Abstract
Seeing death versus beholding visions
The use of two terms for postmortem examination (autopsy, for humans; necropsy, for everyone else) has long intrigued me. Death is death. Seeking its cause postmortem requires the same observational skills, regardless of whether the subject is a human being or an Angus calf. So I should have been pleased to read Dr. Grant Maxie’s statement that only one term (autopsy) will now be accepted by JVDI. I wasn’t. Part of this is Irish Catholic limbic irritability. I grew up with papal encyclicals and censorship. Perhaps I should be over that by now.
Yet, on reflection, the decision seems inappropriate and disrespectful to JVDI’s readers, authors, and reviewers. Of the two words, necropsy is more precise. It is widely used in the veterinary profession. Although considered a minority view in human medicine, some physicians advocate necropsy, rather than autopsy, as the best term for postmortem examination of human cadavers. The original meaning of autopsy (αὐτοψία) was a contemplative state induced by fasting and drinking kykeon (a possible hallucinogen) as part of the Eleusinian mysteries because it led to divine visions. Hallucinations seem a long way from the objective examination we seek when performing a necropsy.
Dr. Maxie involves One Health as a rationale for censoring the word necropsy. Intelligent things can be said about the One Health concept. But in some part it reflects a longing by the veterinary profession to be as respected, well paid, and well-funded as physicians. That is not about to happen any time soon. Moreover, a professional inferiority complex is a poor rationale to censor a word in use for 170 years.
The editorial proposed that autopsy will be favored so that articles are more easily understood. I wonder how many English-speaking diagnosticians/laboratorians are stumped when encountering necropsy in a JVDI article. Dr. Maxie cites a supporting and witty editorial in Veterinary Pathology. Those authors argued in part that we avoid the term necropsy because it may connote necrophilia to grieving animal owners. I have yet to encounter such confusion in owners who submitted carcasses for examination during 38 years as a veterinary pathologist in Europe and North America. I would be surprised whether any veterinary pathologist has.
The English language is rich in synonyms. Autopsy and necropsy are equally meaningful and generally well understood. I can’t remember the last time I had to explain necropsy to a Wyoming client. On the rare occasion I had to, it involved a brief sentence.
Given that, I ask that the editorial board of JVDI not get into the business of word censorship and political correctness.