JRSM > Volume 95, Number 11 > Pp. 547-548

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Williams, A T Articles by Patel, N K Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Pathologists' views on consent for autopsy

A T Williams PhD MRCPath   D Morris MA  ¹   N K Patel MB MRCPath  

Department of Histopathology, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton BN2 5BE, UK
¹ Department of Clinical Audit, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton BN2 5BE, UK

Correspondence to: Dr N K Patel E-mail: Neera.patel{at}bsuh.nhs.uk

Consent to autopsy is usually obtained by a doctor other than the one who will perform the procedure. There is an argument that, for proper informed consent, a pathologist should participate. We ascertained the views of consultant pathologists in south-east England.

53 (87%) of 61 consultants responded, of whom 50 currently do autopsies. Only 2 at present participate directly in obtaining consent, and 10 of the remaining 48 expressed willingness to do so. The general view was that consent is best obtained by a senior clinician from the team that has looked after the patient.

Pathologists see their primary role as to provide guidance to clinicians. Few see it as their function to obtain consent for autopsy.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Khiani, S. Shingler, and P. Hasleton Consent for autopsy J R Soc Med, January 1, 2003; 96(1): 53 - 53. [Full Text] [PDF]