MuskyMelonShouldn’t the Surgeon General Have a Medical License?
ParagoneYes, that ought be a legal-requirement.
in www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/how-not-to-die I discovered that a coroner is a person appointed to decide on cause-of-death, but a medical-examiner is a person with a medical-license who has the authority to decide on cause-of-death.
There’s no requirement for a coroner to be medically competent.
It’s often a political appointee.
That too is a crime against the citizenry & country.
_ /\ _
RivalarrivalI think you’re misunderstanding the role of the coroner. The medical examiner looks solely at the corpse to determine cause of death. The coroner examines the broader conditions and circumstances surrounding the death.
To understand the difference in the various investigative roles: The medical examiner can determine that the fatal injury was a hammer impact to the back of the skull. They are not legally qualified to determine whether that hammer was swung, dropped, or thrown.
Forensic pathologists can determine whether the hammer was swung or thrown. They are not legally qualified to determine if it was thrown intentionally or unintentionally.
The coroner can determine who did the throwing. They are not legally qualified to determine whether the act of throwing the hammer was justified or criminal.
The trial court can legally determine that the hammer was thrown with intent to kill. The criminal trial court can determine if that intention was justified or not; whether the defendant committed a crime. The civil trial court can determine how much harm the victim has suffered.
Another example, this time drawn from real life: in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, the medical examiner can determine that the deceased died from smoke inhalation. The medical examiner cannot determine who is responsible for the fire. The coroner can call for an inquest. They can convene a jury. And they can legally determine that responsibility for the fire lies with the owners.
There is no particular need for a coroner to be medically licensed, provided they are not personally expected to perform an autopsy. Where they are not medically licensed, they cannot conduct their own autopsies, and must instead rely on medical examiners.
It would be more appropriate for a coroner to be licensed to practice law, rather than medicine.
I really enjoyed how well you explained this, as someone without and understanding or exposure to this stuff I feel like I came away from it with a broad surface level understanding that made coherent sense. You articulate things really well.
Thank you!
I should stress that my explanation is a gross simplification, and some of my examples might be a little off. Further, the specific role varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The key takeaway: The role of the coroner is (generally) closer to that of the prosecutor than it is to that of the medical examiner.