Download PDFPDF
How can we ensure that the coroner’s autopsy is not an invasion of human rights?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Response to Jones: “Never mind religion, how about desecration?”
    • Ryk James, Forensic Pathologist Cardiff University
    • Other Contributors:
      • Stephen Leadbeatter, Forensic Pathologist

    We are intrigued by, and sympathetic toward, Dr Jones’ argument; we had approached our argument from the existing case law rather than from the fundamental position that dissection without good reason is morally unacceptable. We can understand that that position is supported by the need for appropriate consent in circumstances outwith a coroner’s jurisdiction. We would agree that invasive dissection that serves no defined purpose cannot be consonant with autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Never mind religion, how about desecration?
    • Imogen Jones, Associate Professor in Law University of Leeds

    In their article considering the relationship between Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and coronial autopsies, Leadbeatter and James argue that recourse to invasive autopsy ought only to be made after an ‘issues based’ investigation establishes that this is necessary. This stands in stark contrast to current practice.

    Whilst Leadbeatter and James write to report their own research findings and discuss the decision in R (Rotsztein) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner London North, I was prompted to consider whether they were too restrained in their conclusions. My primary concern is that whilst redress to the ECHR may be legally and rhetorically attractive, it means that outcomes are dependent on the still living taking action. This may, or may not, promote the deceased person’s preferred course of action.

    Prior to addressing this point in more detail, however, a brief mention to the necessity of invasive autopsies where a death occurs in suspicious circumstances. Leadbeatter and James discuss this; I found their discussion of ‘injury’ (Box 2, Issue 4) particularly interesting. They give the example of road or train deaths, where their approach was to first review evidence from the scene, take toxicology samples and remove trace evidence. Another example might be where a person is shot in the head at close range, the events being caught on CCTV. These examples highlight that even in extreme circumstances evisceration of the body m...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.