EXHUMED BODY

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 208, 30 May 1936, Page 13

EXHUMED BODY

Burial Before Issue Of Death Certificate ‘GRAVELY IRREGULAR’ Coroner Criticises Medical Practice By Telegraph—Press Association. Dunedin, May 29. Outspoken comment on several aspects of the ease were made by the coroner, Mr. Bartholomew. S.M., at the conclusion to-day of an inquest into the circumstances of the deaih of Mora May Mackenzie, aged 29, whose body was exhumed at Anderson's Bay Cemetery on April 24. The coroner found that the actual cause of death (peritonitis) arose from criminal abortion. A large part of the evidence of Dr. » A. S. Moody was taken up with an outline of his responsibilities in the ease, and he also detailed the custom of members of the British Medical Association in such circumstances. The coroner subsequently gave his views on the propriety of medical practice, and criticised a statement issued by the Director-General of Health, which he described as “most unfortunate and mischievous in effect.” He also condemned the burial of deceased before a death certificate had been issued and criticised the action of the public hospital authorities in not placing deceased on the dangerous y o seriously ill list while she was in the institution. ~ With regard to the burial which took place on April 13, a death certificate was not issued until April 14, the coroner said. It was stated that this was the usual practice. Death Certificate. “It is not only gravely irregular but also a breach of statute law. An undertaker cannot conduct a burial without the possession of a certificate, but a much more serious matter concerns the issue of a death certificate in cases such as the present,” said the coroner. ‘•Dr. Moody stated that he was acting under a direction of the British Medical Association and also in pursuance of a ruling of the Director-General of Health for the guidance of the medical profession issued on October 29, 1932. This ruling is in direct conllict with that of the Royal College of Physicians, to which I will make reference later. I must characterise the ruling of the Director-General as, to say the least, most unfortunate and mischievous in effect, as is evidenced by the present case. The Director-General states: ‘The department’ is advised that a doctor is under no legal obligation to inform the police as to the cause of death of a person whicii has been due to an illegal operation.’ No doubt there is no express provision of the law to that effect, nor is there in any case of homicide, accident or sudden death. The Director-General proceeds: ‘ln that ease he should insert the nature of the operation as the primary cause of death. He need not of course describe it as an illegal operation.’ Doctor's Duty. “This invites a cloak to be cast over a serious criminal offence, one in respect of which a charge of murder may lie,” said the coroner. “It is no part of a doctor’s duty to act as a detective, but it is equally certain that it is no part of his duty to act as a screen for the professional abortionist. In my opinion it is altogether wrong and irregular for a death certificate to be given in such case. The only course in which a doctor is justified in giving a certificate is where death is wholly due to natural causes. In all other cases and where there are any suspicious circumstances it is his duty to notify a coroner or the police. This is also the practice in England and Scotland as set out in Sydney Smith’s ‘Forensic Medicine.’ The question of a doctor’s duty in eases of criminal abortion was also considered by the Royal College of Physicians in England in 191 G. The following observations were made by the late Mr. Justice Avory while charging a grand jury: ‘The college went exhaustively into the matter, and after seeking counsel’s opinion formulated notes for the guidance of medical practitioners in such cases. The whole position is set out in Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence.” This states that in al case of criminal abortion a medical practitioner should urge the patient, especially in cases where she might die, to make a statement that might be used if a charge were made, and that if a patient should die he should refuse to give a certificate, and should communicate with the authorities.' ” It would be seen how materially these directions differed from those of the Director-General if Health, said the coroner. If the medical practitioners of New Zealand governed themselves by a ruling of the Director-Gene-ral in preference to that'of the Royal College of Physicians, and he was informed that certificates had been issued in similar cases, a situation of such gravity was disclosed as to call for corrective legislation, and it was his duty ‘to report the matter to the Minister of Justice.