No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Summary The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a high case fatality rate in some countries even thought the majority of cases are asymptomatic. Scientific studies on this novel virus is limited and there is uncertainty regarding the best practices for death investigations both in terms of detection of the disease as well as autopsy safety. An online survey was conducted to identify how different institutions responded to the screening and management of dead bodies during the early phase of the pandemic from January to May. A questionnaire was developed using Google Forms and data was collected from 14 different forensic and pathological institutions in 9 countries. None of the institutions had performed any screening prior to March. Four institutions stated that screening was done routinely. In total, 322 cases had been screened using RT-PCR, out of which 40 positive cases were detected among four institutions. The commonest types of samples obtained were nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs which also had the highest rates of positivity followed by tracheal swab. Blood, swabs from cut surfaces of lung and lung tissue also gave positive results in some cases. Majority of the positive cases were > 65 years with a history suggestive of respiratory infection and were clinically suspected to have COVID-19 before death. Except for one institution which performed limited dissections, standard autopsies were conducted on all positive cases. Disposal of bodies involved the use of sealed body bags and labelling as COVID positive. Funeral rites were restricted and none of the institutions advocated cremation. There were no reports of disease transmission to those who handled COVID positive bodies.

When an average medical student or a postgraduate student is questioned as to why a medical officer must request an inquest for certain type of death, for example, a sudden death, the most likely answer is that 'a sudden death is included in section 370 of the CPC among the deaths for which an inquest should be held and therefore an inquest must be ordered". However, the above most common answer is not factually accurate from the medical officer's point of view. Section 370(1) of the CPC is essentially meant for inquirers and not to be regarded as instructions given for medical officers pertaining to deaths for which an inquest should be requested. Death investigation system of Sri Lanka does not place a medical officer in a special position as an informant. A medical officer carries the same responsibility as an ordinary person. The responsibility of an ordinary person regarding certain types of death is stipulated in section 21 (b) of the CPC. This fact may be of crucial importance in a case where a medical officer's decision to request or not to request an inquest for a certain type of death is questioned. However, there is no punitive action described for noncompliance of section 21(b) in CPC.