Legal Frameworks: A Starting Point for Strengthening Medicolegal Death Investigation Systems and Improving Cause and Manner of Death Statistics in Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online June, 2021
Legal Frameworks: A Starting Point for Strengthening Medicolegal Death Investigation Systems and Improving Cause and Manner of Death Statistics in Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems
Medicolegal death investigation systems, which generally fall within one of three types—medical examiner, coroner, or law-enforcement-led systems—investigate deaths that are unnatural or suspicious. The current quality of cause of death statistics on deaths investigated within medicolegal death investigation systems globally limits effective public health response. A starting point to strengthening global medicolegal death investigation systems and improving the quality of cause and manner of death reported to civil registration systems is through a strong legal framework. Two resources, the United Nations Statistics Division Guidelines on the Legislative Framework for Civil Registration, Vital Statistics and Identity Management and the Global Health Advocacy Incubator Legal and Regulatory Toolkit for Civil Registration, Vital Statistics and Identity Management, present recommendations and provide guidance to country stakeholders in reviewing and revising their medicolegal death investigation legal frameworks. Physician determination of cause and manner of death, defined criteria for case referral to the medicolegal death investigation system, an amendment process, and investigation collaboration are four core considerations for medicolegal death investigation system legal frameworks. A strong medicolegal death investigation legal framework is a necessary starting point, but it is not sufficient for ensuring the timely, accurate, and complete reporting of cause and manner of death in national vital statistics.
United Nations Legal Identity Expert Group. Implementation of the United Nations Legal Identity Agenda: United Nations Country Team Operational Guidelines [Internet]. United Nations Legal Identity Expert Group; 2020:67. Accessed June 24, 2021. https://unstats.un.org/legal-identity-agenda/documents/UNCT_Guidelines.pdf
3.
MahapatraPShibuyaKLopezA, et al.Civil registration systems and vital statistics: successes and missed opportunities. Lancet; 2007. DOI:10.1016/S0140- 6736(07)61308-7. Accessed June 24, 2021.
4.
van de WalleE. Historical Development of Civil Registration Systems: A European Perspective. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2018:15. Technical Paper No.2018/1.
Tilhet-CoartetSHattonFLopezC, et al.Importance des donnees medico-legales pour la statistique nationale des causes de deces. Presse Medicale. 2000;29(4):181–185.
8.
GurarajG. Injury prevention and care: an important public health agenda for health, survival and safety of children. Indian J Pediatr. 2013;80(1):S100–S108.
9.
FrancaECamposDGuimaresMDSouzaMF. Use of verbal autopsy in a national health information system: effects of the investigation of ill-defined causes of death on proportional mortality due to injury in small municipalities in Brazil. Popul Health Metr. 2011;9(1):39.
10.
OtienoGMarindaEBarnighausenTTanserF. High rates of homicide in a rural South African population (2000-2008): findings from a population-based cohort study. Popul Health Metr. 2015;13(1):20.
11.
GBD 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016; a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1151–1210.
12.
IaychKKhayesiM. Bold actions needed to improve civil registration data for road traffic deaths. Int J Contr Saf Promot. 2020;27(2):168–171.
13.
SerraAPRamirezAFMagarolasRG, et al.Deaths with medicolegal intervention and its impact on the cause-of-death statistics in Catalonia, Spain. Rev Esp Med Legal. 2017;43(1):13–19.
14.
BhallaKHarrisonJEShahrazSFingerhutLA; Global Burden of Disease Injury Expert Group. Availability and quality of cause-of-death data for estimating the global burden of injuries. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:831–838C.
15.
HanzlickR. The conversion of coroner systems to medical examiner systems in the United States: a lull in the action. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2007;28:279–283.
16.
MavroforouAMichalodimitrakisE. Forensic pathology on the threshold of the 21st century and the need for harmonization of current practice and training: The Greek concept. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2002;23(1):19–25.
17.
LucioP. Actualidad de la practica institucional forense en America central y panama. una opinion. Cuad Med Forense. 2012;18(2):49–53.
18.
Di VellaGCampobassoCP. Death investigation and certification in Italy. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2015;5(3):454–461.
19.
HanzlickR. A synoptic review of the 1954 model postmortem examination Act. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2014;4(4):451–454.
World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, vol 2, Fifth Edition [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2016:841. Accessed June 24, 2021.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Professional Training Series No.8/Rev.1. 2004:76.
29.
MelinekJThomasLCOliverW, et al.National Association of the Medical Examiners Ad Hoc Committee on Medical Examiner Independence. National association of medical examiners position paper: medical examiner, coroner, and forensic pathologist independence. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2013;3(1):93–98.
30.
ChangSSterneJACLuRGunnellD. Hidden suicides amongst deaths certified as undetermined intent, accident by pesticide poisoning and accident by suffocation in Taiwan. Soc Psychiat Epidemiol. 2010;45(2):143–152.
31.
WalkerS. Capturing health information—a coding perspective. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(3):254–255.
32.
LinCWangLLuT. Changes in drowning mortality rates and quality of reporting from 2004-2005 to 2014-2015: a comparative study of 61 countries. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1391.
33.
BrinkmannB. Harmonisation of medico-legal autopsy rules. Int J Legal Med. 1999;113:1–14.
34.
BimenyaGSBhootraBLMukasaN. Forensic medicine services in Uganda—present and future. J Clin Forensic Med. 2005;12(2):81–84.
35.
CharlesARansonDBohenskyMIbrahimJE. Under-reporting of deaths to the coroner by doctors: a retrospective review of deaths in two hospitals in Melbourne. Australia Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(4):232–236.
36.
SaaymanG.South Africa: vulnerable persons and groups in a vulnerable democracy—can forensic medical services help to ensure justice in critical times? 2017;7(3):434–443.
37.
Ylijoki-SorensenSBoldsenJLLaluK, et al.Cost-consequence analysis of cause of death investigation in Finland and in Denmark. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;245:133–142.
38.
Ylijoki-SorensenSBoldsenJLBoelLWT, et al.Autopsy rate in suicide is low among elderly in Denmark compared with Finland. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;244:158–165.
39.
NashelskyMLawrenceC. Accuracy of cause of death determination without forensic autopsy examination. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003;24(4):313–319.
40.
GeorgeAAMolinaDK. The frequency of truly unknown/undetermined deaths: a review of 452 cases over a 5-year period. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2015;36(4):298–300.
41.
LuTShawKHsuP, et al.Non-referral of unnatural deaths to coroners and non-reporting of unnatural deaths on death certificates in Taiwan: implications of using mortality data to monitor quality and safety in healthcare. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(3):200–205.
42.
StartRDDelargy-AzizYDorriesCP, et al.Clinicans and the coronial system: ability of clinicians to recognize reportable deaths. BMJ. 1993;306(6884):1038–1041.
