Report of the Home Office review of death certification / Home Office.
- Great Britain. Home Office.
- Date:
- 2001
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Report of the Home Office review of death certification / Home Office. Source: Wellcome Collection.
37/62
![constraint, however, respondents identified weaknesses in the present arrangements and suggested measures which might be expected to improve the regulatory process. Details are set out in the attached analysis of responses. 9 Various themes, differing in the radical nature of their approach, could be drawn from the responses. These have been developed into three broad ‘options’ offering different degrees of change. Details are discussed in paragraphs 13 to 25 below. Purposes of death certification 10 The possible efficacy of the various options will need to be assessed against both the terms of reference and the purposes of death certification. Having regard to comments and suggestions made by respondents, the review concluded that the primary purposes of this process might be said to be: ® to confirm that death has occurred @ to give an indication of the likely cause of death ® to support relatives and others interested in the reasons for the death @ to ensure that sudden and / or unexpected deaths, where the question of criminal causes may arise, are investigated prior to disposal of the body @ to provide statistical information about the cause of death. Views are invited on the purposes of death certification as set out here, and the order of priority in which they are given. Effectiveness of the current arrangement 1] In general terms, the responses indicated that most of the purposes of certification were in fact met through the current arrangements most of the time. Existing processes were believed to be adequate provided they were applied conscientiously and the areas of doubt clarified, although that is not to say that they could not be completed more effectively or with greater accuracy of the factual information. 12 Respondents expressed concern, however, that the existing processes could not be regarded as completely reliable in diagnosing the cause of death with accuracy. Furthermore, many of the procedures were thought to be bureaucratic and expensive and that, due to lack of training, low priority, and ineffective responsibility or accountability, those involved could not be relied upon to identify with certainty the determined killer, the unexpected cause of death, or negligent treatment. In particular, the Shipman case demonstrated that the investigation of crime may not be adequately](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b3222171x_0037.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
