Özge Kar
Forensic medicine is not only a scientific discipline; it is also a space of witnessing that operates on the most fragile line between the state’s understanding of justice and an individual’s right to life. Dr. Mehmet Ali Malkoç, a specialist from the Department of Forensic Medicine at Istanbul University, stands at the heart of this field as both an academic and a physician.
He writes reports on the truths he encounters—sometimes in a mass grave, sometimes in the file of a sick inmate counting the days in prison, and sometimes in the trauma of a child. In this interview, we discussed the ethical burden of forensic medicine, the gaps in responsibility within the state’s decision-making mechanisms, and the real effects of scientific data on human life. But most of all, we focused on this question:
Does forensic medicine truly serve justice, or does it merely complete the process?
"Whether a sick prisoner survives is being placed on the shoulders of two doctors. This system suits neither medical ethics nor science."
You completed the long and difficult path of medical school but chose forensic medicine. What drew you to this field?
During medical school, certain things deeply affected me. I was interested in anything that might have a layer of mystery behind it. Even conspiracy theories intrigued me at that time. But more than anything, I was drawn to the diagnostic and justice-related aspects of medicine. The forensic medicine courses I took at Istanbul Medical School were decisive in this choice.
What kind of responsibility comes with working in a “borderline” field like forensic medicine? Where do you see a physician’s place in the justice system?
What we do carries a serious burden of responsibility. Especially if you're a perfectionist, it keeps you up at night. But ultimately, we work for justice. Every file has someone on the other end. Sometimes it's the state, sometimes it's the defendant. A decision that pleases one can upset the other. I see myself positioned right at the center of this system.
What guides you when making a decision? Science, legal regulations, or conscience?
A forensic medicine specialist is a physician. Therefore, science is always our compass. Conscience may guide us in our private lives. But in professional work, scientific rules are the determining factor. Of course, regulations are also important, but those belong to the field of legal professionals. We support them with scientific data. Conscience is already within science—it doesn’t conflict with it. But it may conflict with the law.
In your view, what makes true justice possible?
By adhering to scientific data and ethical principles. When you follow both, justice naturally emerges.
You took part in the excavation of a mass grave in Çemişgezek, in the eastern province of Tunceli (also known as Dersim). What affected you the most there?
I was most affected by how unprepared Turkey was for such an excavation. There are protocols, algorithms, international standards. But during that excavation, we had to do many things in an improvised, traditional way. Still, we did our best. I just wish we had been more prepared.
In cases like death fasts, where the body becomes a site of resistance, what stance should forensic medicine take?
According to ethical principles, we must respect individuals’ decisions over their own bodies.
Have there been cases you could never forget? Would something be missing if you didn’t talk about them?
There are many cases I’ve never shared. And I never will. We don’t discuss these cases, not even with colleagues—only rarely. If something is missing by not talking about them, it’s perhaps only our own psychological rehabilitation. But sometimes staying silent is necessary to avoid traumatizing society.
You stay silent, but doesn’t that lead to another kind of silence?
We’re not actually silent. We write our reports. We submit them to the courts and prosecutors on behalf of the public. But we cannot share these with the public. Because these reports are meant for judicial authorities.
But we hear news reports of deaths following forensic reports that say “fit to remain in prison” for sick prisoners. Isn’t there a silence here?
That may indeed be a moment of silence. There is no national guideline for sick prisoners. Nor is there an international one. This pushes doctors toward conflicting decisions. Sometimes, it appears that news reports in the media influence these decisions.
When a forensic report results in a reduced sentence in a case of femicide or child abuse, how do you feel?
We never write reports to acquit anyone. We try to reveal the truth. If there’s no evidence, we can’t assign guilt. But sometimes the evidence is insufficient. The real issue is that judicial authorities treat reports from the Council of Forensic Medicine as absolute. In fact, the scientific content of these reports can be questioned. They can be sent to other institutions for review.
In your view, how independent is the Council of Forensic Medicine?
The institution is affiliated with the Ministry of Justice. It’s right at the heart of the state. So its decisions are, of course, not free from political influence. Also, the institution faces a massive workload. The Council of Forensic Medicine handles 95 percent of forensic services in Turkey. That’s unsustainable.
Despite not being legally required, files about prisoners are still being sent to the Council of Forensic Medicine for a report on whether they are “fit to remain in prison.” Is this legal?
It violates the regulations. The condition of prisoners can be assessed through hospital reports. But prosecutors, thinking “just in case,” still send the files to the Council. This has become a habit. It has no legal basis.
Why did you leave the Third Specialization Board?
I moved into academia. It’s a more independent space. You can interact directly with patients. The system in the Council of Forensic Medicine cuts off the doctor-patient relationship. It reduces the doctor to someone who writes reports in front of a computer. Over time, this alienates one from the practice of medicine.
In your view, how appropriate is it for forensic specialists to make decisions without examining the patient?
It’s not appropriate. I worked in that system for five years. It’s inevitable that a doctor writing reports at a desk becomes desensitized to the patient. The medical ethos erodes. Making decisions based solely on documents, without physical examination, goes against the nature of medicine.
What kinds of cases have been coming in most frequently recently?
There used to be a high number of partner violence cases. In recent years, there has been a rise in compensation claims following traffic accidents. Child abuse cases have decreased because the Ministry of Health’s Child Monitoring Centers are functioning well. We also see a high volume of cases involving legal capacity, criminal responsibility, and forensic graphology.
Do you think doctors’ voices are being heard?
No, they are not. As the health sector becomes increasingly privatized, doctors are being devalued. It has become normalized for them to work for low wages. The cry of doctors is no longer heard.
