Abstract
For a moment, we thought Dr de Lahunta 2 would remain complimentary of our article that questioned the use of the words autopsy vs necropsy. 3 His point is well made—if we are going to suggest nomenclature preferences, we should be accurate with our use of nomenclature. The crus or leg is, as he states, there are no 4-legged animals. We hope we have it correct this time. It has been 42 years since Dr “d” said to one of us (D.J.M.) in a barn at Cornell, “Hello, my name is Sandy de Lahunta; come look at this goat and let’s see if we can figure out where his neurologic deficit is.” Don had no idea he was about to be grilled by a legend, and the legend is still grilling. Dr Russ Cattley 1 also reminded us of an important reference: Autopsy of the Horse, by James Rooney. 4 Russ is absolutely correct we should have cited this excellent book and/or just followed Dr Rooney’s lead from 40 years ago. Fortunately, Dr Rooney agreed with the preference of the word autopsy and apparently felt the distinction from necropsy quite pedantic. We are enjoying the exchanges we have stimulated, and if we are correct and using the term autopsy results in more animals being autopsied, then can we support the recommendation? The autopsy remains the quality control standard for human and veterinary hospitals, yet the percentage of cases being submitted for an autopsy appears to be on the decline. Medicine, pathology, and all our specialties are dependent on follow-up data to assess diseases, diagnoses, and treatments, medical and surgical. For oncology, there is no more certain way to assess disease-free intervals, recurrence, and metastases than an autopsy. Extracting data from clinical assessment, palpation of excision lines, palpation of regional lymph nodes, and imaging body cavities are good, but they are not as definitive as the results of an autopsy. However, the number of studies that use an autopsy and histopathology to report accurate clinical outcome data is minuscule. It is essential to conclude these expensive and lengthy studies with an autopsy and histopathology. If the word autopsy is more acceptable to pet owners than necropsy, then we hope all clinicians will use this term, written and verbally, as they explain how further examination of their pet is essential to help other pets and researchers. No one better knows the value of correlating clinical signs with postmortem lesions than Dr de Lahunta. He made a distinguished career and raised neuropathology to new standards by integrating neurology and pathology (via autopsies). Thank you.