Coroner: sudden unexplained death in childhood.
If enacted, AB 620 expands the duties of coroners, establishing a local program mandated by the state. This includes not only the clarification of procedures when a child’s death is classified as sudden and unexplained but also the stipulation that coroners will not be held civilly liable for actions taken in accordance with this bill's provisions. As such, it introduces significant changes to the legal landscape surrounding childhood deaths, focusing on both transparency and end-of-life processes.
Assembly Bill 620, authored by Cooley, addresses the circumstances surrounding sudden unexplained deaths in childhood, defined as deaths of children aged one to under eighteen years that are not clarified by previous medical history and lack a clear cause upon postmortem examination. This legislation aims to ensure that coroners inform parents or responsible adults about the importance of obtaining tissue samples post-mortem to aid in further understanding such tragic occurrences. The intent is to enhance the investigative protocols and public health responses to these sensitive cases.
The sentiment around AB 620 appears to be generally supportive, with a strong consensus on the necessity of improved protocols for addressing unexplained child deaths. The legislation is seen as a means to better protect community health and provide families with crucial information during an already distressing time. However, there may be underlying concerns from some quarters about the implications of expanding coroner responsibilities and the associated costs to local agencies.
Notable points of contention regarding AB 620 include discussions about the financial implications for local agencies required to implement these new responsibilities without initial state funding. Although the bill includes stipulations for potential reimbursement to local agencies determined by the Commission on State Mandates, some skepticism exists about whether this would sufficiently mitigate the burden. Additionally, while the liability exemption for coroners aims to encourage compliance, it raises questions about accountability and the quality of investigations in such sensitive cases.