"Les autopsies d’enfants, on n’aime pas en faire" (Philippe Boxho)

Philippe Boxho describes forensic pathology as a highly protocol-driven discipline rather than the cinematic lone-examiner image. He says autopsies in criminal cases are systematically done by two doctors, first with an external examination and then by opening the body to confirm or rule out internal causes of death. The point, he explains, is to provide a legal certainty for court, not just a medical opinion. He also contrasts France and Belgium, saying Belgium orders fewer autopsies and may therefore miss many murders; he even says Europe criticized Belgium for doing about 10% fewer autopsies than the European average. A major theme is emotional distance. Boxho argues that empathy, while human, can blur judgment in an autopsy room, so the body has to be treated as an object of work with respect. …

1. Autopsies are presented as a legal instrument as much as a medical one.
2. Boxho argues that systematic procedure and two-doctor verification reduce bias.
3. He believes Belgium underuses autopsies relative to Europe and may miss crimes.
4. Autopsies can overturn the obvious explanation, including in apparent suicides or murders.
5. He treats child autopsies as especially painful but still necessary for justice and grieving families.
6. Forensic pathology can contribute critical investigative breakthroughs outside the autopsy room.
7. Family access to the body after autopsy is portrayed as an important improvement in practice.

• Boxho’s claim that Belgium misses 70–80 murders a year is presented as an estimate without methodology in the transcript.
• He asserts that Belgian autopsies are 10% below the European average, but the evidence base is not discussed.
• The story about the stalactite death is vivid but hard to verify from the interview alone.
• He frames empathy as inherently blurring judgment; that is plausible, but the transcript does not explore counterexamples or balancing practices.