Search

The authors now acknowledge that "over 30%" of the "forensic pathologist" cohort were not forensic pathologists. The authors acknowledged that "over 30%" of survey I recipients i were not board certified forensic pathologists, based on "the relative proportion of nonboarded forensic pathologists from the mailing list" that made up the original cohort of 713 survey recipients. A scientific study on the opinions of forensic pathologists must have the entire study cohort be forensic pathologists. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores death investigation and certification in the U.S. as of 2021, noting how it is governed by a mishmash of laws and officials including medical examiners (MEs), coroners, justices of the peace, districts, sheriff-coroners and prosecutor-coroners. Other topics discussed include the dual purpose of death certificates as a public health document and sources of health data, and the need for better training of physicians in death certification.

Their survey was of all board-certified anatomic pathologists, not all board-certified forensic pathologists. The survey, however, was sent to 713 anatomic pathologists, not 713 I forensic i pathologists. Forensic pathologists practice a subspecialty; they not only need to be certified in anatomic pathology but also must successfully complete an additional year of training in an accredited forensic pathology fellowship and then must pass a national examination to become a board-certified forensic pathologist. [Extracted from the article]