I’ve wondered for a while why authorities conduct autopsies when the cause of death is blindingly obvious – a car crash, suicide, or even a 60-year-old fat man having a heart attack.
For example, here’s a news bit about some MTV person this morning: “Sarpong died after jumping off a bridge in Pasadena, Calif., according to E! News. The Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner has ruled his death a suicide, with an autopsy pending.”
He jumped off a bridge. He died. Pretty simple. Why would the authorities care (or even be entitled to know) if he also had some disease, or his arteries were clogged, or whatever else you would find in an autopsy?
Autopsies involve a pretty brutal assault on the body, and I wouldn’t want that if my loved one died and no one was wondering how it happened.
Did he have some medical issues that caused the car crash? Stroke, heart attack? Was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Was he drunk? Had he been attacked and trying to get to help?
It may be blindingly obvious to the casual observer, but it is still important to understand why someone crashed their car, for example. Was it simply a driving error? Was the driver intoxicated? Did the driver have a heart attack or stroke that caused the accident? Was it a suicide? Did the driver fall asleep? Granted I don’t think you can tell in an autopsy whether someone was asleep or awake when the crash occurred, but in general you want to know what caused the accident, not just that it happened. And if there are innocent victims involved as a result of the crash their families may want to know why it happened too. Wouldn’t you?
Do they always? When my father died this year there was no autopsy. He died, the doctor declared he was dead, and the funeral home came right to the hospital and collected him. He was cremated that same day.
Watch Quincy, Perry Mason, Columbo, NCIS, CSI, or any of the other detective shows and you’ll see that the obvious cause of death was set up by a murderer to cover up the actual cause of death.
I knew a woman who crashed her car into a tree. They did an autopsy, and found that she had had a sudden brain aneurism while driving, and was probably already dead when the car hit the tree.
Well they don’t always. My 74 yo dad had a history of heart trouble, and was found dead in bed. Apparently the rules were that there was supposed to be an autopsy, but they didn’t bother.
I don’t know if it is done, but beyond determinination of the cause of death, autopsies can contribute statistical information that improves health care, or actuarial tables, etc. Alzheimer’s is pretty hard to definitively diagnose in a living patient, but is obvious when the brain is physically examined…just as one example, and maybe that’s why they left the stove on and suffocated on the smoke.
I can see why her family might want to know that and arrange for an autopsy. (Although I still wonder why you would suspect that, rather than just accepting that she had an accident.)
But why would the authorities care? What is accomplished by knowing that she had an aneurysm? One more data point to put in a public health database?
I don’t mean to argue here. It just seems to me that routine autopsies wouldn’t produce meaningful information enough to justify them. But I suppose the answer to my question is that the authorities think they do and don’t want to something to slip by because they didn’t investigate.
Many autopsies don’t reveal meaningful information but it is the job of the state to determine the cause of death in case it’s a crime or a public health concern. They aren’t looking at many cases where a doctor provides a cause of death, but otherwise the cause of death is not really obvious in many cases. There is a difference between an ‘apparent’ cause of death and the determination that results from an autopsy.
Similar with my father, no autopsy. He had a history of heart problems. No one really needed to know exactly why he died that particular day. But, as others have said, there is often a reason to know, even when the cause of death seems obvious.
Sounds much the same as over here. If a person dies at home of what looks like a heart attack, and the doctor who attends has been treating him for a serious heart condition, there would not be an autopsy unless some concerned relative demanded one.
Any sudden, unexplained death requires an autopsy and an inquest where the ‘official’ cause of death will be determined. When car driver is in a fatal accident the authorities (and the insurance companies) want to know the cause - Drink, drugs, suicide, mechanical failure, simple error of judgement? The verdict will affect any following court case and insurance claim.
I don’t see why they need to close the road for eight or more hours though.
Suppose you find a body in a park that’s been shot in the chest. Based on the apparent evidence, it would be obvious the cause of death was the gunshot and the police would follow that line of investigation.
But an autopsy might reveal that the victim had been poisoned and was already dead when his body was shot and dumped in the park. This would lead to an entirely different line of investigation.
You have to make sure that what appears to be true is actually true.
In many cultures, including most modern ones, “The Authorities”, i.e., the State, are notoriously obsessed busybodies who think they need to know every last detail about everyone and everything, to be compiled into endless statistical databases, and used to formulate public policies and laws to ultra-micro-manage everything imaginable. This style of government is called “statist” (emphasizing the role of the State in everything). The very word “statistics” comes from that.
They don’t always do an autopsy. But as people have pointed out, influence of drugs, sudden seizures, etc., can affect authorities’ understanding of why somebody died.
This is pretty much it. In the case of a car accident, if they determine you had a medical incident preceding the crash, it’s pretty much case closed. However, if you were otherwise healthy, not on any intoxicants, not depressed, not using cell phone, & appeared to have a good night’s sleep, then they’d look toward mechanical failure.
How long did it take to realize there was an ignition issue with GM cars, not to bury the issue, but to realize that’s what it was. One crash, two, ten with otherwise unexplained causes?
I haven’t seen 8 hours, but they do a thorough job in case it’s needed for later on, while the debris is still in it’s original position, while skid marks are still fresh (& possibly in something malleable, like dirt on the side of the road).