Answer:
Arguments in favor of changing or dismissing the Coroner system:
Lack of qualifications: Coroners are not required to have any accreditation or training in forensic pathology or other degrees beyond a high school diploma, which can lead to inaccurate determinations of cause of death.
Inconsistent standards: The qualifications and standards for coroners vary widely from state to state, which can lead to inconsistent and unreliable determinations of cause of death.
Conflict of interest: Coroners are elected officials, which can create a conflict of interest if they are beholden to constituents or political pressures rather than the objective truth.
Limited resources: Many county coroners' offices lack the resources and funding necessary to conduct thorough and accurate death investigations, which can result in incomplete or inaccurate determinations of cause of death.
Arguments against changing or dismissing the Coroner system:
Local knowledge: Coroners are often longtime residents of the counties they serve and have a deep understanding of the local community, which can aid in investigations and determinations of cause of death.
Accountability to constituents: Because coroners are elected officials, they are accountable to their constituents and can be held accountable for their actions.
Lower costs: The Coroner system can be less expensive than a Medical Examiner system, which requires highly trained professionals with advanced degrees.
Tradition: The Coroner system has been in place in many counties for generations, and some argue that it is a valuable part of the community's history and culture.
In conclusion, there are valid arguments both for and against changing or dismissing the Coroner system. Ultimately, the decision should be based on a thorough evaluation of the system's strengths and weaknesses and a consideration of alternative systems that may better serve the needs of the community.