Blessing, Melissa M.

AbstractVisual identification is the most common identification method used by medical examiners but is not always possible. Alternative methods include X‐ray, fingerprint, or DNA comparison, but these methods require additional resources. Comparison of serial numbers on implanted medical devices is a rapid and definitive method of identification. To assess the practicality of using this method, we reviewed 608 consecutive forensic autopsies performed at a regional medical examiner office. Of these, 56 cases required an alternative method of identification due to decomposition (n = 35), gunshot wound (n = 9), blunt trauma (n = 6), or charring (n = 6). Of these 56 cases, eight (14.3%) were known to have an implanted medical device. Of these eight cases, five (63%) could be positively identified by comparing serial numbers. If an implanted medical device is known to be present, and medical records are available, identification by medical device serial number should be a first‐line method.

A complex set of systems exists in the United States to manage and regulate the practice of medicine, and forensic pathologists (FPs) are bound by the associated ethical guidelines and associated statutory obligations. Individual FPs, for example, are required to have and maintain a state medical license that requires continuing medical education and provides oversight of many aspects of the practice of medicine. The laboratories in which forensic pathology is practiced, however, generally do not have to be accredited. In contrast, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) is the recognized accrediting body that “regulates” the majority of anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine, including hospital (consented) autopsies. Unlike hospital-based pathology practices, few incentives are present that encourage or require forensic pathology practices to pursue accreditation. Since the preponderance of forensic pathology practices do not fall under the purview of CAP, this relatively small subset of pathologists are left to determine their own set of professional and ethical standards. The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) laboratory accreditation and published autopsy guidelines provides a foundation for development of a quality management program, but does not specifically address disclosure of test results. Defining “critical diagnoses” in forensic pathology is challenging, and communicating these important findings to the proper individual(s) or organizations may not fall under statutory or accrediting requirements, and thus may become an ethical issue for the medical examiner/coroner.

AbstractSuicide by shotgun is a common method of suicide with high regional variation. We sought to describe their distinct, challenging features and provide demographic and risk characteristics. We reviewed 228 gunshot wounds autopsied at Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2014; of these, 75 (32.9%) were shotgun wounds. All were suicides and contact range. Ages ranged from 14 to 92 years old; of these, 97% were men. The majority involved the head (70.9%), were intraoral (48.2%), and had upward (73.2%) and backward (73.2%) directionality. Next most common was the chest (21.5%), with backward (94.1%) and downward (64.7%) directionality. Four involved multiple wounds. Wadding was recovered in 16 (21.3%) cases. Six (8.0%) had a survival period. Most (66.7%) took place at home. Seventy‐one percent had a known psychiatric history; 32.4% had positive toxicology. Although contact range shotgun wounds cause severe destruction, entrance wound and other characteristic are identifiable with thorough scene, autopsy, and radiographic documentation.