Autopsy is done when the cause of death is unknown or suspicious.
With cancer is usually not, since the person most likely been treated for cancer. But, the key is with (most) deaths they must have a doctor sign off on it. Now, when my father died in 1999 from cancer, he was at home when he passed. Even though no doctor was there to sign the death certificate, he was home to die, since when he left the hospital 9 days earlier, was given a 6 week (max) to live.
With suicides, in almost all, will have a autopsy to prove the type of death. Now the discharge of the firearm "could" be accidental, like someone cleaning a gun, or not knowing there was any bullets.
Either way makes no difference, but in 1 case or situation and that is insurance. With most life insurance, most have a 2 year contestability clause that means if you die from suicide w/in 2 to 3 years, does not pay out, but if you commit suicide (after) the contestability clause, then it will pay. Or, in the case of lung cancer, it would also apply to the 2 year contestability clause, that if you lie on the application that you don't smoke, or don't disclose you have cancer or could be dying, then won't pay, since you lied on the application. During the 2 years, then the insurance has a duty to verify if you lied or not, and if did not do so, then they screwed up..
The first one would never appear as autopsy results. The lung cancer, sure, but a coroner would have no way of knowing the actual cause of the lung cancer. Yes, if the deceased was a smoker, the coroner could probably tell that, but the coroner has no way of determining that was the actual cause of the cancer, and since the coroner could not conclude that, the coroner would not put that in the autopsy results.
As for worse, dead is dead. I suppose if you're basing "worse" on the possibility of a life insurance payout, the latter would almost surely preclude that payout, but so might any mention of cigarettes in an autopsy if the deceased failed to tell their insurance company that they were a smoker in order to try and get a lower insurance premium.
Answers & Comments
Autopsy is done when the cause of death is unknown or suspicious.
With cancer is usually not, since the person most likely been treated for cancer. But, the key is with (most) deaths they must have a doctor sign off on it. Now, when my father died in 1999 from cancer, he was at home when he passed. Even though no doctor was there to sign the death certificate, he was home to die, since when he left the hospital 9 days earlier, was given a 6 week (max) to live.
With suicides, in almost all, will have a autopsy to prove the type of death. Now the discharge of the firearm "could" be accidental, like someone cleaning a gun, or not knowing there was any bullets.
Either way makes no difference, but in 1 case or situation and that is insurance. With most life insurance, most have a 2 year contestability clause that means if you die from suicide w/in 2 to 3 years, does not pay out, but if you commit suicide (after) the contestability clause, then it will pay. Or, in the case of lung cancer, it would also apply to the 2 year contestability clause, that if you lie on the application that you don't smoke, or don't disclose you have cancer or could be dying, then won't pay, since you lied on the application. During the 2 years, then the insurance has a duty to verify if you lied or not, and if did not do so, then they screwed up..
INVALID PREMISE. NO cause of death is worse in an autopsy.
I would say the suicide because they would not do an autopsy for cancer, nor would the autopsy provide any information that was not already known.
qimxivxx
The first one would never appear as autopsy results. The lung cancer, sure, but a coroner would have no way of knowing the actual cause of the lung cancer. Yes, if the deceased was a smoker, the coroner could probably tell that, but the coroner has no way of determining that was the actual cause of the cancer, and since the coroner could not conclude that, the coroner would not put that in the autopsy results.
As for worse, dead is dead. I suppose if you're basing "worse" on the possibility of a life insurance payout, the latter would almost surely preclude that payout, but so might any mention of cigarettes in an autopsy if the deceased failed to tell their insurance company that they were a smoker in order to try and get a lower insurance premium.
ygwgaugy