What Coroners’ conclusions mean for people bereaved through a substance-related death

The outcome of official procedures is very important for grieving. Commonly, public accounts of the death, such as a Coroner’s conclusion, influence the meaning bereaved people make of the person who died and of the death^[i]. It can be a considerable relief and legitimise someone’s narrative of what happened, as well as providing answers, useful new information and a sense of resolution and justice; conversely, it can undermine people’s narrative, causing distress, anger and shame^[ii]. Indeed, the verdict may even be hardly recognisable to them^[iii]; can be more distressing than expected; and lead to a greater sense of stigma, that in turn leads to a loss of control over how a loved-one is memorialised and remembered.

Unfortunately, as inquest outcomes are rarely definitive, they may leave questions unanswered, raise new questions, and create discrepancies and contradictions in someone’s narrative of what happened to their loved-one.

‘The Coroner started summing up and I [wanted to ask a question but] … he said that is outside the remit of this Court … I thought inquest means having the answers … I mean you might have more realistic expectations, but it’s partly because I didn’t get given any information.’  Mother (Templeton and Velleman 2018, p.34)

Typically, all of these difficult potential outcomes provoke anger, a sense of injustice and a heightened desire for revenge, and an increased risk of depression and anxiety; in turn, this can set back grieving^[iv].

People therefore need information about the inquest process before their case is heard, whether they attend in person or not; consider what support they need to cope with the process; and work through what may be left unfinished or unresolved by the process, as well as work through any associated emotions^[v].

Another potentially difficult aspect of inquests is the possibility of media intrusion, as the Coroner’s Court is open to journalists. Media coverage mostly happens in local newspapers and associated websites, as well as on social media. It is more likely for drug deaths, and is often uninformed, sensationalised, stigmatising and insensitive^[vi]. Again, this can lead to public accounts of the person who died and their death that can be either helpful, or too often, unhelpful. 

[i] Walter, T. (2005). ‘Mediator Deathwork.’ Death Studies 29, 5, 383–412.

[ii] Valentine, C. and Templeton, L. (2018). ‘Remembering a Life that Involved Substance Use.’ In C. Valentine (ed) Families Bereaved by Alcohol or Drugs: Research on Experiences, Coping and Support. London and New York: Routledge.

[iii] Guy, P. and Holloway, M. (2007). ‘Drug-related Deaths and the “Special Deaths” of Late Modernity.’ Sociology 41, 1, 83–96.

[iv] Pearlman, L.A., Wortman, C.B., Feuer, C.A., Farber, C.H. and Rando, T.A. (2014). Treating traumatic bereavement: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.

[v] Cartwright, P. (2020). Supporting people bereaved through a drug- or alcohol-related death. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishing.

[vi] Adfam (2011). Learning from loss: drug-related bereavement. London: Adfam.