The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-10-24
THE CASE STILL IN POINT.

DIR. n. b. Emerson takes issue with
The Star in its position that all cases
OF sudden death ought to be the subject
Of a coroner's investigation. He denies
with some, though not unseemly
warmth, that the Board of Health has
Elapsed from it's commendable posi-
ton" in regard to issuing burial per-
mits in cases of unattended deaths.
He quotes law on the subject of coro-
ner's inquests and on the basis of his
quotations builds up, what at first
blush. would seem to be a good defense.
But he has entirely overlooked an i'm
portant amendment to the law relating
10 coroner's inquests; an amendment
passed by the last legislature for the
very purpose of strengthening the
Board of Health in the position from
which it has lapsed," and to secure
those safeguards which the sacredness
of human life demands. This amend
ment is in Act of the Session Laws of
1885, and is as follows:
In all cases of sudden death the cor
oner shall inquire into the cause, and
in his discretion shall cause an inquest
10 be held even if he is not satisfied that
there are suspicious circumstances at
tending the DEATH"
Captain King died suddenly. That
fact was known, as current informa-
ton, by every member of the Board of
Health. But by accepting a certificate
of death which was not in the form pro-
vided by the board itself and issuing a
burial permit thereon, it morally, If not
legally, assumed the responsibility for
the neglect of this provision of law. The
Attorney General is at the head of the
Board of Health and at the head of the
police department. The Attorney-Gen
eral as the head of the Board of Health
having accepted a physicians certifi-
cate in case of sudden and unattend-
ed death, that action is, if not a legal,
at least very nearly a practical order,
10 his subordinates in the police depart
ment not to hold an inquest. So that
the responsibility comes right back to
the Board of Health. In the case of
Captain King the coroner who should
have held the inquest under the law
was the District Magistrate of the dis
1rict in which Mokapu Point is situated.
But even if the law were as DR..
Emerson quotes it, and not as the last
legislature amended it, is DR.. Emerson
quite ingenious in his argument? The
rule of the Board of Health refusing a
burial permit where no physicians GER
tificate of death is presented, is not for
the purpose of compelling people to call
in a physician when they are sick, but
for the purpose of guarding human life
by making it as certain as human law
can make it, that the cause and circum-
stances of every death shall be inquired
into, put of record, and made public or
open to the public. In the larger num-
Der of cases of course, this inquiry is
the attending physicians personal
knowledge, and the official record is his
certificate of death, his license as a
physician making him for this purpose
in effect, a public official. Where there
is not a licensed physician having per-
sonal knowledge by reason of attend
ance during the last illness, the law
provides another method of inquiry.
DIR. Emerson says a certificate in this
case was furnished by DIR. McKibbin, a
licensed physician of standing, and
therefore, why should the board go be-
hind that? There is no question of DR..
McKibbin's ability or standing. There
is practically no question as to the cor
rectness of his judgment as to the cause
of death. But that is not the point. 1t
was not the certificate which the spirit
of its rules called for, though it techni-
cally complied with them. The board
in making the rule was acting in the
spirit of progress and toward a desr-
able end. 1t faltered in that spirit at
the very point where if it had not falt-
cred, its future work in that direction
would have been infinitely easier. 1t
left undone those things which it
ought to have done"