In the Columbo episode “Death Lends A Hand,” Columbo learns that a murder victim had worn contact lenses, but the lenses were not included with the personal effects. Columbo gets permission to exhume the body and discovers that the victim was still wearing them. How plausible is it for a medical examiner (I’m talking specifically about the Los Angeles coroner’s office, but this could apply to any large metropolitan area) to not remove a person’s contact lenses during an autopsy? I realize Columbo is fiction, but it doesn’t seem plausible that the M.E. would neglect to observe contact lenses and remove them from a body.
According to this source it states that your should “Save contact lenses”. That says to me that they should be removed as part of a forensic pathology investigation. That someone might inadvertently forget this step doesn’t sound that unrealistic to me.
Even Quincy would have been more thorough.
“Look, Sam, she’s wearing contacts. Get a container and get them over to the lab, would you?”
I buy the screenwriters taking liberties for the sake of having Columbo expose the murderer before I would buy the Los Angeles medical examiner overlooking contact lenses in a forensic autopsy. Especially when the cause of death was suspected to be head trauma as in this episode.
Some of the Early Columbo episodes were long enough ago that procedures might have been different.
I don’t buy that. This episode aired in 1971, which wasn’t all that long ago. Forensic pathology was first recognized in the U.S. in 1959. The technology may have advanced, such as the ability to test DNA, but the procedures aren’t fundamentally different.
I still believe the writers were relying on the general public being unfamiliar with forensic medicine. “Quincy M.E.” came on the air in 1976, just five years later. And today we have dozens of reality shows such as “Forensic Files” and “Dr. G: Medical Examiner.”
Nowadays, the CSI crew would just run a computer scan and using the “zoom and enhance” feature, they’d be able to get a picture of the murderer off the lenses.
I’ve embalmed plenty of bodies that came from the LA Coroner, and they’ve missed things much bigger than contact lenses, believe me.
It should be part of a complete external examination for a pathologist (forensic or otherwise) to note the presence of contact lenses.
Except for Columbo-world, I doubt their presence/absence has figured in solving many homicides. Whether or not forensic pathologists routinely save every single prosthetic-type device in/on a body, I don’t know. I don’t recall that from my own forensic path experience in residency.
Just to make a point of reference. 1971 was 44 years ago. 1971 was 12 years after 1959. IMO, 1971 was actually a long time ago.
Furthermore, it’s probably pretty likely that a TV show would be taking liberties with a field that was still that new, that they didn’t really know that much about.
OTOH, it may have just been to make a point or to make for good TV. They could do the same scene now and I doubt most people would wonder why they didn’t just take their contacts out when they did the autopsy to begin with.
Maybe it should be, but is it? Is it, in fact, the best and widely-practiced American autopsy protocol today for the doctor/pathologist/coroner/whoever to check the eyeballs of a corpse to see if there are contact lenses there? Before I read this thread, I wouldn’t have thought so.
Side question - are contacts likely to maintain their shape on the eye as they dry out?
In 1971, these would have been hard contact lenses. So, yes.
Rigid gas permeable (“hard lenses”) won’t change shape, but soft ones just may do so.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Is it, in fact, the best and widely-practiced American autopsy protocol today for the doctor/pathologist/coroner/whoever to check the eyeballs of a corpse to see if there are contact lenses there?
[/QUOTE]
It’s standard practice in an autopsy to look at the eyes.
Not because they’re windows into the soul, but (in addition to noticing if there are foreign objects in there) to look for things like jaundiced sclerae, differences in pupillary size (could reflect brain injury) and suchlike.
Moreover, if you’re examining the eyes and the pupils react to light and accommodation, it might be a good idea to delay the autopsy until the person is actually dead.*
*I may have mentioned this elsewhere, but I’ve been tempted to include such a mention of reactive pupils in the general descriptive section of an autopsy report to see if anyone is paying attention.
Wouldn’t do much good. They’ll already know by your reputation that you’re very thorough.
So even if the patient was delivered to you alive, your readers could be sure the patient wouldn’t be by the time you concluded your autopsy & path report process! All’s well that ends well and all that. The rest is just details. 
Side thank you - thank you. 
Maybe it wasn’t forensic pathology that was relatively new and unfamiliar in 1971 but contact lenses? A medical examiner wouldn’t necessarily have been routinely looking for contacts when few people had them. Although if there was anywhere one would expect them in 1971, Los Angeles would be it. 
As I recall, Columbo had more than one plot with tech just beyond the average-Joe consumer, including rich murderers fabricating alibis using video recorders or answering machines to appear to be elsewhere than the murder scene at the relevant time. Contact lenses would fit well with that, showing that Lt. Columbo is up-to-date despite appearances. 
I dunno. The first time I tried contact lenses was 1974. That was in West Texas. I don’t know exactly when contacts became widely used, but they were widely used in 1974, and that was not long after 1971.
QFT. In addition, every ME office autopsy I’ve ever been part of (not so many - 30-some odd) has included sampling of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball for chemistries - would be hard to miss a contact lens poking a needle in there.
OK, thanks - ignorance fought!