There appears to be confusion in the mind of some
practitioners about who makes the final diagnosis.
Too often the client is informed that ;the lab; could
not make a diagnosis, so sorry, I cannot help you. Fact
of the matter is that the responsibility for making the
final diagnosis is that of the referring veterinarian. If
you do not want to accept this responsibility, do not
do the necropsy.
A diagnosis depends on confirming observations and it
is not just a “laboratory result”. Laboratories provide
results that, with all other information, should be
synthesized to make a final, evidence-based diagnosis.
The veterinarian investigating the death/disease/
event is responsible for making the final diagnosis;
he/she cannot shift the responsibility. The conduct of
the veterinarian should be such that the diagnosis is
correct, and that it reflects professionalism. Always
keep in mind that any one of these cases may end up
in a court of law.
The Frye and Daubert standards are examples of
the way in which courts judge the correctness of
diagnoses and the quality of the work done to make
the diagnosis. A court applying the Frye standard,
must determine whether experts in the particular field
in which it belongs, generally accepted the method
by which that evidence was obtained. The Daubert
Standard is more specific and an assessment must be
made:
1.
2.
Of whether an expert’s scientific testimony
is based on reasoning or methodology that is
scientifically valid, and
Can properly be applied to the facts at issue.
Additionally it will take into consideration:
a. Whether the theory or technique in
question can be, and has been tested,
b. Whether it has been subjected to peer
review and publication,
c. Its known or potential error rate – how
accurate is the test?
d. The existence and maintenance of
standards controlling its operation, and
e. Whether it has attracted widespread
acceptance within a relevant scientific
community
Within this context, it is clear that an intuitive, snap
diagnosis will not pass the test.
Practicing veterinarians should pay particular
attention to the matters raised in a publication dealing
with forensic autopsies, and the common mistakes
made by experienced pathologists (AR Moritz, 1981).
Several unique features of the mistakes are peculiar
to the performance of medico-legal autopsies: One is
the frequency with which mistakes are made by good
pathologists, and the other, the frequency with which
a seemingly trivial error turns out to have disastrous
consequences.
There is no difference in interpreting and applying
the legal requirements for conducting post-mortal
examinations be they humans or animals. Because
we deal with animals, we are not exempted from the
legal requirements applying to humans and human
pathologists.
The following are the most common errors made in
doing necropsies for legal purposes
1.
Not being aware of the objectives of a medicolegal necropsy
General practitioners are generally unaware of
the requirements pertaining to legal necropsies.
In these cases, information that is usually not
provided in routine diagnostic necropsies is
required. The information required includes
attention to:
a. Identification of the animal leaving no doubt
about the animal’s identity.
b. The time of death. Keeping in mind that this
is often very difficult to determine in animals
given the variation in size, body cover,
and type of intestinal tract. Using forensic
entomology may be of help, but a qualified
person should make this type of assessment.
Veterinarians are not trained to do this
assessment.
c. Circumstances under which death occurred.
This implies a full history and assessment of
the circumstances that led to the death of
the animal.
d. Predisposing factors to the death of
2016
MAY
11