Yazar "Bakar C." seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Evaluation of medico-legal death investigations performed in Gazi University Medical Faculty Gazi Hospital [Gazi· Üni·versi·tesi· Tip Fakültesi· Gazi· Hastanesi·nde adli· ölü muayenesi· yapilan olgularin degerlendi·ri·lmesi·]
    (2005) Akar T.; Bakar C.; Şenol E.; Demirel B.
    Introduction: All deaths without any concrete and objective proof of cause can be considered forensic death cases. In these cases, it is essential to use all facilities to clarify the cause of death. Autopsy is the most important method for determining the cause of death and the mechanism. The decision of whether an autopsy is necessary is made by the prosecutor conducting the investigation and the expert physician who performed the death investigation. As a consequence, in similar cases, with increasing knowledge and experience, the prosecutor and physician can arrive at different decisions. Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences between causes of death and autopsy decisions with regard to the actual causes of death among medico-legal death investigations performed in Gazi University Medical Faculty Gazi Hospital. Methods: The records of 802 forensic death reports submitted by Republic Prosecutors and forensic medicine expert physicians were evaluated retrospectively. Of these cases, 338 were dead on arrival and 464 of them died after arrival at Gazi Hospital between 1992 and 2004. Records were obtained from Gazi Hospital archives. Data on age, gender, cause of death and whether an autopsy was performed were evaluated and analyzed. Results: 539 of the subjects (67.2%) were male and 263 (32.8%) were female. The mean age was 38.19 ± 11.82. An autopsy was performed in 16.11% of forensic cases (129). Road accidents ranked first, with 64.5% (517), among the forensic death cases. Falling from heights and suspicious deaths followed (7.5 % and 4.7%, respectively). Conclusion: It appears that Republic Prosecutors and forensic medicine experts decide on an autopsy more easily in cases of murder and suspicious deaths; whereas in cases that seem to be accidents or suicides, they are satisfied with the death examination rather than with an autopsy.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Vital risk specific evaluation of cases reported by Gazi University Medical Faculty Department of forensic medicine between 1997 and 2004 [Gazi· Üniversi·tesi· Tip Fakültesi· adli· tip anabi·li·m dalinca 1997-2004 dönemi·nde raporlanan olgularin hayati· tehli·ke özeli·nde degerlendi·ri· lmesi·]
    (2006) Şenol E.; Bakar C.; Akar T.; Demirel B.; Işik A.F.
    Introduction: In cases in which there is no vital risk, reporting a vital risk in temporary forensic reports leads to severe judicial consequences, such as limiting the freedom of the suspect; and reporting no vital risk in definitive reports given later can decrease confidence in the physician. Purpose: The aim of this study is to research the consistency between the vital risks in temporary reports given by physicians and definitive reports given by the Forensic Medicine Department of Gazi University Medical Faculty of forensic cases dealt with by the Forensic Medicine Department of Gazi University Medical Faculty; and to determine the difficulty faced by physicians who are not forensic medicine specialists in distinguishing exposure to vital risk in forensic cases. Methods: The temporary reports of 449 of 540 subjects (83.1%) for whom definitive reports were given by Gazi University Medical Faculty Department of Forensic Medicine between 1997 and 2004 were obtained from the Gazi University Medical Faculty Hospital archives. The reports were evaluated retrospectively with respect to age, gender, type of event, injury location, and vital risk presence in temporary and definitive reports, and they were analysed. Results: 62.0% (335) of the forensic cases involved males, and 38.5% (205) females. Traffic accidents ranked first, with 71.9% (388). The most common injury location was the head and neck. There was a statistically significant difference between vital risk reported in temporary and definitive reports; 46.6% (82) of the cases with a temporary report of vital risk had no vital risk in the definitive report (p<0.05). Conclusion: We think that differences between the vital risk revealed in temporary forensic reports given by physicians who are not forensic medicine specialists and definitive reports given by forensic medicine specialists could be eliminated with an increase in the use of objective criteria when giving forensic reports by the latter group.