Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 February 13

= February 13 =

Why do pathologist always dissect bodies after death?
If I'm not mistaken pathologist (especially in eastern Europe - "pathoanatomist") in each case of death they dissect the body in order to determinate the reason of the death. Now my question is why is it important to know what is the reason of the death? It is important to know about the disease when the patient is still alive (unless if it is a forensic issue that I can understand the seeking of the reason after death. but I'm talking about the rest of the cases where people died in hospitals or at home and then they should have pathologist dissection.) and I'd like to know if it's common in the other countries in Europe or other continentals. For example, I've been told that in Israel it doesn't exist except in forensic cases. 185.191.178.183 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There is some information at Autopsy, slight caution, there are a few slightly gory images. Richard Avery (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec)Autopsies are by no means a given. My Christian relatives who died of old age didn't have autopsies. Jewish law generally opposes autopsies unless secular law requires it. For example, if a death seems suspicious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Only some bodies get dissected. In many countries this cant be done unless the relatives allow or the deceased declared to agree to it befor. In many dissections the deceased are even infact mainly used to train pathology students and doctors. On my last hospital visit for example i was asked if i would allow a dissection in case i would die during or after the operation and since i was always a supporter of science and education i agreed and then i had so sign a special declaration. Since most people dont like the idea of being taken apart after death at all i highly doubt as many deceased gets dissected as you imply. --Kharon (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nowadays autopsies are replaced more and more by a total body cat-scan. Cheaper, more convenient and more accurate for diagnostics. AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I find this questionable without a citation. I mean sure they are obviously getting more common but I think they're still rare enough that it's misleading to say 'Nowadays autopsies are replaced more and more'. Digital autopsy says with a 2010 source that the legal acceptance of them still limited. 2010 is not a long time in the medico-legal-political arena, it generally takes quite a long time for investigators and prosecutors to be confident that doing a digital autopsy isn't going to cause problems if a criminal case is required. Especially I suspect in common law countries. They could be used for preliminary purposes to decide whether a traditional autopsy should be carried out if it's felt there could be legal consequences, but that doesn't quite mesh with what you said and also I'm not seeing much evidence this is happening in many places. This 2017 news report [//www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/25/digital-autopsies-should-be-standard-for-probable-natural-deaths-says-study] from the UK suggests digital autopsies are still rare there and have not even come close to replacing the traditional autopsy in usage. This guidance from 2013 and updated I think in 2016 also seems to imply a similar thing [//www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-1-use-of-port-mortem-imaging.pdf]. To be clear I'm not debating or interested in the capabilities of a digital autopsy simply whether they are actually used in the manner you suggest.  Incidentally, that news source suggests 90k autopsies are carried out in England and Wales a year. This source mentions 525k deaths there in 2016 [//www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths]. This should give an idea of what percentage of deaths use autopsies. (I see now that our article linked above also has figures.)  Edit: I didn't really distinguish between a medico-legal and clinical autopsy in this answer. The concerns I mentioned are much less of a problem for a clinical autopsy. However my point about I'm 'not seeing any evidence' still applies and there are still reasons why the officials involved tend to be conservative in their approach.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The WHO European region has data for the autopsy rate for all deaths for a number of countries [//gateway.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa_545-6410-autopsy-rate-for-all-deaths/]. The rate for what may be called Eastern Europe does seem higher than the average, however in all cases except for Armenia the rate is still under 50% [//gateway.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa_545-6410-autopsy-rate-for-all-deaths/] [//gateway.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa_545-6410-autopsy-rate-for-all-deaths/visualizations/#id=19640&tab=table] i.e. it wouldn't even be accurate to say most deaths result in an autopsy. The data is somewhat incomplete, e.g. the latest data for Russia is from 2001. Armenia is a interesting case since the rate has grown from ~25% in 2004 to nearly 75% although it still wouldn't be correct to say they are always performed. By comparison the rate in quite a number of other countries has been declining since the 1980s. This is also mentioned in the article linked above. These sources also support such a decline from the 1970s for the Netherlands [//journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178200] and the US [//www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db67.htm]. This source from Ireland [//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2449188/] suggests a decline 'worldwide' and specifically studied the rate in one Belfast hospital. This source likewise mentions and partially anlyses a decline in hospital rates in the UK, and mentions a worldwide decline . This source studies the decline in Australia, and also mentions (with sources of course) the countries I already mentioned and France.  Note that many of these are looking at the hospital autopsy rate, but if you read the source for the Netherlands, it mentions how the forensic autopsy rate may not have changed but the decline in hospital autopsies combined with the fewer people dying in hospitals means there has been a significant overall decline. BTW the same WHO source also has data for the hospital rate [//gateway.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa_544-6400-autopsy-rate-for-hospital-deaths/].  Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Clearly, the short answer to the OP's question is They don't. The OP needs to heed this old axiom: "Always remember to never say 'always' or 'never'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Because vivisection is a cause of death? μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, or simply because otherwise they fight back 194.174.76.21 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin