Talk:Coroner

message: Should this article's link to "Medical Examiner" redirect to the same article of Coroner?  A coroner is not the same thing as a medical examiner, and should be a separate entry.
There is now a stub entry for "Medical Examiner", and a link from this article to Medical Examiner.  While there may be overlaps in their responsibilities, the two are not the same. --CarpenterSF (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect Medical Examiner 

message: In England and Wales, wouldn't you need to be a solicitor, not a Lawyer?
:The word 'lawyer' in England and Wales is a general descriptive name for both solicitors and barristers. Both are 'lawyers' who practice 'law'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.232 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lawyer]] or [[Solicitor]]? 

message: In the UK however, all one needs is a basic medical degree and no further training whatsoever, which has led to many miscarriages of justice
I cannot comment on the miscarriages of justice comment (although coroners are not entitled to punish or indeed in any way apportion blame in England; they hold an inquest and then deliver a verdict of what they believe caused the death based on evidence from witnesses and statements/reports) but to be a coroner, you certainly need more than a basic medical degree and no further training!  As, indeed, the section below confirms - you need either a law or medical degree, plus five years' practice (and, in the case of medics, a further legal qualification).
Whrrivers (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too. I'm working on editing this article right now. What they meant to say (hopefully!) is that you need not be a pathologist; you only need the medical degree, not the further years of residencies etc. in pathology, to be a coroner. — Skittleys (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications for Coroners 

message: Why medical examiner is redirected to here i will never know, particularly because in most countries and states they are two completely differnt things.... OgiBear (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: Please could somebody who has the knowledge to do it provide either a section in this article, or cross-links to other articles, to explain what counterparts coroners have in countries that *don't* have English-style coroners? It would be interesting to know how other countries handle the questions that coroners handle; adding the information would give the article a broader scope; and the article wouldn't then leave the distinct impression that, in countries where there are no coroners, nobody cares much about the dead or how they became dead!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterparts in Other Countries? 

message: This article says that, "The verdicts of suicide and death by natural causes require proving beyond reasonable doubt. Other verdicts are arrived at on the balance of probabilities." Which implies that the verdict of unlawful killing would be decided on the balance of probabilities. However, on the page for unlawful killing it says, "The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt." I don't know which is correct and don't know how to find out. Could someone who knows what they are doing please correct this? Cheers. Cottonshirtτ 04:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Information 

message: (Sorry about the uninformative section title; that's what  requires in order to link to it.)
The section about coroners in Canada says that in 6 provinces "all
coroners are, by law, physicians. In these instances, they are not
coroners, but medical examiners." — a direct contradiction from
one sentence to the next.  Presumably the second sentence is using
the word "coroner" in a sense that excludes "medical examiners", as
discussed elsewhere in the article, but it needs to find another way
to express that thought.
But I can't just change the wording of the second sentence, because
there may have been an intent to say that the job title is "medical
examiner" in some of these 6 provinces, or in some places in these
provinces.  I know that in Toronto that's not true — we have 
coroners — but I don't know about all the other places, so
I can't fix it.  This needs to be straightened out.
--208.76.104.133 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  section 

message: Coroners is a pretty significant topic for common law countries, with close to a thousand years of history that this article just barely touches. In particular, the organization doesn't lend itself to a particularly easy understanding of this; I think the article should start out with a section on history, which would contain an overview of the development under English common law, and probably take us up to the end of the 18th century, where we should expect to see individual countries'/colonies' legal systems to really run in their own directions. I think more generally, we might want to look towards creating an entire article on the history of the coroner. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This article might in fact be best focused on the historical and (some) modern offices of coroner, but with judicious linking to medical examiner, with most if not all of the medical content on forensic pathology and the like being covered over there. From what I'm seeing in the law encyclopedias, many states have replaced the office of coroner with a medical examiner (that may or may not have the law enforcement duties the old coroner would have had), and even in those jurisdictions where coroners are the norm, the term "medical examiner" was not always equivalent. I'm not sure what the situation is in commonwealth nations, but it wouldn't surprise me if similar moves were happening. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's also the question of historical stuff like the administration of shipwrecks and salvage, treasure trove, royal fish and deodands ... some of which may still be current as well (although I think treasure is mentioned in the article as being hived off to specialist coroners, as, I think are shipwrecks and marine salvage in the modern era).  Also I think deodands are a dead letter in English law but have no idea about the specifics of royal fish.  Anyone know this material well enough to explain it? 31.185.62.240 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a history section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Coroner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315150738/http://www.film.queensu.ca:80/CBC/Woj.html to http://www.film.queensu.ca/cbc/Woj.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Coroner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227110654/http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/coroners.htm to http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/coroners.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706122017/http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/129.htm to http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/129.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014022320/http://www.justice.govt.nz/coroners/home.asp to http://www.justice.govt.nz/coroners/home.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've flagged the section for OR, as it seems to reflect the confusion in common usage (particularly in the US)  between coroners, medical examiners and forensic pathologists. While the offices seem to be overlapping in the USA , according to the US section here they are not the same thing, and IMO we should be clear in the Artistic Depictions section what we are talking about so as not to perpetuate the confusion.
Viz.
* "Dr. Camille Saroyan (Bones) is a federal coroner"; Saroyan appears to be a forensic pathologist (she seems very similar to the characters in Silent Witness, who definitely are FPs). Also, coroners offices are county-based, so “federal coroner” seems a bit of a contradiction.
* "Jordan Cavanaugh, (Crossing Jordan) (is) a  forensic pathologist employed in the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner"; So, not a coroner (or an ME either), then.
* "The coroner is a significant character...on CSI and its spin-offs"; Again, are they? They seem to be pathologists working for their respective police departments.
* "Hawaii Five-0 features a coroner named Dr. Max Bergman"; Well, the people who take the bodies away have Coroner on their jackets, so I'm guessing the county has a coroners office, but is Max the coroner, or is he a pathologist who works for the coroners office?
* "Kujo Kiriya, from ….Kamen Rider Ex-Aid is a coroner"; I have no idea what this is, but I know the Japanese kenshi-kan isn't a coroner in the English sense, more of a CSI /forensic detective
* "Quincy, M.E. has a coroner as its title character"; Quincy is (self-evidently) a ME, who works for (what was, at the time) the LA Coroners Office. Which presumably makes his boss the coroner, not him.
Also, Saroyan, Cavanaugh, Bergman, Quincy and the CSI people are all listed as MEs on the Medical Examiner page: I don't think we are helping anyone by listing them as coroners here, and as MEs there.
Can I suggest we at least decide one way or the other on these examples, and list them only in one place. And maybe to prevent list-creep we require citations to prove that those listed as coroners (here) or MEs (there) actually are such. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first point, it seems that you are correct.  While Washington State's laws recognize the possibility of a federal coroner, it seems that the U.S. federal government uses the term "medical examiner" (e.g., here).  See also the executive summary of the Preliminary Report on America’s Medicolegal Offices, which contains an explanation on the subject, at least for the U.S., and here.  (Found via Google using the string ["federal+medical+examiner"+-Australia], since Australia seems to also use federal medical examiners.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television 

message: In England the coroner produces "conclusions", not verdicts. Here's a reliable source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-17-conclusions.pdf  Also, after a case in 2018 conclusions for suicide and unlawful killing only need to be made on the civil "balance of probabilities" burden, not beyond all reasonable doubt: R (on the application of Thomas Maughan) v Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2018] EWHC 1955 (Admin) DanBCDanBC (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  England: conclusions not verdicts, and burden of proof. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion