Redirect Medical Examiner[edit]

Should this article's link to "Medical Examiner" redirect to the same article of Coroner? A coroner is not the same thing as a medical examiner, and should be a separate entry.

There is now a stub entry for "Medical Examiner", and a link from this article to Medical Examiner. While there may be overlaps in their responsibilities, the two are not the same. --CarpenterSF (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That appears to have been reverted. It's quite ironic that the link to Medical Examiner (which redirects to Coroner again now), appears in the sentence claiming it is a "vastly different" profession. It strikes me as dubious that they are vastly different professions, from what little I know about the subject, I always thought that basically coroner was the term in the UK while generally medical examiner was used for performing the same functions in the US. I'm sure it's a little more nuanced than that, but they hardly seem like "vastly different" professions, vastly different would surely be more like the difference between a masseuse and a chiropracter or a dentist vs a dental hygienist. Anonywiki (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lawyer or Solicitor?[edit]

In England and Wales, wouldn't you need to be a solicitor, not a Lawyer?

The word 'lawyer' in England and Wales is a general descriptive name for both solicitors and barristers. Both are 'lawyers' who practice 'law'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.232 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certifying deaths in Scotland?[edit]

Would anyone object to a change to the paragraph on procurators fiscal certifying ALL deaths in Scotland? They certainly don't certify all deaths but do investigate ones they are required to do so by law.

Original research and other issues[edit]

I removed various flags from this article, about disputed content, original research, references, etc., as none of the content of the article is flagged as having issues. I'm not saying that everything in the article is OK or correct, but there's nothing actionable about any of the flags, except potentially the globalization question. In that case, it's hard to do anything about the UK slant, except to refer people elsewhere to "medical examiner" or the like. That's because "coroner" is an office of specifically UK origin. That makes its content UK-slanted in the same way, for example, that an article about London, England, is UK-oriented.

Qualifications for Coroners[edit]

In the UK however, all one needs is a basic medical degree and no further training whatsoever, which has led to many miscarriages of justice


I cannot comment on the miscarriages of justice comment (although coroners are not entitled to punish or indeed in any way apportion blame in England; they hold an inquest and then deliver a verdict of what they believe caused the death based on evidence from witnesses and statements/reports) but to be a coroner, you certainly need more than a basic medical degree and no further training! As, indeed, the section below confirms - you need either a law or medical degree, plus five years' practice (and, in the case of medics, a further legal qualification).

Whrrivers (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed this too. I'm working on editing this article right now. What they meant to say (hopefully!) is that you need not be a pathologist; you only need the medical degree, not the further years of residencies etc. in pathology, to be a coroner. — Skittleys (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to England and Wales, since 2013 this question no longer arises. From that year a person cannot be appointed a coroner without a legal qualification. Medical coroners in office at that date can continue till retirement, but they are increasingly becoming a rarity. Impregnable (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh[edit]

Why medical examiner is redirected to here i will never know, particularly because in most countries and states they are two completely differnt things.... OgiBear (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counterparts in Other Countries?[edit]

Please could somebody who has the knowledge to do it provide either a section in this article, or cross-links to other articles, to explain what counterparts coroners have in countries that *don't* have English-style coroners? It would be interesting to know how other countries handle the questions that coroners handle; adding the information would give the article a broader scope; and the article wouldn't then leave the distinct impression that, in countries where there are no coroners, nobody cares much about the dead or how they became dead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Conflicting Information[edit]

This article says that, "The verdicts of suicide and death by natural causes require proving beyond reasonable doubt. Other verdicts are arrived at on the balance of probabilities." Which implies that the verdict of unlawful killing would be decided on the balance of probabilities. However, on the page for unlawful killing it says, "The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt." I don't know which is correct and don't know how to find out. Could someone who knows what they are doing please correct this? Cheers. Cottonshirtτ 04:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

section[edit]

(Sorry about the uninformative section title; that's what ((contradict-self)) requires in order to link to it.)

The section about coroners in Canada says that in 6 provinces "all coroners are, by law, physicians. In these instances, they are not coroners, but medical examiners." — a direct contradiction from one sentence to the next. Presumably the second sentence is using the word "coroner" in a sense that excludes "medical examiners", as discussed elsewhere in the article, but it needs to find another way to express that thought.

But I can't just change the wording of the second sentence, because there may have been an intent to say that the job title is "medical examiner" in some of these 6 provinces, or in some places in these provinces. I know that in Toronto that's not true — we have coroners — but I don't know about all the other places, so I can't fix it. This needs to be straightened out.

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone had written that since coroners in certain provinces are required to be physicians that this means they are medical examiners and not coroners. I don't know if this is a case of someone in the USA thinking their terminology is correct (I say that because in the USA, physicians who essentially fulfil the role of coroner are called medical examiners.)

The following quote is from Ontario's Coroners Act, RSO C.37

Appointment of coroners

"3. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint one or more legally qualified medical practitioners to be coroners for Ontario who, subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), shall hold office during pleasure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 3 (1)."

In Ontario, a coroner must be a physician. This doesn't mean they're supposed to be called something else. You will not find ANY Canadian law with the words "medical examiner" in the title. You can find at least 9 provinces and/or territories with a Coroners' act.

There is absolutely no merit to the statement that 'coroners who are also physicians are really medical examiners.' 70.49.48.63 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs a history section[edit]

Coroners is a pretty significant topic for common law countries, with close to a thousand years of history that this article just barely touches. In particular, the organization doesn't lend itself to a particularly easy understanding of this; I think the article should start out with a section on history, which would contain an overview of the development under English common law, and probably take us up to the end of the 18th century, where we should expect to see individual countries'/colonies' legal systems to really run in their own directions. I think more generally, we might want to look towards creating an entire article on the history of the coroner. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article might in fact be best focused on the historical and (some) modern offices of coroner, but with judicious linking to medical examiner, with most if not all of the medical content on forensic pathology and the like being covered over there. From what I'm seeing in the law encyclopedias, many states have replaced the office of coroner with a medical examiner (that may or may not have the law enforcement duties the old coroner would have had), and even in those jurisdictions where coroners are the norm, the term "medical examiner" was not always equivalent. I'm not sure what the situation is in commonwealth nations, but it wouldn't surprise me if similar moves were happening. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also the question of historical stuff like the administration of shipwrecks and salvage, treasure trove, royal fish and deodands ... some of which may still be current as well (although I think treasure is mentioned in the article as being hived off to specialist coroners, as, I think are shipwrecks and marine salvage in the modern era). Also I think deodands are a dead letter in English law but have no idea about the specifics of royal fish. Anyone know this material well enough to explain it? 31.185.62.240 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coroner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coroner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious[edit]

I notice that a piece I added here last month has been tagged as 'dubious', and the source tagged with 'not in citation given'; there wasn't any corresponding discussion opened at the end of the link, so I am opening one now.
The statement "Coroners, Medical examiners, and forensic pathologists are often thought to be the same, but they are vastly different professions" seems self-evident to me; is there any argument that these roles/professions/offices are actually the same?
Also, the source given (an article entitled "Coroner vs.Medical Examiner") makes it clear (I thought): An ME is a medical officer who carries out post-mortems to determine cause of death, and (as stated) can "initiate an  inquest"; OTOH a coroner is a legal official who oversees an inquest, (gathering evidence/reports such as post-mortem results and witness statements) to determine whether a death is unlawful or not. In what way does it "not support the statement"?
Another thing, I copied the statement and the source over from the Medical Examiner page; if there's a problem here, it will affect there as well.

I don't know a lot about ME's (they seem to be mainly an American thing) but the coroner/forensic pathologist split is well-defined in the British legal system. Also, inquest verdicts in the UK are delivered by a jury; is that the same in the US, or are decisions like that made by someone else (a district attorney, for example)? That might reflect the Scottish system, where the decision is made by a Procurator Fiscal (who equates to a DA, I think). Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Also, the “Needs an expert in medicine” tag rather begs the question, doesn't it? From my perspective I'd have said it needs an expert in the law... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noone is arguing they are "the same" profession.
Their roles often overlap hugely or are interchangeable and so are not "vastly different".
The source given doesn't encompass all meanings of these professions. They also have very different meanings depending on the region. "vastly different" is not justified.
If you like take away the dubious word "vastly" and let it at that they are different roles. Anonywiki (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anonywiki: Just a quick (belated!) reply: Well, if the word “vastly” is a problem here, it's fair comment: I've taken it out, here and in the other article.
But 'overlapping and interchangeable'? Well, not in the UK they aren't, nor in jurisdictions based on the UK model. As already stated a coroner has a legal role while a pathologist's is medical. The latter determines the cause of death (eg. injuries consistent with a fall from a height) while the coroner determines the manner (Did he fall? Did he jump? Was he pushed?), and crucially the coroner decides whether or not a crime has been committed; I imagine even in the US, in counties which have them, that's done by a coroner, whether they are a qualified pathologist or the local sheriff. And a quick sken at the notable cases on the Unlawful killing page suggests that the medical question is the least complicated one to be answered. So I'd still be interested to know, who decides this where there is a medical examiner: The ME? The DA? Someone else? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moonraker12 Your comments are not helpful, I stand by 100% everything I said. Please shut up and don't tag me again. Anonywiki (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Anonwiki (not tagged, as requested): I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer. If you didn't want to respond, then don't: there's no need to be rude about it. And I've raised the question again, below (because I still wnt to know!); Don't feel obliged to respond there, either, if you don't want to...Moonraker12 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moonraker12 Hi! 1) In England they care called "conclusions", not "verdicts" 2) They're not always delivered by juries. 3) A coroner tells us i: who the deceased was and ii: how, when, and where the deceased came by their death, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/5 There is some overlap with post-mortem pathology. Hope this helps. DanBCDanBC (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In England and Wales medical coroners cannot be appointed since 2013. A legal qualification is always required. See above: Qualifications for Coroners. When an autopsy is required, the coroner would never in modern times perform it himself even if he was a doctor, because it is a rule of natural justice that the judge cannot be a witness in a case he/she is trying, and a coroner ranks as a judge for this purpose. An independent doctor would be appointed. Formerly this might have been any local doctor whom the coroner thought competent, but since the mid 20th century, when the pathologists' specialty became more widely organised and practised, he is always a specialist pathologist. In England and Wales he has never in this context been described as a Medical Examiner.Impregnable (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Television[edit]

I've flagged the section for OR, as it seems to reflect the confusion in common usage (particularly in the US) between coroners, medical examiners and forensic pathologists. While the offices seem to be overlapping in the USA , according to the US section here they are not the same thing, and IMO we should be clear in the Artistic Depictions section what we are talking about so as not to perpetuate the confusion.
Viz.

Also, Saroyan, Cavanaugh, Bergman, Quincy and the CSI people are all listed as MEs on the Medical Examiner page: I don't think we are helping anyone by listing them as coroners here, and as MEs there.
Can I suggest we at least decide one way or the other on these examples, and list them only in one place. And maybe to prevent list-creep we require citations to prove that those listed as coroners (here) or MEs (there) actually are such. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your first point, it seems that you are correct. While Washington State's laws recognize the possibility of a federal coroner, it seems that the U.S. federal government uses the term "medical examiner" (e.g., here). See also the executive summary of the Preliminary Report on America’s Medicolegal Offices, which contains an explanation on the subject, at least for the U.S., and here. (Found via Google using the string ["federal+medical+examiner"+-Australia], since Australia seems to also use federal medical examiners.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

England: conclusions not verdicts, and burden of proof.[edit]

In England the coroner produces "conclusions", not verdicts. Here's a reliable source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-17-conclusions.pdf Also, after a case in 2018 conclusions for suicide and unlawful killing only need to be made on the civil "balance of probabilities" burden, not beyond all reasonable doubt: R (on the application of Thomas Maughan) v Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2018] EWHC 1955 (Admin) DanBCDanBC (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories