Volume 65 Number 5&6 October/November 1998	back to contents

Editor's Note
With this issue, The Journal is reinstituting a feature which was included for many years and which, apparently, fell out of favor. Perhaps this may have been due, in part, to the marked decline in autopsy rates, as well as the growth and availability of sophisticated laboratory procedures including analyses of tissues obtained by biopsy via a percutaneous needle or endoscope. We expect that many of our interesting case presentations will be based on biopsy material and laboratory analyses. These developments and the evolution of reliable laboratory procedures have been a great boon to the quality of patient care, medical practice and medical education.

However, many cases remain in which these procedures have not always clarified the diagnoses and in which no post-mortem examinations had been performed. The anguish and emotional stress imposed on families, next of kin, and attending physicians associated with the procedure of obtaining consent for a post-mortem examination are understandably significant hurdles to be overcome. Surely, the post-mortem examination of tissues remains critical in evaluating the differential diagnoses and the effects of therapy. Any view that the post-mortem examination of tissues is not worthwhile, despite its expense, is just plain wrong. Without doubt, the results of any post-mortem examination must be incorporated into the assessment of the quality of care delivered to the specific patient, by personnel of the institution. Can we, as physicians, be sure that the history and physical examination provided the necessary clues? Or was an important detail overlooked? This exercise remains an important tool in our learning and in teaching our students. This feature will be directed towards these ends.

Sherman Kupfer, M.D.
Editor-in-Chief

KEY WORDS
Autopsy, mortality conference, clinico-pathologic conference

MSSM Home

Back Issues | Indexes | Search | Journal Home