Coroner versus Medical Examiner Systems: Can We End the Debate?

Abstract

This article is a discussion and comparison of coroner systems and medical examiner systems. Each type of system has potential merits and drawbacks, and virtually all systems face certain problems and challenges and could be improved. The arguments about coroner versus medical examiner systems have gone on for nearly a century, coroner and medical systems remain, and we need to shift our focus from our differences to those goals that we share. We believe the best approach is for each state and its various death investigation jurisdictions to thoroughly study its death investigation system to determine whether it is meeting the needs of the criminal and civil justice system, the courts, prosecution (plaintiff) and defense attorneys, public health and safety agencies, the medical community, and other interested users such as researchers and those interested in prevention strategies. It is also critical that jurisdictions ensure their medicolegal death investigation systems become accredited, their personnel become certified, and that they are following nationally accepted guidelines, standards, and best practices. If there are deficiencies, then the state, in conjunction with local jurisdictions, can decide what changes may be needed and which options are available to implement those changes. Again, the issue is not necessarily one of system type, but rather, the adequacy of support and manpower to function professionally and to meet the needs of users.