![]() ![]() In the early 2000s, the pediatric organ retention scandal in Britain brought world-wide attention to the matter. In 2001, Japan instituted a law, the Ethics Guidelines for Human Genome/Genetic Analysis Research, which provided some oversight of the use of forensic autopsy material ( 5). Perceived questionable autopsy practices, including the retention of brains, was the subject of a government inquiry that resulted in numerous regulations in Australia in the 1990s ( 4). ![]() In 1997, autopsy pathologists in North America expressed varied opinions concerning the ethical acceptability of using autopsy tissues for research and education ( 3). Although DNA analysis on collected tissues offers major opportunities for understanding sudden death in the young, DNA sample collection also has particular ethical requirements ( 2). More explicit disclosure is necessary when the anticipated research might have diagnostic significance to living family members ( 2). However, legal precedent in American law indicates that it is advisable to secure extended consent if specimens are to be retained for dedicated research purposes ( 1). For many decades, the standard autopsy consent form typically stated that it is customary practice to remove and retain some organs, tissues, and other parts as appropriate for diagnostic, research, or teaching purposes. Hospital autopsies were traditionally requested by physicians to understand the death of a patient under their care. Investigations of (possible) homicide will typically take priority over family objections. Medicolegal autopsies usually allow for the retention of specimens, including whole organs, when necessary for pathological study. If these conditions are not met, consent by the next of kin is mandatory ( 1). Legal jurisdictions in most Western countries have legislation that allows a coroner or medical examiner to mandate an autopsy without consent by the next of kin in certain situations (e.g., suspected foul play, unexpected death, or when the cause of death is not clear). More explicit disclosure is necessary when the anticipated research might have diagnostic significance to living family members (2). However, legal precedent in American law indicates that it is advisable to secure extended consent if specimens are to be retained for dedicated research purposes (1). Hospital autopsies were traditionally requested by physicians to understand the death of apatient under their care. If these conditions are not met, consent by the next of kin is mandatory (1). Legal jurisdictions in most Western countries have legislation that allows acoroner or medical examiner to mandate an autopsy without consent by the next of kin in certain situations (e.g., suspected foul play, unexpected death, or when the cause of death is not clear). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |