A Guide
For
Manner of Death
Classification
First Edition
National Association of Medical Examiners ®
Prepared by
Randy Hanzlick, MD
John C. Hunsaker III, MD, JD
Gregory J. Davis, MD
Approved by the NAME Board of Directors
February 2002
1
Preface and Caveats
If reading this Guide results in a given certifier of death deciding to change his/her
approach to classifying manner of death in certain types of cases, there is no need to
amend or change certifications that have already taken place. Starting the new approach
at a given point in time is acceptable, with the caveat that one may occasionally need to
explain differences between newer and older certifications involving similar or identical
circumstances.
If changes in manner-of-death classification procedures are undertaken, it may be prudent
to discuss them with appropriate vital records registrars so they are not surprised, and that
they understand the reasons for the change.
This book is a Guide. The recommendations contained herein are not standards and
should not be used to evaluate the performance of a given certifier in a given case. Death
certification and manner-of-death classification require judgment, and room must be
allowed for discretion on a case by case basis.
It must be realized that when differing opinions occur regarding manner-of-death
classification, there is often no “right” or “wrong” answer or specific classification that is
better than its alternatives. When promulgating guidelines, however, one of the available
options needs to be selected as the one recommended for use. Thus, the recommendations
herein are ones selected to foster a consistent approach amongst certifiers, not because
the recommended approach is the “right” or the “better” one.
The “arguments,” principles, and foundations used to support certain recommendations in
this Guide cannot be applied uniformly to every conceivable death scenario because
issues sometimes vary with the manner of death being discussed. As a result, there will
be obvious, apparent “inconsistencies” in the rationale discussed for making some of the
recommendations in this Guide. This problem is unavoidable because of the nature of the
subject at hand. Thus, in some cases, one simply must select an available manner-of-
death classification as the preferred one for use in a given scenario while recognizing that
the logic used to select that option may not be applicable or directly transferable to other
situations (and, in fact, may seem inconsistent with the logic employed in other
scenarios). In short, it is sometimes necessary to simply select an approach and use it for
the purpose of consistency, recognizing that other approaches may be “just as good.”
Finally, a draft publication of this Guide was made available for review and comment by
the NAME membership. All comments were reviewed and considered. Discussion of the
nature of the comments and the way they were addressed is included as an Appendix to
this Guide. This revised version of the Guide was approved as an official publication of
NAME by the Board of Directors at its Interim Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on February
12, 2002.
It is anticipated that supplements to, or revisions of this Guide will occur in the future.
2
Introduction:
All states have a standard death certificate that is based upon a model certificate called
the US Standard Certificate of Death. Although the official death certificate in each state
varies from the model and the death certificates used in other states, there are numerous
similarities in form and content. The certifier of death is the physician, medical
examiner, or coroner who completes the cause-of-death section of the certificate that also
includes details about the circumstances surrounding death. Manner of death is one of
the items that must be reported on the death certificate and a classification of death based
on the circumstances surrounding a particular cause of death and how that cause came
into play.
In most states, the acceptable options for manner-of-death classification are:
• Natural
• Accident
• Suicide
• Homicide
• Undetermined (or “Could not be Determined”)
Whether manner of death is indicated by checking an appropriate box on the death
certificate or by writing or typing the manner in a designated space depends on the state
and how its standard death certificate form is designed. Familiarity with state death
certification procedures and the death certificate form are required.
Manner of death is an American invention. A place to classify manner of death was
added to the US Standard Certificate of Death in 1910. Manner of death is not addressed
directly in the International Classification of Diseases as promulgated by the World
Health Organization. It was added to the death certificate by public health officials to
assist in clarifying the circumstances of death and how an injury was sustained—not as a
legally binding opinion—and with a major goal of assisting nosologists who code and
classify cause-of-death information from death certificates for statistical purposes.
Medical examiners and coroners have debated for decades about how the manner of
death should be classified in certain situations, and more recently, whether certifiers
should be required to classify manner of death at all. The debate continues and is a
frequent subject of discussion.
This Guide has been written with the assumptions that, for the foreseeable future,
manner-of-death classification will continue to be recorded on the death certificate—and
differences in opinions about how to classify manner of death shall persist. The major
impetus for preparing this Guide is the premise that, for consistency’s sake, there can be a
common thought and decision-making process upon which manner-of-death
classifications can be based reproducibly in the great majority of cases.
Medical Examiners and Coroners reached the point that for personal, interpersonal, and
inter-jurisdictional consistency, we as death certification professionals should be able to
3
recognize the recurrent debates about manner-of-death classification and arrive at a
consensus approach for the commonly encountered manner of death dilemmas. We can
“agree to disagree-- but to not be disagreeable,” to quote New York City Medical
Examiner Charles Hirsch. All agree, however, on the fundamental premise that manner of
death is circumstance-dependent, not autopsy-dependent. To that end, the suggestions in
this Guide are made based on experience, the literature, and a goal for greater
consistency.
Other Background Information:
The death certificate is used for several major purposes. One purpose is to serve as legal
documentation that a specific individual has died. In general, the death certificate serves
as legal proof that death has occurred, but not as legal proof of the cause of death. Other
major purposes of the death certificate are to: (a) provide information for mortality
statistics that may be used to assess the Nation’s health; (b) systematically catalogue
causes of morbidity and mortality; and (c) develop priorities for funding and programs
that involve public health and safety issues.
In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to
the best of the certifier’s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and
circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these
“facts” only represent the certifier’s opinion and are not written in stone or legally
binding. Information on the death certificate may be changed, if needed. In general,
states require that the certifier of death be a licensed physician, a medical examiner, or a
coroner. In some states, lay coroners may serve as certifier, but such certifiers can and
should rely upon physician input and guidance when completing the death certificate.
Because the cause and manner of death are opinions, judgment is required to formulate
both for reporting on the death certificate. The degree of certainty required to classify the
manner of death depends sometimes on the circumstances of the death. Although such
issues will be discussed in further detail below, a general scheme of incremental
“degrees of certainty” is as follows:
• Undetermined (less than 50% certainty)
• Reasonable medical or investigative probability (Greater than a 50:50 chance; more
likely than not)
• Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say
about 70% or greater certainty)
• Clear and convincing medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say
90% or greater certainty)
• Beyond any reasonable doubt (essentially 100% certainty)
• Beyond any doubt (100% certainty)
Seldom, for the purpose of manner-of-death classification, is “beyond a reasonable
doubt” required as the burden of proof. In many cases, “reasonable probability” will
suffice, but in other instances such as suicide, case law or prudence may require a
4
“preponderance” of evidence—or in homicide—“clear and convincing evidence” may be
required or recommended. Further references to these principles will follow on the
discussion of specific scenarios, as appropriate, below.
The certifier’s responsibilities include professional, administrative, and quasi-judicial
elements. The conclusions that lead to manner-of-death classification are drawn at some
point during an ongoing investigation. Cases are seldom, if ever, truly “closed” because
the conclusions regarding manner of death may be changed (amended) anytime based on
new relevant and material information. It is also important to remember that the
conclusions reached for the purpose of manner-of-death classification may not be the
same as those of other entities and officials. Such differences are expected because of the
different roles and viewpoints of those entities and officials. In virtually all instances,
explanations for such differences are usually apparent and readily offered. It is also
important to remember that new developments in medicine and forensic science may
provide the relevant and/or material information that leads to a need for reclassification
of manner of death.
Manner-of-death classification has, to a significant degree, an element of history and
tradition. When asked why manner of death is classified in a specific way, a not-
uncommon response is “that’s the way I was trained” or “that’s the way its always been
done where I have worked.” Tradition, history, training, and local idiosyncrasies in the
criminal justice and law enforcement communities can have impact upon manner-of-
death classification strategy. This phenomenon is recognized and is taken into account
during the development of principles in this Guide.
Finally, one cannot escape the need to consider intent when classifying manner of death.
However, the definition of, or need to consider “intent” may vary depending on the case.
One basic consideration is beyond dispute: the concept of intent differs when manner-of-
death classification issues are compared with other paradigms such as legal code and
public health strategies. These issues will be addressed in various scenarios below. The
take-home point devolving from contemporary practice is that a singular definition and
application of “intent” does not work in the context of manner-of-death classification.
General Principles:
There are several General Principles that may guide manner-of-death classification for
the purposes of the death certificate. It is important to recognize that the death certificate
has unique uses which dictate a special set of guidelines for manner-of-death
classification.
A. There are exceptions to every “rule,” but every rule holds true most of the time.
Therefore, rules can be modified or broken in exceptional circumstances but can, and
should be followed most of the time.
B. There are basic, general “rules” for classifying manner of death.
• Natural deaths are due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process
5
• Accident applies when an injury or poisoning causes death and there is little or no
evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In
essence, the fatal outcome was unintentional.
• Suicide results from an injury or poisoning as a result of an intentional, self-inflicted
act committed to do self harm or cause the death of one’s self.
• Homicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another
person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is
not required for classification as homicide (more below). It is to be emphasized that
the classification of Homicide for the purposes of death certification is a “neutral”
term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination
within the province of legal processes.
• Undetermined or “could not be determined” is a classification used when the
information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more
other competing manners of death in thorough consideration of all available
information.
• In general, when death involves a combination of natural processes and external
factors such as injury or poisoning, preference is given to the non-natural manner of
death.
There are challenging aspects and exceptions related to each of the above classifications
and concepts. These will be addressed in the various sections that follow.
C. Certifiers of death should avoid, to the extent possible, interpretation of specific
statutes as they may apply to a specific case in question. For example, if a state
defines a fatal vehicular hit-and-run incident as a type of “vehicular homicide,” the
certifier may classify manner as accident if the fatal injury seems to have been
unintentional without clear intent to harm or cause death. Prosecution for vehicular
homicide is not precluded if the legal requirements are met. This principle minimizes the
need for the certifier to rely upon reported, often circumstantial third party or hearsay
information and evaluate these data it in the context of applicable criminal law, a function
better suited to others in the criminal justice system.
D. In general, the time interval between an injury/poisoning event and death is of
little relevance in regard to manner of death classification if death resulted from the
effects or complications of the injury/poisoning and there is no clear supervening cause.
For example, if a person dies 10 years after being intentionally shot by another person,
with death resulting from pneumonia and systemic sepsis as a result of quadriplegia
caused by the gunshot wound, the manner of death would still be classified as homicide.
By reliance on this approach, legal interpretations are not required of the certifier and the
criminal justice system’s duties are not precluded.
E. Manner of death certifications should be objective and based on simple,
established criteria. Manner-of-death classification should not be formulated on the
basis of trying to facilitate prosecution, avoiding challenging publicity, building a
political base, or promoting a personal philosophy or agenda.
6
F. Regardless of how the certifier classifies the manner of death, the certifier may
later address whether the findings are consistent with a proposed hypothetical
situation. For example, if the proper legal foundation is laid, the certifier may explain in
court why the manner of death was certified as accident when told that the defendant has
been charged with vehicular homicide. Whether the certifier is permitted to testify in
court about the certified manner of death rests upon the law and practice of the relevant
jurisdiction.
G. The “but-for” principle is commonly applicable. “But-for the injury (or hostile
environment), would the person have died when he/she did?” This logic is often cited as
a simple way to determine whether a death should be classified as natural or non-natural
(homicide, suicide, accident). When an injury or poisoning is involved in the cause of
death, an answer of “yes” supports a natural death and an answer of “no” should prompt
due consideration to be given to a non-natural manner of death. The certifier needs to
recognize, however, that the intermingling of natural and non-natural factors presents a
set of complex considerations in assigning a manner of death. Regardless of whether the
non-natural factor (a) unequivocally precipitated death, (b) exacerbated an underlying
natural pathological condition, (c) produced a “natural” condition that constitutes the
immediate cause of death, or (d) contributed to the death of a person with natural disease
typically survivable in a non-hostile environment, this principle remains: the manner of
death is unnatural when injury hastened the death of one already vulnerable to significant
or even life-threatening disease.
H. Most jurisdictions do not provide for manner of death to be classified as
“Complication of Therapy.” Although there are advocates for such an approach,
acceptance of the approach is not widespread. To be sure, the death certificate should
indicate when a death results from complications of medical diagnosis or treatment--
whether such indication is given in the cause-of-death statement itself, the “how injury
occurred” section, or in some other way. This Guide indulges the presumption that
“Complication of Therapy” is not an accepted category for manner of death, and that a
decision will have to be made for classification as one of the standard manners of death.
I. Risk-taking behavior poses challenges when classifying manner of death. More and
more, people are engaging in risky sports, recreational activities, and other personal
behaviors. Injury or death, when it occurs during such activities, is not entirely
unexpected, prompting the argument that such deaths may not truly be “accidents.”
Further, relevant differences in the nature and extent of risk, when comparing risky
activities, are difficult to clearly identify. For example, how does placing an “unloaded”
gun to the head and pulling the trigger (Roulette) differ from jumping from a bridge on an
elastic cord, engaging in sexual acts with a noose around the neck, or participating in a
sport in which blows to the head are part of the “game.”? These are challenging
questions. In subsequent sections of this Guide, an attempt is made to provide a system
of defensible logic to classify the manner of death in such cases.
J. Volition versus Intent. In evaluating the manner of death in cases involving external
causes or factors (such as injury or poisoning), injuries are often categorized as
7
“intentional” (such as inflicted injury in child abuse or shooting a person during a
robbery) or “unintentional” (such as falling from a building). Thus, assessment of
“intent” does relate to manner-of-death classification: it necessarily underlies the quasi-
judicial responsibility derived from the enabling law in the relevant jurisdiction of the
death certifier. However, the legal view of intent may differ from the death investigator’s
viewpoint. It is sometimes agonizingly difficult, and occasionally impossible, for the
unbiased investigator to infer a victim’s or “perpetrator’s” intent. Intent is also much
more apparent in some cases than others. For this reason, the concept of “voluntary acts”
or “volition” may be useful. In general, if a person’s death results at the “hands of
another” who committed a harmful volitional act directed at the victim, the death may be
considered a homicide from the death investigation standpoint. For example, consider
the case of a variation of firearms “roulette” in which the game is played as usual (one
bullet in the revolver’s cylinder) except that another person holds the gun to the
“player’s” head, spins the cylinder, pulls the trigger, and the gun discharges and kills the
“player.” All acts (loading the gun, spinning the cylinder, placing the gun to the head, and
pulling the trigger) were both volitional and intentional. Although there may not have
been intent to kill the victim, the victim died because of the harmful, intentional,
volitional act committed by another person. Thus, the manner of death may be classified
as homicide because of the intentional or volitional act—not because there was intent to
kill.
Principles and recommendations for specific types of cases.
1. To classify a death as Suicide, the burden of proof need not be “beyond any
reasonable doubt,” but it should exceed “more likely than not” (that is, the burden of
proof should be more compelling than 51%, which barely exceeds chance). In general,
requiring a “preponderance of evidence” is a reasonable practice when deciding whether
to classify a death as suicide. In some states, case or other law requires that a
preponderance of evidence exist to classify death as suicide. In short, if classification as
suicide is little more than an informed guess or mere speculation, accident or
undetermined are deemed to be better options.
2. When a natural event occurs in a hostile environment, as when someone has a
myocardial infarct while swimming, and there is a likelihood that the person was alive
when the face became immersed (i.e., the person was still alive while in the hostile
environment), preference is usually given to the non-natural manner unless it is clear that
death occurred before entry into the hostile environment. In the example cited (drowning
because of a myocardial infarct while swimming), the manner of death would be
appropriately classified as Accident. In this instance, a modified “but-for” test can be
applied. “But-for” the hostile environment, death would have been considerably less
likely to occur when it did and may not have occurred at all.
3. Consequences of chronic substance abuse, such as alcoholic cirrhosis, alcohol
withdrawal seizures, endocarditis secondary to chronic IV drug abuse, and emphysema
associated with smoking, have been traditionally designated as Natural manner. The
8
argument is often made that these deaths are chronic poisonings or that they result from
continuous exposure to external agents and are, therefore, not natural deaths. Further,
some argue that there is a “sub-intent” to do self- harm. However, the classification of
such deaths as natural has a long history, widespread acceptance, and recognition that
such behaviors result in “diseases” and become part of the person’s “normal” lifestyle
which often includes psychiatric elements such as a dependency or addictive disorder.
For these latter reasons, classification as natural seems most appropriate.
4. Deaths directly due to the acute toxic effects of a drug or poison (i.e., poisoning),
such as acute alcohol poisoning, excited delirium from acute cocaine intoxication, or
cardiac dysrhythmia due to tricyclic antidepressant toxicity have been traditionally
classified as Accident (assuming there was no intent to do self harm or cause death). In
general, these are adverse acute events involving external factors, and the occurrence of
the adverse event is not planned, reasonably expected, or reliably predictable as to time,
place, or person. The difficulty often encountered is whether the drug or substance
detected represents an acute exposure. For example, if benzoylecgonine only is detected
in blood, does that constitute an “acute exposure”? The issues involved are highly
dependent on the substance involved, are beyond the scope of this Guide, and are better
left to other publications. Suffice it to say that if death results from an acute intoxication
and the death was “unintentional,” tradition and logic indicate that the manner of death is
best classified as “accident.” Further discussion (and exceptions) are discussed in #6
below in reference to some deaths involving medications and treatments.
5. “Natural” disorders precipitated by an acute intoxication, such as cerebral
hemorrhage associated with acute cocaine intoxication, or rupture of a coronary
atherosclerotic plaque during acute cocaine intoxication, for the purpose of consistency,
may be classified as Accident if toxicology tests are supportive of an acute intoxication.
The problem is, however, as in #4, deciding upon how “acute” such an intoxication is or
must be to classify the manner of death as accident—and how acute effects of the drug
relate to more chronic effects, if present. A convincing argument could be offered that
preference should be given to the natural event while citing the intoxication in Part II and
classifying the death as natural. It is recommended, however, to remain consistent with
General Principle B (last bullet) that such deaths be classified as accidents. It is also
recommended that “acute” be interpreted liberally, perhaps even as “recent.” That is, if
the circumstances appear to link the death and a very recent intoxication, that the
intoxication be considered when classifying manner of death.
6. Deaths due to predictable, essentially unavoidable toxicity related to accepted
treatment of a medical disorder, such as digoxin toxicity in severe congestive heart
failure, or bone marrow suppression with fatal infection secondary to chemotherapy (a
poison), may be classified as Natural. In such cases, the treatment may have prolonged
the life of the individual. Because such deaths are “poisonings,” some advocate
classification as accident. However, tolerance, the need for high doses, and other factors
can make interpretations difficult. For these reasons, natural is the preferred
classification.
9
7. Hunting “accidents” in which a hunter intentionally fires a weapon (but may not
intend to shoot at a human), may, for consistency’s sake, be classified as Homicide
because the decedent died at the hands of another who volitionally fired the weapon.
Each step but one involved intent and volition: loading the weapon, aiming it at a target,
and pulling the trigger. The only intent absent was that of striking a human. The intent to
hit a target was fulfilled.
8. Firearms deaths in which a gun is shown to be capable of discharge without
pulling the trigger, and, based on investigation, did so (as when a gun fires when
dropped on the ground, or discharges when it is picked up), may be classified as
Accident if circumstances and investigation indicate that the gun was not fired by
intentionally pulling the trigger (lack of a volitional act).
9. Death of one who is struck by a ricochet from a firearm fired legally and without
disregard for safety or human life may be classified as Accident. To classify this as
homicide, critical elements are missing: an intent to harm or kill, and an intentional or
volitional pointing of the weapon in a way that the victim was the intended target. Often,
if bullets ricochet, wound morphology allows analysis of possible ricochet before bullet
entry, allowing the forensic pathologist to assess the possibility or likelihood of ricochet.
10. Russian roulette or similar variants may be classified as Suicide because the act of
placing a loaded gun to the head and pulling the trigger is inherently dangerous, carries a
high risk of death, and implies a “subintent” to do self-harm or accept the risk of serious
injury or death. Guns are generally regarded as lethal weapons and are inherently lethal
if misused. Knowledge of this fact is part of the reason the game is played. Thus, playing
the game connotes an acceptance of possibly fatal outcome. Attempting to determine the
victim’s state of mind and intent are extremely difficult. Classification of such deaths as
suicide provides for a consistent approach and reflects the most common practice.
11. Motor vehicle fatalities in general, may be classified as Accident (assuming no
suicidal or homicidal intent), even if by law the death may be regarded as vehicular
homicide—and, there is no evidence from reasonable investigative inference that the at-
fault person was using the vehicle as a weapon with an intent to kill the victim (in which
case homicide would apply.)
12. Deaths due to vector-borne disease, even though the result of a bite or puncture
such as rabies, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and malaria, may be classified as
Natural. These vectors transmit disease, and humans become ill or die from the disease
processes. Typically, the deaths are less sudden than those due to envenomization and
idiosyncratic responses to the agents are less variable than the individual response to
envenomization.
13. Deaths due to toxic envenomization, such as spider bites, snake bites, and
anaphylactic reactions to bee stings may be classified as Accident. These episodes are
typically acute and the fatal human pathophysiologic response involves reaction to a
toxin. Granted, the distinction between this type of death and those described in #12 is
10
somewhat arbitrary, but the line of distinction, thus drawn, is also fairly clear and easy to
establish.
14. Deaths due to drug or food induced anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reaction may
be classified as Accident, even if there is a previous history of allergic reaction to the
putative agent. Some argue that anaphylaxis represents an idiosyncratic pathophysiologic
response and should therefore be considered natural. However, such deaths are often
sudden, unpredicted, “premature,” and involve an external factor. Thus, classifying the
manner as accident is preferred. It matters not whether the agent is food, drug, contrast
dye, or other.
15. Unintentional deaths from drug toxicity/poisoning in which the drug is
administered by someone with the consent of the decedent may be classified as
Accident, as long as there is no evidence by reasonable investigative inference that the
drug was given with the intent to kill the victim. Prosecution may still occur, if
appropriate. This approach may seem inconsistent with some other scenarios, but it is
reasonable on the basis that severe injury or death is not near as likely as, for example,
when a loaded gun is placed to the head and the trigger is pulled.
16. Deaths due to positional restraint induced by law enforcement personnel or to
choke holds or other measures to subdue may be classified as Homicide. In such
cases, there may not be intent to kill, but the death results from one or more intentional,
volitional, potentially harmful acts directed at the decedent (without consent, of course).
Further, there is some value to the homicide classification toward reducing the public
perception that a “cover up” is being perpetrated by the death investigation agency.
17. Deaths of athletes due to injuries sustained in organized sports may be classified
as Accident because the participants accept inherent risks of the sport, unless the nature
of the injury clearly falls outside that which normally occurs during the activity. Another
way to regard this issue is that the “volitional or intentional act” that causes harm is
inherent in participating in the game, and the game or sport requires the participant to
commit potentially harmful acts. Thus, an untoward event is not solely attributable to the
participant, and the potential risks have been sanctioned and accepted. Examples might
include death from a “legal” head blow during boxing, or a broken neck from a tackle
during a football game. However, death resulting from an altercation might be
considered homicide if there were clear, unwarranted aggression outside the bounds of
normal activities related to the rules of the sport—chasing down a baseball pitcher and
striking him with the bat, for example. Judgment and informed discretion are required.
18. Death of a law enforcement officer from cardiovascular or other natural disease
while in pursuit of a criminal, felon, or suspect may be classified as Natural, assuming
there is no aggression or battery on the part of the person fleeing. Physical exertion may
be listed as a contributory factor. Sample wording for use in Part II might be “Physical
exertion while apprehending a fleeing suspect.” Such wording is appropriate for Part II
because no injury occurred, thus, the “how injury occurred” item is not applicable.
11
19. Deaths due to reasonably foreseeable complications of an accepted therapy for
natural disease may be classified as Natural. Examples include bone marrow
suppression from chemotherapy (a “poisoning,” actually) and digoxin toxicity in
someone who had intractable heart failure and required digoxin to maintain cardiac
function and life. Numerous other analogous examples exist.
20. Deaths due to improper use of medical equipment (without evidence of
intentional misuse) or defective or malfunctioning medical equipment may be
classified as Accident. Some examples are: instilling of air instead of water during an
endoscopic procedure, causing air embolism; connecting an oxygen cannula to an IV
line; malfunction of a morphine drip pump; cutting an artery during surgery and failing to
recognize and adequately repairing the “injury.”
21. Deaths resulting from grossly negligent medical care (such as inducing anesthesia
without resuscitative equipment/supplies available) may be classified as Accident unless
there is clear indication of intent to do harm, in which homicide might apply. The
criminalization of medical malpractice is of great concern to both the legal and medical
professions, and whether or not medical acts of commission or omission meet a legal
definition of negligent or other homicide is better left to others more familiar with the
legal issues involved.
22. Deaths due to undesirable outcomes of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures and
which involve circumstances outside the realm of reasonably acceptable risk and
expected outcome may be classified as Accident if a traumatic or toxic cause is shown
(such as inadvertently cutting a major artery or overdosing with anesthetic), and
Undetermined if a cause cannot be established (such as a young healthy man who dies
during surgery for a inguinal hernia and a cause cannot be determined).
23. High risk surgical patients who die while undergoing (or after) high risk
procedures may be classified as Natural if it appears that the normal and unavoidable
stress of the surgery and underlying disease resulted in death. Using the ASA surgical
risk classification to evaluate manner of death, as described by Reay, is a useful
approach. An approach to periprocedural deaths is contained in the CAP manual on death
certification. Both references are listed in suggested readings at the end of this Guide.
24. When a person commits suicide by forcing the police to shoot, the death may be
classified as Homicide. In “How injury occurred,” language such as “decedent forced
police to shoot him” may be used. The accuracy of reported details in such cases is not
always known, and classification as homicide seems to be the best approach. Public
perceptions of a “cover up” are also minimized using this approach.
25. Judicial executions may be certified as Homicide. In “How injury occurred,”
language such as “judicial electrocution” or “judicial lethal injection” may be used
26. When a young child shoots another child by pointing a gun and pulling a trigger,
the death may be classified as Homicide even though the child may not be subject to
12
prosecution. Undetermined may be appropriate if the circumstances are not well clarified,
or Accident may apply if investigation shows a faulty/malfunctioning weapon.
27. Traffic fatalities in which a pedestrian is killed and the driver has shown
negligent behavior, probable intoxication, or fleeing of the scene may be certified as
Accident even though these features may meet a legal definition of vehicular homicide,
and assuming that there was no intent to kill the individual. Whether or not the case
meets a legal definition of vehicular (or some other form) of homicide/manslaughter is
better left to the criminal justice system.
28.Deaths resulting from fear/fright induced by verbal assault, threats of physical
harm, or through acts aggression intended to instill fear or fright may be classified
as Homicide if there is a close temporal relationship between the incident and death.
Examples include someone who has an acute cardiac death while being verbally
assaulted; someone who dies in an auto crash while being chased by another to instill fear
or panic; someone who dies suddenly immediately after being bitten; and someone who
dies suddenly when someone scares them by popping up in a window and yelling
“BOO!” with an apparent intent to scare or instill fear. In general, the time interval to
establish the causal relationship between “minor injury” and collapse followed by death
or those involving acute cardiac deaths following fright must be very short—during the
stress inducing episode or immediate emotional response period-- a few minutes or less.
29. Post-traumatic seizure disorders may be classified in accordance with the nature of
the injury that resulted in the seizure disorder—regardless of the time interval between
the injury and death. Thus, post-traumatic seizure disorder that caused death 10 years
after the auto accident that caused the disorder may still be classified as Accident.
30. Failure to prescribe needed medication for natural disease, if there is no
indication of willful failure to prescribe with intent to do harm, may be classified as
Natural.
31. When a person has clearly committed a suicidal act, then apparently changes
his/her mind, but dies as a result of the act, the manner of death may be classified as
Suicide.
32. Café coronary in its classic form of upper airway obstruction by food (that hasn’t
made it to or through the esophagus) in an otherwise healthy person may be classified as
Accident. Typically, there is historical, anatomic, or toxicologic evidence accounting for
compromised deglutition. Agonal aspiration of gastric contents or GE reflux do not fall
into this category and, in general, should not be classified as an accidental manner of
death.
33. Deaths due to aspiration of oral secretions or gastric contents in those with
dementia or other chronic debilitating central nervous system disease may be
classified as Natural.
13
34. Death involving obstruction of a tracheostomy site or tube by mucous plugs or
other secretions may be classified in accordance with the nature of the condition that
required the tracheostomy to be performed. If performed for throat cancer, the manner
would be natural. If performed because of an old accidental head injury, the manner
would be accident, for example.
35. Deaths due to work-related infections resulting from job-related injury, such as
HIV infection acquired through an accidental needle stick, may be classified as Accident
if investigation shows no other compelling, competing causes, and the details of the
incident are reasonably well documented.
36. Deaths involving active euthanasia or actively assisted suicide may be classified
as Homicide unless state law dictates otherwise.
37. Assisted suicide involving passive assistance may be classified as Suicide unless
otherwise required by state law, and assuming that the assistance goes no further than
supplying one or more items (or information needed) to complete the act.
38. Deaths in which infants/young children die because of placement in a potentially
hostile environment (such as in a bath tub with water, or being left in a locked car) may
be classified as Accident if there is no evidence of intent to harm the child.
39. Deaths due to environmental hypothermia or hyperthermia may be classified as
Accident if there is no intent to kill or harm the victim via the act of placing or leaving a
person in such environment with apparent intent to do harm.
40. Deaths in which hot weather or cold weather seem to precipitate death primarily
caused by underlying disease such as cardiovascular or respiratory illness may be
classified as Natural. In Part II of the cause-of-death statement, “Hot weather” or “Cold
Weather” may be listed as contributory factors. Life consists of having to live within the
realm of natural conditions imposed by the weather and climate, and if the individual’s
underlying ill-health is a major factor in causing death, the adverse impact of natural
changes in weather, even if regarded as extreme, does not warrant classification as
Accident. For example, if a person’s emphysema/bronchitis are aggravated by a high
pollen count and death results, are we to classify the death as an Accident? What about
high and low humidity that may contribute to death by aggravating severe respiratory
disease? The potential cause and effect relationships are too vague and difficult to
establish to allow for non-natural classification in such cases. Similarly, deaths related to
exertion brought about by adverse weather may also be classified as natural, such as a
myocardial infarction brought about by shoveling snow.
41. Deaths of those with major disease and minor accidental trauma may be
classified as natural if it is thought that death was about as likely to have occurred when it
did had the trauma not existed. For example, a person in sickle cell crisis might sustain a
minor injury that could exacerbate the crisis, yet the crisis is severe enough that it may
well have been fatal on its own.
14
42. Pregnancy-related deaths such as those due to eclampsia, air embolism, amniotic
fluid embolism and other well-recognized complications of pregnancy may be classified
as natural if there is no indication that that the complication resulted from inappropriate
use of a medical device or an inappropriate or unlawful procedure.
43. Death resulting from an act of aggression with a chemical or biological agent
released or activated to cause fear or harm may be classified as homicide. Bioterrorism
events are included in this category which would also include smaller scale events such
as intentionally poisoning the food at a salad bar, or tainting a commercial drug with a
poison.
44. Fatalities resulting from autoerotic behavior or consensual atypical sexual
behavior may be classified as accident in manner. Examples include autoerotic asphyxia
with hanging or deaths involving bondage with asphyxia in which the person being
bound did so voluntarily as far as investigation can show. As dangerous behaviors, one
could argue that these are not dissimilar from Russian Roulette. The perceived risk of
death, however, may not be as great and the “weapon” or agents involved are, in general,
not as inherently dangerous.
45. Natural deaths occurring during the exertion of intercourse or other sexual
activity such as masturbation may be classified as natural in manner. An example would
be rupture of a berry aneurysm shortly after coitus.
46. Self-inflicted deaths committed while under the influence of a mind-altering
drug may be classified as Suicide. Assuming that the mind-altering drug was taken
voluntarily, the victim assumes the risk of the adverse effects of the drugs on behavior. A
pathologist can rarely, if ever, determine that a suicidal act would not have occurred if a
given drug were not in the victim’s “system,” or that an intoxication caused an
“accident” rather than suicide.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and related infant deaths
Infant deaths pose special problems when classifying manner of death and stating the
cause of death. Changing trends in causes of infant mortality, increased recognition of
fatal infant and child abuse, and changing concepts about pathogenesis and injury
mechanisms all have served to complicate the certification of infant deaths. For these
reasons, they are discussed as a group below.
Deaths presenting as possible Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, after thorough autopsy and
investigation, tend to fall into one of the following Groups:
Group 1. A specific disease, injury, or other condition is identified as the cause of death
Group 2. The case meets the criteria for the diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome
(no cause of death identified after complete autopsy, including toxicology and other lab
15
tests, scene investigation, and review of the medical/clinical history) and there is no
information which brings the SIDS diagnosis into question (toxicology tests are negative,
histology is negative, and there are no unusual scene findings or sleeping conditions—in
essence, a “classic” and uncomplicated SIDS case)
Group 3. The case substantially meets the criteria for sudden infant death syndrome but
evidence of a disease condition (such as focal bronchiolitis) is found but the role of the
condition in causing or contributing to death is not truly known or is difficult to rule in or
out as a causative or contributory finding
Group 4. The case substantially meets the criteria for sudden infant death syndrome but
evidence of an external condition or risk factor exists (such as bedsharing with adults,
sleeping face down on a soft pillow or adult mattress, etc) but the role of the external
condition or risk factor in causing or contributing to death is not truly known or is
difficult to evaluate, prove, or disprove.
Group 5. Something in the investigation precludes a diagnosis of SIDS, but the cause and
manner of death have not been determined.
To complicate matters, within the recently (2001) published Position Statement by The
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on infant death investigation there is a list of
findings which, if found at autopsy, should preclude a diagnosis of SIDS according to the
AAP. This list includes factors like drugs (even medications) and old skeletal trauma
(such as an isolated healing rib fracture). If the diagnosis of SIDS is to be avoided in
such cases, the question of true cause of death arises which, in turn, raises the question of
manner-of-death classification. Based on these considerations, the following guidelines
are offered based on the five Groups as described above:
• Group 1. These are cases in which a specific cause of death is apparent (such as
pneumonia, meningitis, congenital heart defect, overlaying, asphyxia from plastic
bag, head trauma, etc). The cause of death should be reported and the manner of death
classified as indicated based on the circumstances.
• Group 2. These “classic” SIDS cases may be certified as “Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome” or “Consistent with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,” or “Consistent with
the Definition of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.” The manner of death may be
classified as either natural or undetermined, depending on the certifier’s philosophy
and approach. “Undetermined” is probably the most objective approach since the
cause is, by definition, undetermined. From the statistical coding standpoint, either
option would be ICD-coded to R95—Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Whichever
method is used, consistency within a given death investigation jurisdiction is
recommended. Based on currently available information and concerns about infant
deaths, however, “undetermined” manner is the recommendation of this Guide. If the
manner is certified as undetermined in such cases, the injury information may be
listed as unknown or not applicable if the local registrar requires those death
certificate items to be completed. Also, if the “undetermined” option is used for this
Group of cases, the medical examiner may explain to the parents (and others, as
16
needed) that the death may have been due to natural causes but our ability to know
for sure is limited.
• Group 3. The cause of death in this Group may be stated as “Consistent with Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome” or similar terminology. The condition(s) causing interpretive
difficulties may be listed in Part II as an “other significant condition” (such as “focal
bronchiolitis”). The manner may be classified as natural or undetermined using the
same logic as described for Group 2 cases, with “undetermined” being the
recommended option.
• Group 4. The cause of death in this Group may be stated as “Consistent with Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome” or similar terminology. The condition(s) causing interpretive
difficulties may be listed in Part II as an “other significant condition” (such as “face
down on soft pillow”). The manner may be classified as undetermined because the
external factor poses the distinct possibility of a non-natural death. In essence, these
would be cases in which all findings point to SIDS except that there is one or more
factors (bed sharing, face down on soft bedding, etc) that significantly heighten the
possibility of an external cause being involved. If the case involves a decision
whether to certify the cause of death as SIDS or back off from SIDS because of the
presence of a possibly significant external factor, it is recommended that the cause of
death be listed as “Consistent with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,” the external risk
factors be listed in Part II as other significant conditions, and the manner of death be
classified as undetermined. This approach allows for an objective report of the
findings.
• Group 5. The cause of death may be simply stated as “Unexpected and
Undetermined Cause” or similar wording. Terms such as “sudden unexplained infant
death” should be avoided because the wording may cause confusion with sudden
infant death syndrome and result in inappropriate ICD coding. Complicating factors
such as bed sharing may be reported in Part II, as needed. The manner of death may
be classified as undetermined. The injury items may be listed as unknown if the local
registrar requires completion of the injury items in such cases.
In addition, there are several other scenarios related to infant deaths. Recommendations
for these follow:
S1. Simultaneous, apparent SIDS deaths may be classified as Undetermined. The
odds of simultaneous deaths due to natural causes is extremely low, making non-natural
causes (accidental or homicidal) likely enough to use the undetermined classification.
The cause of death may also be listed as undetermined or employ wording other than
sudden infant death syndrome.
S2. Second and subsequent apparent SIDS deaths among siblings or common
caregiver(s) may be classified as Undetermined (assuming there is insufficient
information to classify them otherwise). The odds of a second SIDS is low, justifying
17
the undetermined classification. The cause of death may also be listed as undetermined or
employ wording other than sudden infant death syndrome.
S3. Illegal termination of pregnancy may be classified as homicide if live birth
occurred or as feticide if stillborn, regardless of length of gestation, and assuming that
fetal demise was caused by the attempt to terminate pregnancy. . The criminal justice
system can make decisions about which cases meet the criteria for prosecution.
S4. Death of fetuses and infants possibly due to maternal drug intoxication may be
certified as accident unless there is a preponderance of investigative information
indicating that the mother intended to terminate the pregnancy or life. In essence, the
same manner would apply to the fetus/infant as if the mother died under the same
circumstances.
18
Index
Subject Page(s) Item(s)
Acute toxicities 9 4
Acute intoxications precipitating “natural” cause 9 5
Anaphylaxis 11 14
Aspiration 13 33
Athletic injuries 11 17
Autoerotic fatalities 15 44
Background information 4,5
Biological/chemical aggression 15 43
But-for principle 7 G
Café coronary 13 32
Preface/Caveats/disclaimers 2
Chronic substance abuse 8 3
Complications of therapy 12 19-23
Degree of certainty 4
Disease and trauma combined 14 41
Drug overdose given by other 11 15
Envenomization 10 13
Environmental hyper/hypothermia 14 39
Euthanasia/assisted suicide 14 36,37
Failure to prescribe 13 30
Fear/fright 13 28
Firearms fatalities: accidental 10 8
Firearms deaths committed by children 12 26
Forcing police to shoot to commit suicide 12 24
General principles 5-8
Hostile environments and children 14 38
Hunting “accidents” 10 7
Infant/Fetal deaths 15-18
Infection following injury 14 35
Intercourse 15 45
Introductory Remarks 3,4
Judicial execution 12 25
Motor vehicle fatalities 10,13 11,27
Natural death in hostile environment 8 2
Positional restraint: law enforcement 11 16
Pregnancy related deaths 15 42
Pursuit, death during 11 18
References (Suggested reading) 29
Ricochet 10 9
Risk taking behavior 7 I
Rules of thumb 5 B
Russian Roulette 10 10
Seizures 13 29
Suicide 8,13,15 1,31,46
Toxicity from medical treatment 9 6
Tracheostomy obstruction 14 34
Vector-borne disease 10 12
Volition versus intent 7 J
Weather related deaths 14 40
19
Appendix: The Review and Comment Process
After the draft of this Guide was completed in late September 2001, it was posted on the
NAME web site for a 6-week period of review and comment by the NAME membership.
The membership was notified of the review and comment process via NAME-L, NAME
NEWS, and at the annual meeting in Richmond. All comments that were received have
been reviewed and considered. Most feedback was positive, supportive of the concepts
expressed, and without significant suggestions for modification of the guide. A few
comments from other reviewers did raise important or controversial issues. This
Appendix reports those comments and describes how the comments and issues were
addressed. Editorial responses to the comments are [bracketed].
The authors wish to thank all of the individuals who took the time to provide comments
about this Guide.
Scenario 9 (Ricochet). One reviewer felt that some deaths involving ricochet might better
be classified as homicide, as might occur when a prison guard fires a warning shot that
goes awry, then ricochets and kills an inmate. [Cases such as this require judgment and
room is allowed for judgment. The scenario and suggestion offered in this Guide was
directed more at an instance in which there are no law enforcement issues involved, as
might occur at a firing range, while hunting, or around the home or on personal property.
Further, some ricochets may actually occur when a person is aiming at and intending to
strike a victim. In such cases, classifying the manner of death as homicide may be
appropriate. Judgment is needed in each case because subtle differences in circumstances
may have major impact on case interpretation, decision making, and classification].
Scenario 14 (anaphylaxis). Two reviewers felt that anaphylaxis, when there is no
“mistake” made in exposing the decedent to the allergen—and if the exposure does not
involve a trauma and toxin such as a bee sting and venom, should be classified as natural.
[An example might be a reaction from eating shellfish or other food, and the argument for
natural manner in such cases is compelling. However, deaths from anaphylaxis are rare,
and they are usually unexpected, unanticipated, and involve some exogenous exposure
(including substances in food) that causes death. For these reasons, this Guide
recommends that the manner be classified as accident as a matter of routine so the subtle
differences in allergens and exposure routes need not be weighed. Of course, another
manner of death might be applicable in some cases, such as homicide if it were known
that a person intentionally exposed another individual to the causative antigen with intent
to do harm].
SIDS cases. One reviewer felt that a specific recommendation for manner of death in
classic SIDS cases should be made rather than stating that either natural or undetermined
is acceptable. [This section has been altered to recommend that the manner in classic
SIDS cases be classified as undetermined since, by definition, the cause of death in SIDS
cases is unknown and could involve external and non-natural factors. It is acknowledged
that considerable evidence points to natural causes in such cases, but because the
classification of manner of death does not impact coding in cases certified as SIDS, the
20
undetermined classification seems to be the most objective—at least on the basis of
currently available information. One reviewer indicated agreement, in principle, with an
undetermined manner in SIDS cases, but in practice, classifies the manner as natural
because of the traditional view that a natural manner is less likely to adversely impact
upon the parents/family.]
Concept of “Unclassified” Manner of Death. One reviewer pointed out that having the
option of “unclassified” as a manner of death might be useful, for example, in some cases
involving complications of therapy or for certain types of drug deaths and other
scenarios. For example, the reviewer argued that chronic substance abuse involves
intentional self-destructive behavior and has suicidal elements in addition to what might
be argued as unintentional or accidental components (or even homicidal components if
the drug were injected by someone else), and that the best option for manner of death
would be “unclassified.” The reviewer pointed out that “unclassified” differs from
“undetermined” which actually means “could not be determined.” [Although the federal
standard death certificate (upon which the state death certificates are modeled) does not
include an option for “unclassified,” there may be one or more states in which such an
option does exist. As a practical matter, however, it is recommended that “undetermined”
and “unclassified” be used synonymously until such time that additional standard options
are provided for manner-of-death classification. It is felt that in most instances, a given
death can be reasonably placed into one of the existing categories (natural, homicide,
suicide, accident, or undetermined) using the principles in this Guide. The “unclassified”
option would not add much value to the classification system, although admittedly, it
might make some deaths easier to “classify” by not having to make a decision].
A second reviewer also brought up the concept of “unclassified,” and reported to use it as
the manner of death in some cases in which none of the other categories seem
appropriate-- for example-- a mental patient who thinks he can fly and jumps off a
building. Or, as another example, the death of an infant from immaturity who was born
alive after a legal attempt at abortion—in which arguments could be made for accident,
homicide, or natural. [This seemingly rare sequence does make a good point, but again,
the other available options for manner of death could be used in such cases].
Drunk driving. One reviewer pointed out that the death of a drunk driver in some
respects fulfills the criteria for suicide (i.e., self destructive behavior), although such
deaths are classified as accidents as a matter of convention. The same reviewer, however,
reported the practice of classifying the manner of death as homicide when a person is
killed by a drunk driver. [The recommendation in this Guide for such cases has been
discussed elsewhere, and for the reasons stated (which include issues of intent and the
law), that such deaths are more appropriately classified as accidents because doing so
does not bar or obstruct applicable vehicular homicide laws or prosecution, if
appropriate].
Volitional versus intentional. One reviewer requested clarification of these terms in
reference to Section J on Page 7. [Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “volition” as
“using the will,” deciding what to do,” or “a conscious or deliberate decision or choice.”
21
In contrast, one definition of “intent,” and probably the best for the purposes of this
Guide, is “the purpose at the time of doing an act.” In the case of a straightforward
suicidal gunshot wound of the head, the volitional acts include deciding to load a gun,
putting it to the head, and pulling the trigger. The “intent” or purpose of the volitional act
is to end one’s life. In some cases, the intent to end one’s life is less clear, although the
volitional element of the act (such as placing a loaded gun to the head and pulling the
trigger in Russian Roulette) is quite clear. The issue, then, is whether “intent” to die (the
purpose of the volitional act) is inclusive of employing a recognized, potentially lethal
weapon and accepting a definite and known risk of death during the action under
consideration. Acceptance of this premise seems reasonable for one simple reason: why
else would the victim have committed the act in the first place? It is accepting or even
desiring the risk that serves as the purpose of the volitional act. One might state it as “but
for the volitional act—the will, decision, and deliberate choice and the clear and present
danger and risk of death brought about by the volitional act—a fatal outcome would not
have been expected.” It could be argued that other “sport” such a parachuting or rock-
face climbing might fulfill the same criteria. However, the practical difference is that the
“weapon” in these latter cases is not something normally regarded and widely recognized
as a lethal weapon. The same “but for” statement can be applied in the context of
volition when supporting the classification of a hunting “accident” as a homicide. “But
for the volitional act of aiming the gun and pulling the trigger, the death would not have
occurred.” A major and unavoidable consideration is the type of weapon or agent
involved and the likelihood of its use being lethal when employed toward a human
being].
Scared to death. One reviewer was concerned that a death during an exclusively verbal
argument (such as acute cardiac death) might be classified as homicide based on the
principles in this Guide. [That was not the intent of the principles. Solely verbal
arguments tend to escalate because of mutual participation of the parties. That situation
differs from one in which one party commits a volitional act (such as yelling “boo” at a
frail elderly person) with the apparent intent to scare or become alarmed—which
constitutes assault. In this latter type of case, classification as homicide may be
appropriate. Acute cardiac death precipitated by the stress of “normal” activities and
events of daily life, such as vigorous verbal argument, is regarded as Natural, akin
mechanistically to sudden death after consensual conventional sexual activity.]
Death during a struggle. One reviewer thought that death during a struggle with another
person should be ruled homicide if there was physical contact. [In some cases, this is
certainly appropriate—especially if the struggle was precipitated by a physical assault or
battery initiated by the other person. There are, however, cases in which cardiac deaths
occur from exertion that is job related (such as running after a suspected bank robber, or
putting out a fire) in which a natural manner of death is appropriate. If such a death
occurs during a felony committed by the second party (not the deceased), that death may
be regarded as a homicide or felony murder by law enforcement authorities and the
courts, but the medical classification of manner need not be based on an interpretation of
such laws].
22
Car chases. One reviewer broached the subject of “innocent bystanders” killed during car
chases, such as pedestrian struck and killed while the police are chasing a fleeing felon.
Some regard the manner as homicide in such cases. [This situation is analogous to many
others in that definition of the crime (such as felony murder) and legal responsibility for
such deaths are defined in law. From the medical certification standpoint, unless there
was convincing evidence that there was intent to kill the victim, the principles in this
Guide would result in such deaths being classified as accidents. The manner would be the
same regardless of whether the innocent bystander were struck and killed by the fleeing
felon or by the police who were in pursuit of the felon].
Hostile environment. Regarding Scenario #38, two reviewers raised concern that some
such deaths (e.g., infant inadvertently left in a hot car and dying of hyperthermia, or in a
bathtub and dying of drowning) might be classified as homicide to differentiate such
cases from those of lesser degrees of negligence. [This certainly is an option, but the
principles in this Guide suggest that such cases be classified as accident unless there is
clear evidence of intent to harm the child. In essence, ignorance or an untoward oversight
would not, in and of themselves, result in classification as homicide. Classification of
such deaths as accident would not preclude legal proceedings and criminal charges if the
case met legal criteria of criminal neglect, abandonment, or some other crime. These
deaths can be very circumstance dependent, and the degree of “neglect” does need to be
considered. For example, the manner of death may be different in a case in which an
infant was left in a hot car for 8 hours while the mother played slot machines compared
with a case in which and infant was left for 30 minutes while the mother went shopping
for baby food. A major problem occurs in interpreting the degree of neglect and just how
much and what type of neglect are needed to classify the death as a homicide. This is why
the more generic approach of “accident” is recommended for most cases. See also
Principle #2, page 8].
Degrees of certainty. Three reviewers had concerns about the various degrees of
certainty as discussed on Page 4. [Each suggested that the “beyond a reasonable doubt”
(the wording used in the original draft) be changed to “beyond any reasonable doubt,”
and that change was made].
Regarding the certainty of the cause of death (compared with manner of death), a
classification system was offered by one reviewer and drawn from Charles Hirsch’s “A
Cause of Death versus The Cause of Death:”
Class I. Absolute certainty, because pathological findings are inconsistent with continued life and the
mechanism is obvious (such as rupture of the heart or bilateral massive pulmonary embolism);
Class II. Pathologic findings competent to explain death but without the development of complications that
would promote them to Class I. The degree of certainty is determined by history and circumstances.
Class III. Marginal pathologic findings, compelling history, and exclusion of other causes.
23
Class IV. Pathologically negative but a positive history and exclusion of other causes (epilepsy would be an
example of a natural condition in this Class, and electrocution without cutaneous burns is an example of a
non-natural death in this Class).
Class V. Cause of death undetermined.
A second reviewer had additional comments about degree of certainty and offered the
following scheme:
<50% may be viewed as “possible”
>50% may be viewed as “probable”
“Preponderance of evidence” is equivalent to “more likely than not” or “probable (>50%),” permits
reasonable doubts, and is the degree of certainty used when making a determination of cause of death in
natural deaths.[This point is well-taken in that arriving at a conclusion or establishing facts by a
“preponderance of evidence” in civil actions, for example, means that something is more likely so than not
so.]
“Certainty beyond a reasonable doubt” equates to “reasonable degree of medical certainty”-- this far
exceeds 50%-- and is the degree of certainty required when considering homicide versus other, or accident
versus suicide. It is the degree of certainty when there is no good reason to believe otherwise, or, that you
would require to make the most important decisions in your life, or, the degree of assurance that a
reasonable person relies upon in his/her most important business.
“Certainty beyond a possible doubt” is 100% or absolute certainty and is a degree if certainty that we
cannot achieve because it means that there are no other possibilities.
A third reviewer offered the following definitions and concepts:
Speculation: the hypothetical is possible only in the sense that the scenario does not violate the laws of
physics, but cannot be taken seriously by a reasonable person. Not admissible in civil or criminal court.
Reasonable possibility. A possible scenario that is admissible in court. It may be correct, but in the expert’s
mind, does not rise to the level of “more likely than not.”
Opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty (or probability). In civil court, this means that the
scenario is more likely than not, and essentially is synonymous with “preponderance of evidence.” In
criminal court, this means two things: The scenario is more likely than not, and there are no other
reasonable possibilities (another reasonable possibility translating in the jury room to reasonable doubt).
The former may be regarded as the “civil standard” for and the latter as the “criminal standard.” The
reviewer prefers to meet the “criminal standard” in order to classify a death as homicide, and if only the
“civil standard” is met, will classify the manner as undetermined or, on rare occasion, classify the manner
as homicide but comment that the classification meets only the “civil standard.” To classify a death as
suicide, the reviewer feels that only the civil standard need be met, but as a practical matter to avoid family
complaints, a desirable level of certainty for classification as suicide is “way more likely than not.”
The same reviewer points our that “clear and convincing evidence” is not easily defined, and to some,
equates with “reasonable degree of certainty.”
24
[The concepts presented by the three reviewers above seem workable and fall within
those presented in this Guide on Page 4. However, the categories on Page 4 seem to
provide a clearer conceptual progression of “degrees of certainty.” The major point is
that the degree of certainty needs to be higher when classifying a death as homicide or
suicide than it might need to be in determining a natural cause of death].
Degree of certainty and suicide (Principle #1, Page 8.) One reviewer thought the
recommendations for degree of certainty were confusing in the context of suicide
classification, and emphasized that the burden of proof should be beyond a reasonable
doubt but need not be beyond a possible doubt (or beyond any reasonable doubt). [These
distinctions are subtle but important, and the principle is consistent with those in this
Guide. The point is that absolute certainty is not needed to classify a death a suicide, but
that the degree of certainty should exceed “more likely than not.” In the context of this
Guide, the burden of proof would be a preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing
evidence, or beyond any reasonable doubt.]
Death in a hostile environment (Principle #2, Page 8). One reviewer suggested that
classification of manner of death which occurs in a hostile environment depends on
whether the disease itself is life threatening. Thus, because most seizure disorders are not
life threatening, a fatality from seizure in water would be classified as accident (assuming
there was immersion and/or drowning), while someone with severe cardiac rhythm
disturbances who collapses in water might be better classified as natural. A second
reviewer agreed and also stated the he does not regard a bathtub as a hostile environment
for an adult—not like a swimming pool in some circumstances. The second reviewer also
feels that most cardiac deaths in water do not significantly involve increased risk of death
(because the mechanism is most likely irreversible V-fib as opposed to cardiac syncope
or some other reversible mechanism) and would have been as likely to be fatal out of
water. [There is obviously a difference in opinion among medical examiners on this
point, and selection of manner as accident or natural in such cases does not reflect
competence. The principles and recommendations in this Guide indicate that preference
should be given to the non-natural manner of death if the hostile environment is thought
to have accelerated death or significantly decreased the chances of survival. Thus, the
severity and pathophysiology of underlying disease do play a role in decision making, but
if the hostile environment played a role, preference is given to the non-natural manner of
death. Certainly, there are instances in which role of the hostile environment is non-
contributory, and a natural manner of death in such cases is appropriate].
Job-related cardiovascular death (Scenario #18). One reviewer suggested that the fatal
heart attack of a firefighter putting out a fire at the scene of an arson should be classified
as a homicide. [The principles and recommendations in this Guide indicate that natural
death (if no smoke inhalation was involved) is the preferred option. Certain types of
jobs are responsive in nature and potentially stressful from the physiologic exertion
standpoint, ands certain risks are accepted. If the fire were accidental in origin, the death
would probably not be classified as an accident (again, assuming that death was due
solely to exertion and ASCVD, not smoke inhalation), so why classify the death as
homicide if the fire were the result of arson? By extrapolation, one could then argue that
25
the death of any law enforcement officer from ASCVD while chasing an alleged criminal
or suspect could be classified as a homicide, which does not seem appropriate and opens
up cans of worms regarding job-related and other types of death.]
Therapeutic complications (Scenario #23). One reviewer pointed out that at least one
jurisdiction has the option of listing the manner of death as “therapeutic complication”
and the “but for” question is used in decision making. “But for the treatment, would the
patient likely died at his time?” For example, a person who dies on the operating table
during surgery for a ruptured abdominal aneurysm would be regarded as natural in
manner. A person who dies of postoperative pneumonia following an elective
cholecystectomy would be classified as a therapeutic complication. [The principles in this
Guide would result in both deaths being classified as natural. The option of therapeutic
complication is not available in most states. The important point is that the cause-of-death
statement reflect the complication of treatment and the underlying disease or condition
being treated. Therapy-related deaths and their classification of manner as accident,
natural, or undetermined are covered elsewhere in this Guide and other publications].
Forcing the police to shoot to commit suicide (Scenario #24). One reviewer pointed out
that these deaths can be very circumstance-dependent and some are suicides. [The
principles in this guide provide room for judgment, although, in general, the
recommendation is to certify such deaths as homicide—for the reasons stated in Scenario
#24].
Disease and intoxication/injury (Scenario #41). One reviewer emphasizes that if an injury
or intoxication plays a role in causing death, whether cited in Part I or Part II of the
cause-of-death statement, death cannot be certified as natural, and that the natural
classification is reserved for deaths that are exclusively (100% natural). [In general, these
advisories are true. Generally, anytime an injury or poisoning is mentioned in Part I or
Part II of the cause-of-death section of the death certificate, the injury or poisoning
should be regarded as having contributed to death, and the manner of death should be
classified as other than natural. There are rare instances, however, in which a very minor
accidental trauma may exacerbate a very significant disease, as described in Scenario
#41, or as might occur in a hemophiliac who is having an episode of serious bleeding that
is exacerbated by what would be otherwise considered as trivial trauma. This discussion
pertains to accidental trauma only. To be sure, if an accidental injury is cited in Part I or
Part II, the date, time, place, and how injury occurred items must be completed. There is
some debate, however, even among registrars and nosologists, whether completion of
these items always requires a manner of death other than natural, especially if the injury
is cited in Part II. The discussion in Scenario #41 simply suggests that this option is
available on the very rare instance in which it may be needed].
Other Comments. Various other comments were offered, and they are listed here, along
with editorial comments in response [bracketed]:
• Two manners of death should not be listed in a given case. For example, if an elderly
person has heart disease that is exacerbated by a fall with hip fracture, one should
26
avoiding citing the manner as natural and accident. [One should be selected based on
principles in this Guide and elsewhere (see suggested reading)].
• Using the “unclassified” option should be avoided. It is typically used as an easy way
out when wanting to avoid a controversial decision. [This has been discussed above].
• Refusal to be treated or having one’s treatment withdrawn is not suicide, but rather,
allowing the disease to take its natural course [Agreed].
• Death due to “natural disease” is not always synonymous with natural manner of
death, as may be the case in child medical neglect [Agreed].
• Susceptibility or vulnerability of the victim does not absolve the assailant of criminal
responsibility, and one takes the victim as he/she finds him. [Agreed. This is the
argument for classifying “scared to death” cases as homicide, among other examples].
• People who die of complications of therapy for treatment of “homicidal” injuries can
be managed using a general rule: if the injury is life threatening, then the manner is
homicide—if the original injury is not life threatening, then the therapeutic
complication should dominate. [This brings up the concept of a supervening cause,
which is a legal term. In such cases, whether an inflicted injury is life threatening will
be a topic of debate, as will the relative severity of the initial injury and the
complication of therapy. Most cases can probably be managed using the “but-for”
principle—“but for the inflicted (“homicidal”) injury, the therapeutic complication
and death would not have occurred.” There are cases, however, in which the injury is
so trivial that classification as homicide would not be appropriate, and there are cases
in which a clearly distinct, supervening cause may come into ply. An inflicted bite
wound would not normally be construed as life threatening, but if death occurs from
infection of the bite wound, the death may be appropriately classified as homicide, as
it might be if antibiotics used to treat the infection caused fatal anaphylaxis. “But for
the bite wound, death would not have occurred.” Prudent medical judgment is needed
in such cases. Strict dogma cannot be uniformly applied. The major points are that
one needs to be able to explain his/her reasons for the classification, and in
classifying the death, one should not give too much emphasis to legal definitions and
interpretations.]
• One does not need to demonstrate intent to certify a death as a homicide. Intent
distinguishes murder from various degrees of manslaughter and are legal distinctions
that medical examiners do not make. [Agreed, and this has been addressed elsewhere
in this Guide.]
• Manner of death should be classified as natural in pathologic hip fractures from
osteoporosis, metastases and the like. [Agreed, and discussed elsewhere in this
Guide].
• In deaths resulting from medical treatment complications, the underlying disease or
injury for which treatment was given should be included in the cause-of-death
statement—for example—“anaphylaxis due to penicillin treatment for gunshot wound
of abdomen.” [Agreed, and addressed in other publications regarding cause-of-death
statements—see suggested reading.]
• By convention, we certify chronic alcoholic deaths as natural even if the person as
acutely intoxicated by ethanol (only). [This is probably a common approach and
appropriate in most cases because alcohol concentrations in chronic alcoholics are
27
difficult to interpret as to their significance. The toxicologic findings must be viewed
in the context of other case information and circumstances. See Scenario #3.]
• Russian Roulette deaths need to be examined on a cases by case basis because some
may be accidents due to testosterone and/or alcohol or drug intoxication. [Each case
does need to be examined on its own merit. However, the interpretation of the
significance of hormones and intoxicants and their effects on judgment and behavior
are subjective and prone to error. For this reason, classification as suicide is the
general recommendation of this Guide. See Scenario #10.]
• If a pedestrian is truck by a fleeing felon, the death of the pedestrian should be
certified as homicide. [This is discussed elsewhere in this guide, and because the
felony may not be established at the time of certification, among other reasons, the
general recommendation in this Guide is to certify such deaths as accidents. See
Scenarios #11 and #27.]
• Due to the illegal act of administering an illegal substance to another, we certify such
deaths (see Scenario #15) as homicide because intent is not needed to classify a death
as homicide. [The recommendations in this Guide differ, based partially on the
assumption of consent of the victim and other factors. See Scenario #15.]
• The fetal death certificate may not have a place to indicate manner of death. [Agreed.
But the issue may need to be addressed elsewhere, such as an investigative or autopsy
report.]
• Birth related infant deaths (dystocia, nuchal cord, etc) are natural. [Agreed, as are
deaths from birth-related anoxia (such as cerebral palsy) if wholly related to the
birthing process and no external causes were involved.]
• One reviewer pointed out that the manner of death as recommended in Scenarios
12,13, and 14 are consistent with an epidemiological concept articulated by
Haddan—that acute, solitary environmental insults tend to be regarded as accidental,
while chronic repetitive insults tend to be viewed as natural. [Good (and convenient)
historical point].
• One reviewer, in regard to Scenario #15, reserves the use of “overdose” for incidents
in which the dose is known and excessive, and does not use the term in regard to
street drugs and illicit drug use. [This is a reasonable approach and a good point. The
word “overdose,” which appeared in the original version of this guide, has been
replaced with “toxicity/poisoning”].
28
Suggested Reading
Note: Upon reading the referenced articles, you will discover that opinions and
approaches vary regarding the practice of manner-of-death classification—and may vary
from the recommendations in this Guide. The references are provided as background
information and as resources, when needed.
Davis GG. Mind your manners part 1: History of death certification and manner-of-death
classification. Am J Fornesic Med pathol 1997;18(3): 219-223
Goodin J, Hanzlick R. Mind your manners part II: General results from the National Association of
Medical Examiners Manner of Death Questionnaire, 1995. Am J Forensic Med Pathol
1997;18(3):224-227.
Hanzlick R, Goodin J. Mind your manners part III: Individual scenario results from the National
Association of Medical Examiners Manner of Death Questionnaire, 1995. Am J Forensic Med Pathol
1997;18(3):228-245.
Hirsch CS, Flomenbaum M. Problem solving in death certification. ASCP Check Sample FP95-1.(FP
202). 37(1), 1995. ASCP, Chicago.
Rosenberg ML, Davidson LE, Smith JC et al. Operational criteria for the determination of suicide. J
Forensic Sci 1988;33:1445-1456. Also see corresponding Letter to Editor: Donohue ER, Lifschultz
BD. Discussion of operational criteria for the determination of suicide. J Forensic Sci
1989;34(5):1056-8.
Hanzlick R (ed) and the Autopsy and Forensic Pathology Committees of the College of American
Pathologists. Cause-of-death statements and certification of natural and unnatural deaths: protocol
and options. College of American Pathologists. Northfield, IL. 1997. Take special note of Sections 5
and 10.
Reay DT, Eisele JW, Ward R, Horton W, Bonnell HJ. A procedure for the investigation of
anesthetic/surgical deaths. J Forensic Sci 1985;30(3): 822-7.
Virginia State Health Department Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The philosophy of
classification of deaths. Medico-Legal Bulletin. 1977;26(2), March-April 1997 (5 pages). Published in
conjunction with the Department of Legal Medicine, Medical College of Virginia. Richmond, Virginia.
Massello W. The Proof of law in suicide. J Forensic Sci 1986;31:1000-08.
Wiecking DK. “Natural” death under non-natural circumstances. Medico-Legal Bulletin [VA]
1976;25(9):1-5.
Petty CS. Multiple causes of death: the viewpoint of a forensic pathologist. J Forensic Sci
1965;10:167.
Most standard forensic pathology texts have some discussion of cause and manner of death (Spitz
and Fisher’s Medicolegal Investigation of Death has always contained a good discussion of the
issues). There have also been more than 250 postings on NAME-L regarding manner of death
issues and commentary. These can be viewed by NAME-L members by searching the NAME-L
archives at www.listserv.emory.edu
29
