BackgroundFollowing natural disasters, mismanagement of the dead has consequences for the psychological well-being of survivors. However, no technical guidelines currently exist for managing mass fatalities following large natural disasters. Existing methods of mass fatality management are not directly transferable as they are designed for transport accidents and acts of terrorism. Furthermore, no information is currently available about post-disaster management of the dead following previous large natural disasters.Methods and FindingsAfter the tsunami disaster on 26 December 2004, we conducted three descriptive case studies to systematically document how the dead were managed in Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. We considered the following parameters: body recovery and storage, identification, disposal of human remains, and health risks from dead bodies. We used participant observations as members of post-tsunami response teams, conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants, and collected information from published and unpublished documents.Refrigeration for preserving human remains was not available soon enough after the disaster, necessitating the use of other methods such as dry ice or temporary burial. No country had sufficient forensic capacity to identify thousands of victims. Rapid decomposition made visual identification almost impossible after 24–48 h. In Thailand, most forensic identification was made using dental and fingerprint data. Few victims were identified from DNA. Lack of national or local mass fatality plans further limited the quality and timeliness of response, a problem which was exacerbated by the absence of practical field guidelines or an international agency providing technical support.ConclusionsEmergency response should not add to the distress of affected communities by inappropriately disposing of the victims. The rights of survivors to see their dead treated with dignity and respect requires practical guidelines and technical support. Mass fatality management following natural disasters needs to be informed by further field research and supported by a network of regional and international forensic institutes and agencies.

Perera discusses how the tsunami highlighted gaps in the laws in Sri Lanka on death investigation and mass burials.

Even if predicted, disasters may not be completely averted due to reasons beyond human control. There is always likely to be a degree of loss, human as well as material. Therefore, the correct strategy is to limit the damage and minimize the harm. Such damage control exercises should be mindful about the psychological costs of the disaster. Identification of dead bodies and the missing, as well as providing a dignified burial, is a crucial part of the overall management of a disaster. It will alleviate the long-term psychological as well as legal consequences. Hence, a comprehensive forensic service including modern genetic capabilities is a must for disaster response. Development of a comprehensive and efficient psychosocial intervention at community level after a disaster should recognise the importance of dead body management as an integral part of it. The guiding principles of psychosocial interventions are: to be multi-sectoral and multi-level; to include immediate, mid-term and long-term interventions; to be socially and culturally sensitive; to recognize the functionality of existing social and healthcare systems; to adopt a public mental health approach; and to be informed by evidence-based planning and implementation proven to be locally effective.

This is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Panel 2.16, Forensic Aspects of Disaster Fatality Management of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related to forensic aspects that pertain to the responses to the deaths created by the Earthquake and Tsunami. It is presented in the following major sections: (1) overview of victim identification; (2) resource factors in mass-fatality management; (3) mass-fatality management in protecting public health; and (4) reasons to use deoyxribose nucleic acid (DNA) to identify the deceased.

No abstract