ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Disposal of unclaimed remains in Chinese medical institutions: power-responsibility conflicts, standardization deficits, and legal regulation.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The disposal of unclaimed remains is an interdisciplinary governance issue at the intersection of public health security and funeral governance in China, involving health, public security, civil affairs and finance authorities. Medical institutions, as the frontline implementers of temporary storage, death-information verification and custody handover, bear obligations that are not matched by corresponding administrative authority. This study addresses three questions: what legal and procedural norms govern the disposal of unclaimed remains in Chinese medical institutions; why power-responsibility conflicts arise and persist; and how they can be resolved through legal regulation. Methods: A triangulated qualitative design was adopted. First, national laws and administrative regulations (including the Regulations on Funeral and Interment Administration, as revised in 2025, and the Civil Code) and eight local administrative measures were analyzed through structured policy-text coding. Second, documented disposal cases and public statistics from media investigations and field-research reports (2001-2025) were examined. Third, institutional rules across regions were compared along five dimensions: publicity cycle, storage time limit, ash retention period, financial guarantee and departmental responsibility allocation. Results: Four structural problems were identified: (1) fragmented legal norms with substantial provincial variation and no unified national implementation standards; (2) nominal cross-departmental collaboration without enforceable linkage mechanisms; (3) a severe power-responsibility imbalance that shifts storage costs, public health exposure and legal liability onto medical institutions; and (4) inconsistent judicial adjudication of disposal disputes. These problems are explained as the outcome of uneven standardization in China's funeral governance, in which local standards proliferate while universal, enforceable national standards remain absent. Conclusion: The 2025 revision of the Regulations on Funeral and Interment Administration provides a window for institutional reform. We propose five integrated strategies - unified national standards, a multi-departmental collaborative mechanism, dedicated public funding, judicial guidelines and hospital-level internal control - and conclude that legal regulation of unclaimed-remains disposal should be understood as a standardization project that balances public health security, deceased dignity and institutional equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.