Genealogy Chat

Barbara - it doesn't sound awful that the funeral was a joyeous occasion; you were after all celebrating the life of your father in law (as well as mourning his passing), and what is research into family history if not celebrating the lives of our ancestors, those we didn't have an opportunity to meet. Take advantage of any help you can get from the in-laws (and out-laws) it's surprising what occasions like funerals, weddings, christenings etc can reveal!! All the best Jacqui

Ah right thanks, I hadn't thought of that! Must admit it was spooky sitting around with the policeman patrolling, but Joe was 86 and the doc thought they would get away with it. This sounds awful, but the funeral was great as it gave us an opprtunity to meet family members we hadn't seen before - well I hadn't! I told them all about doing my husbands family tree and they were quite interested so when a decent amount of time has passed, I am going to get in touch with them and add to their tree. Joe also talked alot about his family when he was alive so even though they were Jones I was able to go back to the early 1800's with them. I think the fact that family's tended to stick with the same names really helped.

Barbara, the reason why the doctor wouldn't (or couldn't) issue a death certificate was because your father in law had obviously not been seen by a medial practicioner within the 14 days prior to his death - all such deaths have to be reported to the Coroner, and he/she then makes the decision as to whether a post-mortem (or autopsy, both the same) is necessary to determine the cause of death. In the past some Coroners often decided a post-mortm was not necessary (if the deceased were extremely elderly, had ill health requiring medical attention etc) but in light of the Dr. Shipman case, most Coroners are playing safe and determining the exact cause of death nowadays - as it should be of course. Just thought you might be interested. Jacqui

This certiicate business is quite interesting. My father in law recently passed away at home and we had the police there until the doctor came. He said that because my father in law had not been ill he could not issue a certificate. We then had to wait to see if they needed to do a post mortem which they did and only then were we able to get a death certificate. As to autopsy v post mortem, I alway thought they were the same, just one was a more used english term and one american, like we have solicitors and they have attorneys. I tell you this language of ours can be very confusing!!

I have often wondered, what is the difference between a post mortem and an autopsy? I always thought that a post mortem was was conducted at a hospital as a matter of course, and an autopsy was ordered by a court.

I have just found this on an archaic medical terms website. Unknown (causes) People die, without having suffered an illness for which they have attended a doctor e.g. They had an accident They had an illness that was easily recognised (so didn't need to pay for a doctor's services) or They had an illness very prevalent at the time (so didn't need to pay for a doctor's services) In the UK, it is possible to register a death when a doctor has not attended. These days, the coroner would probably order a post mortem (autopsy), but in the past, especially in remote areas, in the absence of any suspicion that the death was due to an unnatural cause it could be registered as unknown causes Most countries have legislation that allows for, after a certain interval, the registration of death for people who disappear. Unknown or missing presumed dead will be the cause of death in such circumstances The site is www(.)paul_smith(.)doctors(.)org(.)uk/ArchaicMedicalTerms(.)htm I think it is very informative. Margaret

I know this subject has been touched on before, but I can't find the thread. I have received a death cert this morning for a 5 year old boy who was a son of my 3xgreat grandfather. The cause of death is: Unknown, Not Certified, No Medical Attendant. Can you imagine this being allowed these days? The year was 1847, the informant was a person who to my knowledge was not a member of the family. Margaret