to have a full explanation of the purpose of post-mortem examinations and of their legal basis.

Most post-mortem examinations are directed by law at the request of a coroner (or procurator-fiscal in Scotland). These are investigations of deaths either when a doctor is unable to issue a death certificate, because the cause of death is not known, or when death is suspected or known to be due to an event other than naturally-occurring disease. Under Rule 9 of the Coroner's Rules, the pathologist has to make "provision for the preservation of material which in his opinion bears upon the cause of death". In such cases, I believe that the bereaved family should be informed fully about what has been done and why, and their views sought on what should happen to any retained "material" at the end of the investigation.

Post-mortem examinations not directed by law are performed only with the agreement of a parent, the spouse or close relative. In such cases, the primary purpose is to verify the natural cause of death and to determine the effects of treatment. In my opinion, the parent or other relative agreeing to this should first be informed fully about what is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of the examination and, if retention of an organ is likely, a full justification given for this. The bereaved are asked to make these decisions at a time of great distress.

Many bereaved parents and relatives may share Jeremy and Sandra's appreciation that advances in medicine depend on the opportunity to use organs, after death, for research and medical education. If given the opportunity to agree to this, they may feel that they could help others with the same condition as that which affected their own child so that some benefit may come from their loss.

In collaboration with the Coroners Society, the Royal College of Pathologists is producing guidance, based on relevant law and on high ethical standards, to ensure that the examination of the body after death has public support and is conducted in a respectful manner in which bereaved parents and relatives can have confidence.

JAMES UNDERWOOD

Professor of Pathology

University of Sheffield

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in