Advertisement

Challenges in implementing best practice DVI guidelines in low resource settings: lessons learnt from the Meethotamulla garbage dump mass disaster

  • Sameera A. Gunawardena
  • Ravindra Samaranayake
  • Vianney Dias
  • Selliah Pranavan
  • Asela Mendis
  • Jean Perera
Commentary

Abstract

The management of mass fatalities following disasters is a complex process which requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders and resources. A garbage dump at Meethotamulla in Sri Lanka suddenly collapsed, resulting in the death of 32 individuals. Efforts to implement best practice guidelines in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) during this disaster revealed several important aspects that need to be considered by the forensic community. Delays in initiating the legal processes to investigate and manage the incident resulted in public dissatisfaction towards the post-disaster management process. Body recovery by Police and military personnel without the involvement of medical teams had numerous shortcomings including the lack of proper tagging and photography, commingling of body parts, and non-preservation of personal items. Public expectation and demand for early release of the bodies conflicted with the necessity to undergo a stringent DVI process according to best practice guidelines. Many adaptations and alternate strategies were necessary to ensure that DVI could be done scientifically. The use of primary identification markers including odontology and DNA had many limitations including non-availability of antemortem data, resource availability and cost. Identification was established using a combination of secondary identification markers including clothing, jewelry, scars, tattoos, morphological descriptions and circumstantial evidence. In two cases, odontological features further supported positive identification. Samples for DNA were obtained and preserved but were not utilized in establishing the identities. This paper highlights the need for better public awareness and multidisciplinary commitment in managing mass fatalities and also reflects on the challenges of implementing best practice DVI guidelines in low-resource settings with different legal and socio-cultural expectations.

Keywords

Disaster management Victim identification Mass disaster planning and mitigation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Prasadini Senarath for her contribution during the DVI process and Dr. Jayanie Weeratne for providing forensic odontological expertise in the identification of the bodies.

Author’s contribution

First author: literature review, conceptualization and draft of the manuscript.

Second to sixth authors: review, revision and contribution to final draft.

All the authors actively engaged in the DVI process during the disaster.

The first author accepts full responsibility for this manuscript and the decision to publish.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Supplementary material

12024_2018_33_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (47 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 47 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    International Criminal Police Organisation Interpol DVI guide. 2014. https://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Forensics/DVI-Pages/DVI-guide.
  2. 2.
    Pan American Health Organization. Management of dead bodies after disasters: A field manual for first responders. Second (revised) edition. 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lessig R, Rothschild M. International standards in cases of mass disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2012;8:197–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lunetta P, Ranta H, Cattaneo C, Piccinini A, Niskanen R, Sajantila A, et al. International collaboration in mass disasters involving foreign nationals within the EU. Int J Legal Med. 2003;117:204–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byard RW, Winskog C. Potential problems arising during international disaster victim identification (DVI) exercises. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2010;6:1–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morgan OW, Sribanditmongkol P, Perera C, Sulasmi Y, Van Alphen D, Sondorp E. Mass fatality management following the south Asian tsunami disaster: case studies in Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e195.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Goyet CD. Epidemics caused by dead bodies: a disaster myth that does not want to die. Pan Am J Public Health. 2004;15:297–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alonso A, Martín P, Albarrán C, Garcí P, Simón D, Fernández L, et al. Challenges of DNA profiling in mass disaster investigations. Croat Med J. 2005;46:540–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budowle B, Bieber FR, Eisenberg AJ. Forensic aspects of mass disasters: strategic considerations for DNA-based human identification. Legal Med. 2005;7:230–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cordner S, Ellingham ST. Two halves make a whole: both first responders and experts are needed for the management and identification of the dead in large disasters. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;279:60–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson M, Leditschke J, Bassed R, Cordner SM, Drummer OH. Mortuary operations following mass fatality natural disasters: a review. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2017;13:67–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    College of Forensic Pathologists of Sri Lanka. Management of the dead in disasters and catastrophes. 2016. http://www.cfpsl.org/images/Management%20of%20victims%20of%20disaster.pdf.
  13. 13.
    UNDP/UN Habitat – Sustainable Cities Program. City Profile; Kolonnawa Urban council. 2002. http://unhabitat.lk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kolonnawa1.pdf.
  14. 14.
    Sunday Observer. CMC seeks permanent solution. The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon. 2013. http://archives.sundayobserver.lk/2001/pix/PrintPage.asp? REF=/2013/04/21/fea09.asp.
  15. 15.
    Sunday Observer. Drowning in dross. The Associated Newspaper of Ceylon. 2016. http://archives.sundayobserver.lk/2016/01/10/fea09.asp.
  16. 16.
    National Building Research Organisation. Geotechnical Assessment on the Failure at Meethotamulla Waste Fill. Ministry of Disaster Management. 2017. https://www.nbro.gov.lk/images/2016_pdf/Final-Report-of-Meethotamulla-to-Megapolis-PDF.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Code of Criminal Procedure Act. Act no 15 of 1979. Sri Lanka. c 30. https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/criminal-procedure-code/.
  18. 18.
    Mundorff AZ. Integrating forensic anthropology into disaster victim identification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2012;8:131–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahana T, Hiss J. The role of forensic anthropology in mass fatality incidents management. Forensic Sci Policy Manage. 2009;1:144–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blau S, Briggs CA. The role of forensic anthropology in disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int. 2011;205:29–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gornik I, Marcikic M, Kubat M, Primorac D, Lauc G. The identification of war victims by reverse paternity is associated with significant risks of false inclusion. Int J Legal Med. 2002;116:255–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parsons TJ, Sajantila A, et al. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:3–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brenner CH. Some mathematical problems in the DNA identification of victims in the 2004 tsunami and similar mass fatalities. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;157:172–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin CY, Huang TY, Shih HC, Yuan CH, Chen LJ, Tsai HS, et al. The strategies to DVI challenges in typhoon Morakot. Int J Legal Med. 2011;125:637–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51:2104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holland MM, Cave CA, Holland CA, Bille TW. Development of a quality, high throughput DNA analysis procedure for skeletal samples to assist with the identification of victims from the World Trade Center attacks. Croat Med J. 2003;44:264–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davoren J, Vanek D, Konjhodzić R, Crews J, Huffine E, Parsons TJ. Highly effective DNA extraction method for nuclear short tandem repeat testing of skeletal remains from mass graves. Croat Med J. 2007;48:478.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fondevila M, Phillips C, Naverán N, Cerezo M, Rodríguez A, Calvo R, et al. Challenging DNA: assessment of a range of genotyping approaches for highly degraded forensic samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2008;1:26–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hughes-Stamm SR, Ashton KJ, van Daal A. Assessment of DNA degradation and the genotyping success of highly degraded samples. Int J Legal Med. 2011;125:341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schneider PM. Scientific standards for studies in forensic genetics. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;165:238–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malkoc E, Neuteboom W. The current status of forensic science laboratory accreditation in Europe. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;167:121–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of ColomboColomboSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations