1Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi cantt- 10
2Department of Community Medicine, Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi cantt- 10
Online published on 29 April, 2015.
Two cases of drowning are considered presentable because none of the two was supported by the autopsy. Both the cases are two different occurrences but are similar because drowning in both these cases was found to have been mistaken for “strangulation”. The bigger question in both these cases may not be how the autopsy opinion of “strangulation” came up but surely raises query over missing of drowning. Points raised are what extra knowledge or extra wisdom was required to determine drowning. What should one have done in these cases was as important as it was to know what shouldn't have done.
Discussing how & why the drowning was mistaken for “strangulation” the case report sends an alert how embarrassing it was to defend the wrong exclusion of drowning by autopsy. The readers would know that the diatoms test if applied where it should not be is hazardous. The case report also sends a clear message that the diatoms test can't be the replacement for autopsy. The autopsy performers if can avoid autopsy misinterpretations and be conversant with the limitations of the diatoms test they will not be caught in the issues of diagnostic accuracy.
The case study is not about cleaning the mess but is actually about the mess which shouldn't have been created. If forensic medicine is to be presented as a brandit needs to enhance capabilities and to refrain from entering into concoctions.
Flawed autopsy, Autopsy in drowning, Artefacts in drowning, misleading autopsy, Strangulation in drowning, head injury in drowning, Wrong charge of murder, Unintentional autopsy mistakes
