Showing posts with label Autopsy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Autopsy. Show all posts

Thursday, April 21, 2022

Court Enjoins Autopsy In Suit By Inmate Facing Execution

In Smith v. Li, (MD TN, April 20, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court, in a RLUIPA suit by an inmate about to be executed, enjoined the state's medical examiner from performing an autopsy after the execution, collecting fluids postmortem, or performing any other procedure violating plaintiff's the body's physical integrity after death. The court said in part:

It may be that the medical community does not consider the collection of fluid samples to constitute an “autopsy.” That fact, though, has no bearing on either the sincerity or the content of Smith’s religious beliefs, which do not depend on any such distinction. It is not the place of Dr. Li, the government, or the court to try to convince Smith that he should not consider the postmortem collection of his bodily fluids to be an impermissible intrusion on his religiously mandated bodily integrity. If Smith does sincerely believe that—and the court finds that he does— then Dr. Li’s stated intention to violate his beliefs implicates RLUIPA, whether Dr. Li finds Smith’s theological explanation persuasive or not....

Under these circumstances, where the decision whether to conduct an autopsy is left to the discretion of the county medical examiner and, alternatively, to that of the state chief medical examiner or the district attorney general, it is difficult to see how the government could show that conducting an autopsy is necessary to fulfill a compelling government interest. If the interest were truly compelling, the statute presumably would mandate it.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Bodies of Pittsburgh Shooting Victims Handled According To Religious Law

The New York Times reported yesterday on the arrangements at the scene of the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre to assure that bodies of the victims were handled in conformity with Jewish religious law:
All night long, Jewish volunteers stood solemnly in the rain outside the Tree of Life synagogue, where 11 dead bodies lay inside, sealed off with yellow crime-scene tape. The deceased were not supposed to be left alone, according to Jewish tradition, from the moment of death until burial. So when the medical examiner removed the bodies at 5 a.m. Sunday, the volunteers were there to escort them to the morgue....
Once homicide investigators give them the all clear, they intend to meticulously clean the crime scene. They consider everything left behind to be sacred remains, to be preserved and buried with the bodies....
Although autopsies are generally avoided in Jewish tradition, there was no doubt that each of the bodies would need to be examined for evidence in the criminal case. Once the bodies were with the medical examiner, Mr. Wasserman [head of the burial society] ensured that a shomer, as the guard is called in Hebrew, was in the building to keep watch over them as they went through the process.
[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Friday, May 18, 2018

England's Chief Coroner Gives Guidance On Rapid Release of Bodies For Religious Reasons

As previously reported, in England last month a court held unlawful the policy of a London Coroner to categorically refuse to give priority to releasing a body for burial when requested to do so for religious reasons. Such requests are often made by Jewish and Muslim families whose beliefs call for burial quickly after death.  (See prior posting.)  Yesterday, the Chief Coroner of England and Wales issued Guidance No. 28 (full text), designed to give practical guidance to local coroners when expedited release is requested for religious or other reasons.  The Guidance reads in part:
14. The judgment in the AYBS Case reflects two important legal considerations: (i) that a coroner should be open to representations that a particular case should be treated as a matter of urgency (whether for religious or other reasons); and (ii) that proper respect should be given to representations based on religious belief.
15. However, the decision of the Court does not require a coroner to give automatic priority to deaths from particular religious communities, nor does it require coroners to drop other important work to deal with such deaths. The Court also recognised that other deaths may require urgent handling for non-religious reasons.
16. There is no obligation for coroners to adopt formal written policies for dealing with requests for expedition or for dealing with deaths from faith communities.... However, any policy or practices adopted by coroners must be sufficiently flexible to allow them to give due consideration to expediting decisions where there is good reason to do so. They should seek to strike a fair balance between the interests of those with a well-founded request for expedition (including on religious grounds) and other families who may be affected.
Jewish Chronicle reports on the new Guidance document.

Monday, April 30, 2018

British Court Gives Coroners Guide On Prioritizing Release of Bodies For Religious Reasons

In Adath Yisroel Burial Society v. HM Senior Coroner For Inner North London,  (EWHC, April 27, 2018), a 2-judge panel in England's High Court held unlawful the policy of a London Coroner to categorically refuse to give priority to releasing a body for burial when requested to do so for religious reasons. Jewish and Muslim religious law calls for burial to take place quickly after death. The court summarized its holding in part as follows:
(1) A Coroner cannot lawfully exclude religious reasons for seeking expedition of decisions by that Coroner, including the Coroner’s decision whether to release a body for burial.
(2) A Coroner is entitled to prioritise cases, for religious or other reasons, even where the consequence of prioritising one or some cases may be that other cases will have to wait longer for a decision.... 
(3) Whether to accord one case priority over another or others is for the Coroner to determine. The following further points apply:
a) It is in principle acceptable for the Coroner to implement a policy to address the circumstances when priority will or may be given, so long as that policy is flexible and enables all relevant considerations to be taken into account.
b) The availability of resources may be a relevant consideration in drawing up that policy or in making the decision in any individual case but limitations on resources do not justify discrimination.
(4) It would be wrong for a Coroner to impose a rule of automatic priority for cases where there are religious reasons for seeking expedition.
JTA reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Medical Examiner Need Not Wait To See If Religious Objection To Autopsy Is Made

In Rugova v. City of New York, (NY App. Div., Sept. 8, 2015), a New York intermediate appellate court held that the trier of fact should determine whether the Medical Examiner's 36-hour delay in informing next of kin that an accident victim's body was available amounted to interference with a family's burial rights (right of sepulcher). However the court held that the Medical Examiner was not liable for conducting an autopsy after the accident even though that was inconsistent with the family's Muslim religious beliefs. The court said in part:
As a matter of statute, the Medical Examiner has extensive authority to perform autopsies within the exercise of professional discretion ... including where, as here, circumstances indicate that the death was accidental....  
Pursuant to statute, compelling public necessity is only required where the Medical Examiner has received an objection on religious grounds from a surviving friend or relative or has reason to believe that an autopsy is contrary to the decedent's religious beliefs.... While plaintiffs obviously could not make such objection, since they had not been informed of decedent's death, it is submitted that the Medical Examiner's office was not obligated to wait and see if an objection would be made before performing the autopsy....

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

British Judge Says Coroner Must Try To Accommodate Religious Objection To Invasive Autopsy

In Britain yesterday, a High Court judge ruled that a coroner acted improperly in rejecting a request by a Jewish family that a non-invasive alternative to an autopsy (such as a CT scan) be used in determining the cause of death of an 86-year old woman who died in a London hospital shortly after she was admitted.  According to the Jewish Chronicle:
[Justice Mitting] said a non-invasive procedure should be considered when the family requested it on religious grounds if there were a “reasonable possibility” that it could establish the cause of death; if there were “no good reason” to order an invasive autopsy; and if it would not impair the findings of an invasive autopsy should that subsequently prove necessary.
The non-invasive procedure should also be done “without imposing an additional cost burden on the coroner,” the judge said.
The ruling will impact both Jewish and Muslim families.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Minnesota Legislature Passes Bill Providing For Religious Objection To Autopsy

The Minnesota legislature last Saturday gave final passage to SF 1694 (full text) providing a right to object on religious grounds a medical examiner or coroner conducting an autopsy.  The bill provides:
If the representative of the decedent objects to the autopsy on religious grounds, an autopsy must not be performed unless the coroner or medical examiner determines that there is a compelling state interest to perform the autopsy.
However the bill lists 13 specific situations which will be considered to be compelling, and even if one of those is not present the state may counter a religious objection by showing a court in a summary proceeding that the autopsy is necessary and that need outweighs the state's interest in observing the decedent's religious beliefs. If an autopsy is carried out after a religious objection has been made, it must be performed by the least intrusive procedure consistent with the state's compelling interest. As reported by Bring Me The News, the bill now goes to Gov. Mark Dayton for his signature.

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Autopsy Did Not Violate 1st Amendment Rights of Accident Victim

Keller v. Finks, (CD IL, March 31, 2014), is a lawsuit growing out of the death of Melissa Keller who was a passenger in a vehicle that struck a tree driving 70 miles per hour in a 10 mile per hour zone. The driver of the auto was Katie McKenna, whose probation had been revoked but who had not been taken into custody.  This suit by the administrator of Keller's estate alleges several claims against county law enforcement officials, including a claim against the county coroner for violating Keller's free exercise rights by performing an autopsy on her that violated the religious beliefs of her and her family. An Illinois federal district court dismissed the claim holding first that once Keller was deceased she was no longer a "person" who had constitutional rights.  In addition, the coroner was acting under a neutral law of general application and so did not violate the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause.