| This
chapter
describes
a
central
feature
of
the
reports
sent
to
the
Coroners'
offices
in
North
Manchester,
Central
Manchester
and
Warrington
in
respect
of
the
230
Coroners'
cases.
In
all
these
cases
the
brains
were
obtained
for
the
joint
programme.
|
|
|
|
| This
chapter
is
based
on
scrutiny
of
samples
of
post
mortem
reports
provided
for
this
investigation
by
the
Coroners
of
the
three
districts.
|
|
|
|
| The
importance
of
full
and
accurate
reporting
of
organ
and/or
tissue
retention
in
post
mortem
reports
to
Coroners
is
discussed
in
Chapter
42.
|
|
|
|
| Reports
on
post
mortem
examinations
at
Prestwich,
Bury,
Oldham
and
Rochdale
mortuaries |
|
|
|
| There
were
45
post
mortem
examinations
at
Prestwich
mortuary
undertaken
for
the
Coroner
between
1985
and
1989.
A
sample
of
50
per
cent
of
these
reports
was
examined(1).
There
is
no
reference
to
brain
(or
other
organ)
retention
in
any
of
the
reports.
This
applies
both
to
cases
of
sudden
death
in
the
community
and
to
in-patient
deaths
reported
to
the
Coroner.
|
|
|
|
| There
were
also
67
brains
retained
from
Coroner's
cases
in
Bury,
Oldham
and
Rochdale.
In
a
sample
of
25
per
cent
of
these
reports,
no
mention
of
brain
retention
was
found.
|
|
|
|
| North
Manchester
General
Hospital |
|
|
|
| Of
the
100
Coroner's
post
mortem
examinations
at
North
Manchester
General
Hospital
carried
out
between
1986
and
1994,
60
were
on
in-patients.
The
remaining
40
were
on
patients
who
had
died
in
the
Accident
and
Emergency
Department
or
had
been
certified
dead
in
the
ambulance
on
arrival
at
the
hospital.
|
|
|
|
| More
than
50
of
the
post
mortem
reports
were
examined(2).
In
only
one
report
is
brain
retention
mentioned.
This
report
refers
to
retention
for
the
research
programme
at
Manchester
University.
All
other
reports
are
silent
on
organ
and
tissue
retention.
|
|
|
|
| Warrington
General
Hospital |
|
|
|
| There
were
15
Coroner's
autopsies
at
Warrington
General
Hospital
where
the
brain
was
retained
for
the
research
programme.
Of
these,
seven
cases
were
in-patient
deaths.
|
|
|
|
| All
the
post
mortem
reports
sent
to
the
Coroner
were
checked.
In
only
one
report
was
the
retention
of
the
brain
for
research
mentioned(3).
|
|
|
|
| Recollections
of
pathologists |
|
|
|
| The
pathologists
undertaking
Coroners'
post
mortems
at
three
of
these
mortuaries
were
asked
for
their
recollections
and
whether
they
would
have
recorded
brain
retention
on
the
post
mortem
form.
Their
recollections
were
divided.
One
pathologist
stated
that
he
did
not
record
organ
retention
on
the
post
mortem
report
to
avoid
distress
to
the
relatives.
In
this
case,
the
pathologist
believed
the
Coroner
was
aware
of
his
practice.
|
|
|
|
| The
remaining
pathologists
all
believed
that
they
would
have
recorded
the
removal
of
an
organ.
All
expressed
surprise
when
told
of
the
results
of
the
examination
I
had
made
of
the
post
mortem
reports.
|
|
|
|
| Coroners'
procedures
-
Central
and
North
Manchester
and
Warrington |
|
|
|
| In
view
of
the
number
of
post
mortem
reports
submitted
in
each
of
these
districts,
it
was
the
practice
for
the
Coroner's
office
staff
to
check
the
written
reports,
when
these
arrived,
and
bring
any
unusual
features
to
the
notice
of
the
Coroner.
|
|
|
|
| Verbal
reports
for
the
release
of
the
body |
|
|
|
| For
the
purpose
of
releasing
the
body,
several
Coroners
in
different
parts
of
the
country
recalled
that
in
the
late
1980s
they
had
relied
on
a
verbal
report
from
the
pathologist
to
release
the
body.
The
written
report
would
frequently
arrive
some
days
later,
not
always
in
time
for
the
inquest.
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
|
|
| From
the
post
mortem
reports
prepared
by
the
pathologists,
the
Coroners
in
Manchester
and
Cheshire
could
not
have
known
that
brains
had
been
retained
for
research
purpose.
|
|
|
|
| The
relatives
of
the
deceased
who
asked
for
copies
of
the
post
mortem
would
have
been
unaware
of
brain
(or
other
organ)
retention.
|
|
|
|
| There
were
only
two
reports
found
where
the
retention
of
the
brain
for
research
(as
opposed
to
diagnostic)
purposes
was
referred
to
in
the
50
per
cent
sample
of
post
mortem
reports
that
were
reviewed.
|
|
|
|
| It
was
the
usual
practice
for
the
staff
of
the
Coroner's
office
to
review
post
mortem
reports
that
arrived
after
the
inquest
had
been
held
to
check
that
the
report
contained
no
new
or
significant
features.
|
|
|
|
| Later
chapters
will
show
that
the
post
mortem
reports
in
the
Manchester
area
followed
the
pattern
of
other
parts
of
the
country.
Few
reports
at
that
time
referred
to
brain
retention
unless
this
had
a
bearing
on
the
cause
of
death.
|
|
References
|
|
|
|
|
1 Post
mortem
reports
provided
by
Mr
Williams,
Coroner
for
the
North
Manchester
district.
|
|
|
2 Post
mortem
reports
provided
by
Mr
Gorodkin,
Coroner
for
the
Central
Manchester
district.
|
|
|
3 Post
mortem
reports
provided
by
Mr
Rheinberg,
Coroner
for
the
Cheshire
district.
|
|
