|
Abstract
|
INTRODUCTION: In France, pathological examination is not systematically required in forensic autopsies. The factors affecting the decision to carry out a pathological expertise have not yet been defined. The aim of this study was to describe in which conditions a pathological expertise was required after forensic autopsy by the high court of Montpellier.
METHODS: This study included and analyzed retrospectively all of the autopsy elements, of all forensic autopsies carried out over a year. These elements were classified: pre-autopsy, per-autopsy, and post-autopsy.
RESULTS: A pathological expertise was required in 19.2% of 630 cases, among which 31% in a context of undetermined cause of death and in 14% of cases of determined causes of death. The forensic practitioner recommended a pathological expertise in 10 to 31% of autopsies. Overall, 64 pathological examinations were realized out of 121 recommended examinations (52.9%), this rate varied from 25 to 73% depending on the court. The magistrate tended to favor anatomopathological expertise in cases of determined causes of death, and in certain manner of death (80% homicide versus 35% natural). The pathologist's expertise enabled to change the cause of death in 22% of cases and the manner of death in 19%. The pathological approach was a major asset in the 65% of unknown manner of deaths and in the 20% of natural, whereas the expertise did not help in cases of homicides, suicides and accidents. The cause of death was modified in 5.6% of initially determined causes of death, against 42.9% in case of initially unknown cause.
CONCLUSION: The use of pathologic examination in forensic autopsies is scarce and uneven. The factors resulting to its request are not directly linked to its scientific assets. A conjoint work between forensic and pathologist practitioners would be beneficial.
Language: fr |