This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Mark C. Wheelock, MD
Coral Gables, Fla

JAMA. 1973;223(10):1157.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Dr. John Prutting referred to a statistical study previously presented, "An Autopsy Study of Cancer Patients" (221:1471, 1971), as a basis for interjecting his own thoughts on the performance of autopsies (222:1556, 1972). He cites the benefits, well recognized, and then in an aside takes issue with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals for their change in attitude in not insisting on a certain number being performed as a requirement for accreditation. It is my understanding that most states have a minimum autopsy requirement, around 20% or more, before they, in turn, issue an annual approval of hospitals within their confines.

To perform an autopsy is no "chore." To do it blindly with no more indication than a permit and a corresponding dead body, with no diagnosis and naught of value in the record is a somewhat useless task, valuable only to the prosector. To carry it . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?