Analysis of SIDS-related civil and criminal court cases in Japan

Abstract

Thirty-three sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)-related civil and criminal lawsuits in Japan were retrieved from judicial precedent databases “Hanrei Masutar (Judicial Decisions Master)” and “Hanrei Taikei (Judicial Decisions System) using “SIDS” as a keyword. Sleeping posture and developmental stage of occurrence were studied in each of the cases retrieved, whether or not a legal autopsy had been performed. The influence exerted on court decisions by Japanese definitions of SIDS as well as the relationship between causes of death and court decisions were studied. Of 33, two were criminal cases (business/professional negligence on the part of the defendants, leading to death), and the rest were civil cases (claims for damages). Because the decision handed down in both criminal cases was “cause of death unknown”, these defendants were found innocent. One of these cases was argued in both the court of appeals and the superior court: these courts found SIDS to be the cause of death and consequently the claim for damages was rejected. Both criminal and civil courts dealt with another case: the former found the cause of death to be “unknown” and the defendant innocent, while the latter, finding SIDS the cause of death, declined to review. In cases where the sleeping posture was prone, courts tended to decide the cause of death to be suffocation, especially with neonates. Because diagnosis by exclusion is required in cases of a legal autopsy for SIDS, the diagnosis is difficult without an autopsy. Disagreements between the results of legal autopsy and court decisions occurred in eight cases. With such a discrepancy, a detailed case examination is necessary. In 1983, SIDS was defined in Japan in two different ways; one in a more strict sense and the other being more inclusive. The wider and narrower definitions were unified in 1995 by requiring a survey of the circumstances of death in addition to the narrower definition. Because of this situation, the two cases in the 1980s when legal autopsy was not enforced fell into the category of “SIDS in a wider sense.” In no case was a defendant found guilty when the cause of death was judged to be either SIDS/ALTE or unknown. Four cases were rejected when the cause of death was judged to be neither due to suffocation nor SIDS, while seven were accepted either as cases of ‘joint faults that canceled each other,’ or as ‘partial acceptance.’ In Japan, official views concerning a SIDS diagnosis differ among pediatricians, legal scholars of forensic medicine and pathologists. These differences appeared to influence the legal decisions. Several conferences should be convened as soon as possible to provide an opportunity to resolve the main points of difference between these three professional groups and, thus, attain a unified view.