
Because the Pinellas County medical examiner has claimed jurisdiction over the remains of Terri Schiavo, here is a little explanation of what autopsies determine. I learned a lot about the subject when I served in US Army Criminal Investigation Command. From an autopsy, the ME determines the following:
Cause of death - this is the determination of the medical series of events that were the proximate cause of the death. In Terri’s case it is almost certain to be organ failure(s) brought about by dehydration.
Manner of death - this is the ME’s professional assessment of whether the cause of death is attributable to the following:
1. Natural causes, which means that the deceased died from disease, including the infirmities of old age when applicable.
2. Suicide - this determination is rarely (if ever) determinable solely from an autopsy. The ME can only determine whether the cause of death was consistent with suicide, such as a broken hyoid bone in the neck, which results from hanging but not from choking.
3. Homicide - a death caused intentionally by another person. Again, whether the homicide was illegal is not determinable from the autopsy alone. The ME cannot tell, for example, whether the deceased was killed by another in justifiable self defense.
4. Accident - think of this as either unintentional self killing or unintentional homicide. Almost always this finding requires other investigation.
5. Undetermined - no conclusion can be drawn. For example, a body is found at the bottom of a tall cliff. The cause of death is blunt force trauma (hitting the ground) but absent other information the ME cannot determine whether the deceased jumped or was pushed or slipped and fell of the cliff.
I won’t try to predict what the ME’s determinations will be, except that accident and suicide seem pretty well ruled out. Homicide is too, since Terri’s death resulted from court rulings that Terri herself was expressed a desire not to be kept alive in her condition. So on the face of it, natural causes is the most likely finding.
The interesting question is this: what if the autopsy finds that Terri had suffered bodily injury/ies after she first fell ill, and that are consistent with being intentionally inflicted upon her? Rumors have abounded about Michael’s activities alone in Terri’s room.
One thing to remember is that unless a tissue injury is very recent an autopsy won’t discover it. So the ME will be able only to determine injuries to bones, possibly organs also, but again, in this circumstance that would be pretty tough. However, organs are excellent repositories of chemical evidence that could reveal whether Terri ingested or inhaled damaging substances (but evidence is also metabolized out of the body as well).
Again, my guess is that people hoping the autopsy will reveal evidence of Michael’s culpability will be disappointed. Even if, say, certain bones are revealed to be (or have been) broken at or after the time of her initial injury, determining the circumstances will be highly problematic and legally difficult case to make.
Comments policy, read and heed!
BLOGAD prices reduced!
Click here!
Why Blogads here work! and see here.

16 queries. 0.424 seconds
April 1st, 2005 at 1:08 am
I don’t follow your reasoning for ruling out homocide. Her death was caused intentionally by another person. Fits your own definition perfectly. If I paid someone to kill me and they did it, that would be homocide, wouldn’t it? Even if you believe that Terry had some will to die, it was still an intentional act by another human who deliberately took action in order to end her life.
April 1st, 2005 at 5:32 am
Actually, the death of a patient who dies while under the care of a physician is called an “attended death” and such deaths are usually not investigated; they are legally presumed to be of natural causes. Remember that there would be no autopsy on Terri at all if not for the fact that Michael said he was going to cremate her.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:28 am
Thank you for sharing your expertise with us in this interesting post.
I am a hospital based pathologist who performs a limited number of autopsies (I am primarily a surgical
pathologist). Our forms have three areas relating to cause of death that we need to fill out: main cause of death, antecedent cause of death and ‘proximate’ cause of death. So the proximate cause of death in this case would be, I presume, the dehydration caused by removing of the feeding tube. The antecedent cause of death would be that event which led to her being disabled and ultimately on a feeding tube, and I could
imagine that a pathologist would list that event as the main cause of death, rather than dehydration; however, I have never personally
encountered a case like this and am not entirely sure if this is how things work in that part of Florida. I, too, am curious as to how the report will be finalized.
Thinking about cause of death in this way is helpful for the hospital based pathologist because we often have cases in which the main cause of death is known: cancer, or some other disease, and we are performing an autopsy to document that and to find out themore proximate cause of death, such as infection that arising in the back ground of having a depressed immune system, either fromthe cancer or chemotherapy (as an example).
April 1st, 2005 at 7:33 am
Hmm, I did proofread before submitting, but for some reason a part of my comment looks like it is cut-and-pasted together and now it looks like I am an illiterate. Never a good thing in a pathologist