The BBC has today run an article concerning research into vCJD. Another journalist at the BBC has contacted me asking, "Could you get me in touch with a coroner from any area to comment on the new rule that all coroners how have to check for CJD?" Given misunderstanding amongst journalists in the same organisation I have decided to clarify the position.
The Coroners' Society is not against research and has not been obstructive. Further coroners are not being required to investigate sub-clinical conditions about vCJD or anthing else.
About 47% of all deaths that occur in England and Wales each year are referred to the Coroner. The remainder are certified by doctors without any reference to the Coroner at all. Of the cases that the Coroners do deal with, about 46% are subject to post mortem examination. www.justice.gov.uk/publications/coronersannual.htm
The powers and duties of Coroners are governed by the Coroners Act 1988 and statutory instruments made there under. Where, for example, there is reason to suspect that a person might well have died of new variant CJD; the law allows material to be retained from the body without the consent of the next of kin for testing to determine this. There is no power to routinely retain samples at post mortem for general research purposes, however laudable or well-intentioned that may be. It would be presently unlawful for Coroners to authorise such retention and testing. So far as I am aware government policy on these matters is as set out in the Human Tissue Act 2004 (which was enacted as a response to the retention of post-mortem material inquiries of almost precisely ten years ago)
As judicial office holders, coroners apply the law. Government policy is a matter for politicians. The Coroners service is funded and supported by local authorities and not central government. Coroners have to investigate the cause of death. This often requires an invasive post-mortem examination which does not require the consent of the family. It would put coroners in a very difficult position if relatives would come to believe that coroners were ordering an autopsy to facilitate research as opposed to carrying out our statutory function.
Coroners hold information for our statutory function and it is not for coroners to divulge information or contact details to researchers, who would contact bereaved families at a very sensitive time. Clearly in the cases of donation organs and tissue, which save and improved the quality of lives the coroner is contacted after consent has been obtained. Equally if it was that the deceased or the family have consented to research coroners will do what they can to accommodate such wishes provided that does not obstruct our statutory duty.
It is untrue that coroners have obstructed the research and I quote from my correspondence with Government of July 2007, “I, along with I suspect, every coronial office holder agree that there is national importance in being able to identify as accurately as possible the population prevalence of sub-clinical vCJD”.
I attach copies of correspondence on this matter which fairly set out the position of the Coroners’ Society.
André Rebello
Hon Secretary
19th August 2009