From: Apa, James [mailto:James.Apa@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:32 PM
To: Halsne, Chris (CBI-Seattle)
Subject: RE: KIRO-TV

Thanks, Chris, for your patience. You're on my list to contact tomorrow. Let me share with you what I've learned since we last spoke. Primarily, you had questions about the consent process we used and compliance with state law. What I have learned is that Section 68.50.550 of the Revised Code of Washington specifies the manner in which consent for anatomical gifts may be obtained from an individual other than the decedent. This consent may be obtained by "telegraphic, recorded telephonic, or other recorded message, or other form of communication from the person that is contemporaneously reduced to writing and signed by the recipient of the communication." (emphasis added).

It was the practice of the King County Medical Examiner's Office to contact the decedent's representative by telephone to obtain consent. The consent form was read aloud in its entirety to the decedent's representative. If consent was verbally obtained, the name of the individual providing the consent was noted on the signature line, as was the fact that the consent was obtained by telephone. The form was then signed by the employee who made the telephone call (the recipient of the communication). If you review the appropriate statutory language, you will note that this practice fully comports with state law. I've attached the link to the appropriate RCW for your benefit.

You also had questions about the contracts we signed with Stanley. The contract between The Stanley Medical Research Institute ("Stanley Institute") and the King County Medical Examiner's Office in no way tied compensation to the number of samples provided. As you noted in our conversation last week, the contracts in 2003 and 2004 contain a provision that the King County Medical Examiner's Office would try to obtain fifty samples a year, but also specifically acknowledges that this number is a goal, not a requirement. The compensation provided to King County Medical Examiner's Office for such services did not vary with the number of samples provided, and failure to provide a certain number of samples did not constitute a breach under the agreement. In short, there was no financial incentive to acquiring more samples, and we would not have accepted a contract under such conditions.

You had some additional questions that I'm continuing to research, but I wanted you to have an opportunity to review this information before we speak tomorrow.

Regards,

-James

James Apa
Communications Manager
Public Health - Seattle & King County
w 206-205-5442
f 206-296-0166
james.apa@metrokc.gov
www.metrokc.gov/health