In search of a credible forensic system
Published Feb 14, 2023 00:05 am
|
Updated Feb 14, 2023 00:05 am
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
Dr. Raymund W. Lo
In the aftermath of the blowup about the improper autopsies done on the anti-illegal drugs campaign victim Kian delos Santos, it was front-page news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached an agreement with United Nations special rapporteur Morris Tidball-Binz for the latter to conduct a 21-day training course in forensic pathology for at least 35 doctors. This is practically an admission on the part of the DOJ that the criminal justice system is in need of a fix.
But how is this agreement going to remedy the situation? As I’ve stated before (Autop-silip and the ICC Feb. 7, 2023), before anyone can become a forensic pathologist, he/she must first be a properly trained and board-certified anatomic pathologist before undergoing training in forensic pathology. Has the DOJ come up with 35 pathologists for the three-week course? I highly doubt it, since I have raised the issue in our Philippine Society of Pathologists (PSP) chat group and no one had indicated any desire to undergo the training.
For all its worth, let us examine this quick-fix solution proposed for a long-standing problem in the criminal justice system.
Will the training be conducted by a pathologist? If he is not a pathologist, then the trainor can’t be a forensic pathologist.
If a forensic pathologist will do the training, how will a three-week course make forensic pathologists out of these doctors? Will they turn out to be instant forensic experts, such as those who underwent a similar short course before and now style themselves as such? This undertaking is full of perils, as it will create more problems than it proposes to solve.
It takes a lot of training for one to be adept at conducting a thorough and accurate autopsy, do microscopic examinations of the tissues taken, write a proper autopsy report, and back up its conclusions with a clinic-pathologic correlation of the findings and cause of death. Faulty autopsies with wrong findings and conclusions will lead to massive miscarriages of justice. As the Kian delos Santos case illustrates, it can also throw out convictions, even if the accused were really the perpetrators of the crime.
There cannot be a short-term solution to a long-standing problem. But we need to start somewhere. First of all, it should be the Department of Health that spearheads the development of a medical examiner system in the country. That is the very essence of the symposium on Medicolegal Death Investigation Systems held on Sept. 15-18, 2020, sponsored by the Department of Health, Department of Science and Technology and Imagine Law, a public interest law group working for people’s health and welfare.
The medical examiner (ME) office should be a fully independent entity, not attached to the PNP or NBI. That’s because we need to ensure that heavy political pressure will not be exerted on the ME in cases involving government officials or their kin. The separation from police agencies likewise prevents collusion that may occur when all entities are in the agency.
The ME office should have its own forensic DNA testing laboratory, which requires specialized training separate from that of forensic pathology. DNA forensics has advanced so tremendously that it can even predict the physical appearance of the person based on his DNA, essentially taking the place of the artist’s sketch based on the description of the perpetrator. Victims often cannot recall correctly the facial details of the assailant/s due to the psychic trauma of the crime; hence, sketches can be erroneous or biased. A DNA database also has to be set up for the quick resolution of crimes. There are now standards for DNA crime labs that should be followed to ensure correct generation of DNA profiles.
Lastly, and this should be non-negotiable: only board-certified anatomic pathologists should be trained as forensic pathologists who will man the ME office. We need to ensure competence and professionalism in the conduct of autopsies. This can’t be the case with non-pathologists who have undergone a short course.
How can we entice pathologists to become medical examiners? First, guarantee independence and freedom from political pressure. Second, offer a career track and training in forensic pathology in accredited medical examiners offices in the USA, after which they should be assured of a permanent position in the ME office with the commensurate compensation. Provide the best facilities with provisions for x-rays and toxicologic examinations. Only then can we have the proper foundation for a credible criminal justice system.
Note: The author is an American board-certified pathologist with experience in forensic autopsies. He is the laboratory director of the only AABB-accredited DNA testing laboratory in the Philippines.
Dr. Raymund W. Lo
In the aftermath of the blowup about the improper autopsies done on the anti-illegal drugs campaign victim Kian delos Santos, it was front-page news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached an agreement with United Nations special rapporteur Morris Tidball-Binz for the latter to conduct a 21-day training course in forensic pathology for at least 35 doctors. This is practically an admission on the part of the DOJ that the criminal justice system is in need of a fix.
But how is this agreement going to remedy the situation? As I’ve stated before (Autop-silip and the ICC Feb. 7, 2023), before anyone can become a forensic pathologist, he/she must first be a properly trained and board-certified anatomic pathologist before undergoing training in forensic pathology. Has the DOJ come up with 35 pathologists for the three-week course? I highly doubt it, since I have raised the issue in our Philippine Society of Pathologists (PSP) chat group and no one had indicated any desire to undergo the training.
For all its worth, let us examine this quick-fix solution proposed for a long-standing problem in the criminal justice system.
Will the training be conducted by a pathologist? If he is not a pathologist, then the trainor can’t be a forensic pathologist.
If a forensic pathologist will do the training, how will a three-week course make forensic pathologists out of these doctors? Will they turn out to be instant forensic experts, such as those who underwent a similar short course before and now style themselves as such? This undertaking is full of perils, as it will create more problems than it proposes to solve.
It takes a lot of training for one to be adept at conducting a thorough and accurate autopsy, do microscopic examinations of the tissues taken, write a proper autopsy report, and back up its conclusions with a clinic-pathologic correlation of the findings and cause of death. Faulty autopsies with wrong findings and conclusions will lead to massive miscarriages of justice. As the Kian delos Santos case illustrates, it can also throw out convictions, even if the accused were really the perpetrators of the crime.
There cannot be a short-term solution to a long-standing problem. But we need to start somewhere. First of all, it should be the Department of Health that spearheads the development of a medical examiner system in the country. That is the very essence of the symposium on Medicolegal Death Investigation Systems held on Sept. 15-18, 2020, sponsored by the Department of Health, Department of Science and Technology and Imagine Law, a public interest law group working for people’s health and welfare.
The medical examiner (ME) office should be a fully independent entity, not attached to the PNP or NBI. That’s because we need to ensure that heavy political pressure will not be exerted on the ME in cases involving government officials or their kin. The separation from police agencies likewise prevents collusion that may occur when all entities are in the agency.
The ME office should have its own forensic DNA testing laboratory, which requires specialized training separate from that of forensic pathology. DNA forensics has advanced so tremendously that it can even predict the physical appearance of the person based on his DNA, essentially taking the place of the artist’s sketch based on the description of the perpetrator. Victims often cannot recall correctly the facial details of the assailant/s due to the psychic trauma of the crime; hence, sketches can be erroneous or biased. A DNA database also has to be set up for the quick resolution of crimes. There are now standards for DNA crime labs that should be followed to ensure correct generation of DNA profiles.
Lastly, and this should be non-negotiable: only board-certified anatomic pathologists should be trained as forensic pathologists who will man the ME office. We need to ensure competence and professionalism in the conduct of autopsies. This can’t be the case with non-pathologists who have undergone a short course.
How can we entice pathologists to become medical examiners? First, guarantee independence and freedom from political pressure. Second, offer a career track and training in forensic pathology in accredited medical examiners offices in the USA, after which they should be assured of a permanent position in the ME office with the commensurate compensation. Provide the best facilities with provisions for x-rays and toxicologic examinations. Only then can we have the proper foundation for a credible criminal justice system.
Note: The author is an American board-certified pathologist with experience in forensic autopsies. He is the laboratory director of the only AABB-accredited DNA testing laboratory in the Philippines.