Alternatives to vivisection: Scanning technologies replace and complement invasive autopsies.

Abstract

EMBO Reports (2019) e48380 Invasive autopsy has been crucial to determine the cause of death—as part of a criminal investigation or for public health purposes—but the vivisection of the corpse often meets resistance from relatives or certain religious or ethnic groups. To address religious objections or feelings that invasive autopsy violates the dignity of the deceased, pathologists have been using non‐invasive scanning techniques, originally developed for medical diagnosis, either as alternatives to, or to complement traditional autopsies. The use of computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in places where they are readily available not only appeals to relatives who object to vivisection but it also provides additional information or helps to confirm conclusions about the cause of death. > … the rate of autopsy has been declining […], partly out of growing opposition to what is often considered unnecessary mutilation of the bodies of loved ones. Autopsy has a long history dating back to at least 3,000 years BC in ancient Egypt. Julius Caesar was subjected to an official autopsy in 44 BC after his murder in the Roman senate. In the modern era, autopsies are routinely used to determine causes of death, especially when people die unexpectedly or under suspicious circumstances. Yet, the rate of autopsy has been declining in almost every developed country and many developing ones, partly out of growing opposition to what is often considered unnecessary mutilation of the bodies of loved ones. For example, autopsies were performed on 40–60% of all people who died in hospital in the United States before 1970, but that rate has now fallen to below 5% [1]. This comes at a time when autopsies for reasons other than establishing cause of death have become increasingly valuable: to evaluate the extent of human disease in patients and the effectiveness of …