The Lung Float Test Under Scrutiny: A Forensic Science Debate with Real-World Consequences
For decades, the lung float test has been a fixture in forensic pathology, used to determine if a baby took a first breath. But mounting scientific evidence adn harrowing cases of wrongful prosecution are now forcing a critical re-evaluation of this long-held practice. A newly released position paper from leading forensic experts is adding significant weight to the growing consensus: the lung float test is unreliable and should not be used as definitive evidence in legal proceedings.
This isn’t just an academic debate. The stakes are incredibly high, particularly in a post-Roe v. Wade landscape where the criminalization of pregnancy loss is on the rise. As a seasoned observer of the intersection of forensic science and the legal system, I’ve witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of flawed forensic techniques. This issue demands careful attention.
What is the Lung Float Test and Why is it Problematic?
the lung float test, in its simplest form, involves submerging fetal lungs in a liquid – historically, water, though formaldehyde solutions are also used. If the lungs float, the theory goes, it indicates they’ve been inflated with air, meaning the baby was alive at birth. However, the science behind this assumption is deeply flawed.
Numerous factors can cause fetal lungs to float, including the natural buoyancy of lung tissue, the presence of residual fluid, and even the specific gravity of the liquid used for the test. crucially, there’s no consistent correlation between floating lungs and a live birth. The new position paper meticulously details these limitations, highlighting the lack of standardized procedures and the wide variation in results between different examiners.
The Rise of Prosecutions and the Urgent Need for Change
The concerns surrounding the lung float test aren’t new, but they’ve been dramatically amplified by a disturbing trend: the increasing prosecution of women for pregnancy loss. A recent report by Pregnancy Justice revealed that over 400 people have been charged with pregnancy-related crimes in the two years following the Dobbs decision, with 31 cases involving accusations related to miscarriage or stillbirth.
These prosecutions often rely heavily on questionable forensic evidence,including the lung float test,transforming deeply personal medical tragedies into criminal investigations. The implication is chilling: a woman’s grief and loss are treated with suspicion, rather than compassion.
High-Profile Cases Spark Re-Evaluation
The cases of Moira Akers and Latice Fisher exemplify the dangers of relying on this flawed test.
* Moira Akers, a Maryland mother, was initially sentenced to 30 years in prison after prosecutors presented the lung float test as evidence of her baby being born alive. While the Maryland Supreme Court granted her a new trial (based on other issues), the case underscores the potential for wrongful convictions.
* Latice Fisher delivered her baby in the toilet and her husband called 911. The lung float test in her case yielded inconclusive results – parts of the lungs floated, parts didn’t – yet initially led to second-degree murder charges. thankfully, the district attorney, Scott Colom, recognized the test’s shortcomings, dismissed the charges, and presented the case to a grand jury who declined to indict.
these cases, and others like them, are forcing a reckoning within the forensic community and the legal system.
A Shift Towards Evidence-Based Practice
The position paper represents a significant step forward. Dr. Odey Ukpo, the chief medical examiner in Los Angeles County, has already stated his department doesn’t use the test due to its unreliability. He emphasizes a commitment to “evidence-based medicine,” and the paper reinforces that principle.
District Attorney Colom,who successfully overturned the charges against Latice Fisher,welcomes the guidance provided by the paper,particularly in areas where medical examiners may lack specialized forensic training. He acknowledges the courage it takes to challenge established practices, especially once a prosecution is underway.
What’s Next?
The release of this position paper is not the end of the story,but a crucial turning point. Ongoing efforts, including a study group examining the test’s use in court, are vital.
Here’s what needs to happen:
* Widespread education: Forensic pathologists,prosecutors,and defense attorneys need to be educated about the limitations of the lung float test.
* Standardized Protocols: If the test is used at all (and its use should be severely restricted), standardized protocols are essential to minimize variability.
* Focus on Comprehensive Inquiry: Investigations into pregnancy
