PubMed2002
In this paper, the status quo of forensic toxicology in Japan and the West is surveyed and a strategy to address future goals of Japanese forensic toxicology is proposed. Forensic toxicology in the West consists of three main areas--post-mortem forensic toxicology, human-performance forensic toxicology and forensic urine drug testing. In Japan, post-mortem forensic toxicology is practiced in university forensic medicine departments while most of the human-performance forensic toxicology is carried out in police laboratories. However, at least at present, strictly controlled workplace urine drug testing is not being performed, despite the abuse of drugs even by uniformed members of the National Defence Forces and police. For several years, the author has been introducing Western forensic toxicology guidelines and recommendations, translated into Japanese with the help of Western forensic toxicologists, to Japanese forensic toxicologists. Western forensic toxicology practice is at an advanced stage, whereas Japanese practice is in a critical condition and holds many problems awaiting solution, as exemplified by the urine drug testing in police laboratories. There is never any sample left for re-examination by the defence in all cases, though the initial volume of the urine sample available for examination is 30-50 ml. Only one organisation carries out everything from sampling to reporting and, in addition, the parent drug and its metabolites are not quantified. It is clear that the police laboratories do not work within good laboratory practice guidelines, nor do they have quality manuals or standard operating procedures manuals. A basic change in Japanese forensic toxicology practice is now essential. The author strongly recommends that, first of all, Japanese toxicologists should prepare forensic toxicology guidelines based on the Western models. The guidelines would progress the following objectives for forensic toxicology laboratories: 1) to have documented good laboratory practice standards; 2) to have a quality control system including a quality manual and standard operating procedures manual; 3) to have some degree of compulsion to implement quality assurance both through their own internal efforts and by appropriate remedial actions based on the results of an external proficiency testing scheme. For forensic toxicologists, the implications are that they should be: 1) responsible for ensuring that laboratory practices are performed under satisfactory conditions and 2) required to be certified as a forensic toxicology specialist in order to prove their forensic toxicology ability. For their part, governments should: 1) carry out administrative reforms related to forensic toxicology; 2) simplify the procedure for obtaining certified reference materials; 3) introduce a strict workplace urine drug testing programme for government employees, at least for those related to law enforcement. When all of these objectives have been realised, the specific goal will be achieved through which Japanese forensic toxicology is able, in practice, to fulfill its responsibility to society.