To the Editor: In their case report entitled "Dangerous bodies", Nocera and colleagues described a case of poisoning with aluminium phosphide tablets,1 which generate the fumigant gas phosphine when exposed to moisture.2 The foul odour emanating from the patient alarmed hospital staff, leading to evacuation of the emergency department. After the patient died, they sealed his body in an impervious suit and bin. It was buried, without autopsy, using earth-moving equipment — it being considered too dangerous to do this by hand. The burial was filmed for television.

The article sought to highlight risks to hospital staff from poisoned patients and indicated that phosphine gas emanating from this patient could be toxic before it was able to be smelt. Despite stated fears of extreme toxicity, no air samples were collected for analysis, and the sole symptom among staff was nausea (not unexpected given the smell).

In parts of India, where wheat is commonly stored in the home before being ground into flour, aluminium phosphide tablets are widely available for household use to stem insect attack on the grain.3,4 Ingestion of these tablets is a common way to attempt suicide, with perhaps as many as 15 000 cases per year, two-thirds of which are fatal. The hospital in the city of Chandigarh, in northern India, treats about 50 cases per year.

The breath of patients who have ingested aluminium phosphide has a characteristic garlic-like odour. Diagnosis is based on history and a positive result (blackening) on tests of the patient's breath with paper moistened with fresh silver nitrate solution. Hospital staff take no special precautions during resuscitation, and surviving patients are managed with routine supportive care. Autopsies are routine. No threat is perceived by hospital staff.

Metal phosphides have been safely used by trained people in Australia for decades. They are Schedule 7 poisons and so require an expensive permit for purchase. Consequently, their use for suicide is rare. Nocera and colleagues understandably reacted with caution to an unusual situation. However, we consider that, in documenting their experience, they overstated the risk.

Because of the legal and ethical issues involved in patient care in a situation of alleged risk, we consider that risk estimates should, when possible, be based on available evidence rather than theoretical possibilities. In general, apart from a few highly toxic, mainly anticholinesterase compounds that can be absorbed through the skin (eg, sarin and tabun), there are no known poisons that will seriously endanger hospital staff routinely caring for patients in an emergency department.

Competing interests: The authors have no association with companies that manufacture or market aluminium phosphide, and had no financial support for preparation of this letter.