Death Certification in the United States

Sudden arrhythmic death and cardiomyopathy are important causes of sudden cardiac death in the UK: results from a national coronial autopsy database

AIMS

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is defined as natural unexpected death in witnessed cases occurring < 1 h and in unwitnessed cases as last seen alive < 24 h. SCD due to ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is frequent in older age groups; in younger people genetic cardiac causes, including channelopathies and cardiomyopathies, are more frequent. This study aimed to present the causes of SCD from a large specialist pathology registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cases were examined macroscopically and microscopically by two expert cardiac pathologists. The hearts from 7214 SCD cases were examined between 1994 and 2021. Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome (SADS), a morphologically normal heart, which can be underlaid by cardiac channelopathies, is most common (3821, 53%) followed by the cardiomyopathies (1558, 22%), then IHD (670, 9%), valve disease (225, 3%), congenital heart disease (213, 3%) and myocarditis/sarcoidosis (206, 3%). Hypertensive heart disease (185, 3%), aortic disease (129, 2%), vascular disease (97, 1%) and conduction disease (40, 1%) occur in smaller proportions.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest SCD cohort with autopsy findings ever reported from one country. SADS and cardiomyopathies predominate. This study highlights the importance of the autopsy in SCD, which is a significant public health concern in all age groups. Knowing the true incidence in our population will improve risk stratification and develop preventative strategies for family members. There is now a national pilot study integrating molecular autopsy and family screening into the assessment of SCD victims.

[What are the obstacles to drawing up a death certificate in a home setting ? A survey of doctors in Normandy]

INTRODUCTION

Drafting a death certificate is an obligation for any physician called upon to note a death. It has a legal and epidemiological impact. The objective of this study is to highlight the obstacles encountered by professionals when this process takes place in a home setting.

METHOD

A study was carried out by means of a questionnaire sent to doctors in the Normandy region.

RESULTS

One fifth (20%) of the general practitioners (GPs), 25% of the SAMU practitioners (intervening in mobile emergency throughout the country), 27.3% of SOS doctors (intervening 24 hours a day in the deceased person's home in the absence of a GP) stated that they had at least once refused to establish a death certificate. Only 36.4% of SOS doctors, 62.5% of emergency physicians and 41% of GPs considered the drafting of a death certificate to be one of their mandatory missions. No less than 17% of GPs, 25% of SAMU doctors and 9% of SOS doctors stated that due to lack of time, they were occasionally unable to travel to fill out a death certificate, a factor causing delays that were detrimental, especially for the surviving relatives. We highlighted several other obstacles to the completion of death certificates: the difficulty of completing them accurately without knowledge of the deceased person's history, possible inability of professionals on tight schedules to deal with unforeseen requests and, more rarely, the issues raised by an absence of remuneration.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights major obstacles in the preparation of death certificates, obstacles that should be taken into consideration insofar as they affect the quality of the data collected, and entail ethical challenges.

Review of United States laws pertaining to the recovery and analysis of human skeletal remains

Human skeletal remains (HSR) are routinely excavated from archeological contexts and analyzed by experts in human osteology. Contrarily, HSR in medicolegal contexts are usually recovered by law enforcement officers and examined by pathologists with limited osteological training. To examine legal requirements for expertise, we reviewed laws in the United States regarding the recovery and analysis of HSR from archeological sites, unmarked graves, and medicolegal contexts. Of the 50 states, 19 (38%) have laws stating that an anthropologist with osteological training should be involved in the recovery or analysis of HSR from an archeological context. Fifteen of those 16 states have laws requiring a minimum level of education to be a qualified skeletal analyst. In contrast, only one state, Texas, requires an anthropologist who handles forensic cases to have a doctoral degree. Including Texas, only eight states (16%) have laws that encourage but do not mandate consultation with a forensic anthropologist for medicolegal skeletal cases. Louisiana and Washington have state-funded laboratories, expert forensic anthropologists, and effective protocols for handling forensic cases. Due process and human rights concerns at stake in criminal cases require that those recovering and analyzing modern HSR have an equal or higher level of expertise than those working with archeological remains. Yet, legislators assume that law enforcement and pathologists are adequately trained. Because court standards demand expert testimony based on accepted methodologies and standard levels of competency, forensic anthropologists have a professional responsibility to engage with lawmakers to draft legislation to ensure proper handling of all skeletal cases.