Inform victim families of post-mortem rights and viewing opportunities with caution
Thames Safety Inquiry · Thames Safety Inquiry: Final Report (Cm 4558) · Issued 19 February 2000
Government responseNot tracked (historical inquiry)
DeliveryNo statement from the addressee found
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
I would also reiterate the recommendations which the inquest jury, although not strictly empowered to do so, made in a letter delivered to Dr Burton with their verdict on 7thApril 1995: 1. Families of victims must always be informed of their rights to attend or elect medical representatives to attend post mortems. With appropriate counselling, they should be offered the opportunity to view their relative’s body. The issue of visual identification must, however, be treated with caution. 2. Removal of hands for the identification of bodies should be done only when all other methods have been exhausted (especially the matching of dental records) and not as a matter of expediency. In such circumstances, mortuary technicians and pathologists must remember that a procedure which may seem standard to them, is likely to be deeply distressing and offensive to relatives. 3. We would like to remind all agencies of the importance of keeping detailed and accurate records. Particular attention should be given to the correct documentation of proceedings in the mortuary.
Thames Safety Inquiry, Thames Safety Inquiry: Final Report (Cm 4558) · 19 Feb 2000 Source PDF →
Government response
●No formal government response recorded
The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.
Delivery
No statement on delivery from the addressee has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.