STRICTLY speaking, duty was fulfilled by the inquest into the death of 71-year-old Archibald Whalley, of Guide, who died after being left in bed for eight days after having a hip-replacement -- in that its task of determining the reason for his death was carried out.

Mr Whalley was killed by the bronchopneumonia he developed partly as a result of that post-operative immobility.

But were not valid questions asked by his family who questioned the procedures and standards of care at Wrightington Hospital, near Wigan, where he was operated on and from where he eventually discharged himself?

Their concern, said his son, was the length of time he was left in bed after his surgery before any kind of physiotherapy. Why, he wanted to know, did it take so long? Was it a due to a lack of co-ordination between nursing and surgical services?

Perfectly legitimate questions, surely. But why no answers at the inquest?

Coroner Carolyn Singleton said she was not able to answer some of the questions raised by Mr Whalley's son and his widow because an inquest was specifically precluded by law from laying blame.

Maybe so. But if a coroner's court must skirt round the blame, must it leave upset and concerned relatives without answers and avoid getting at the facts in cases like this?

Curtailed though the powers of inquests may be, Coroners still have considerable authority - enough in cases such as this to call on hospital staff to give evidence and explain the treatment or lack of it.

The verdict was misadventure. But did coroner Singleton also miss an opportunity to satisfy more than her official duty, by not eliciting a response to those crucial questions still left disturbingly unanswered as far as the family is concerned?

And what is the point of an inquest that cannot or will not demand an answer to every 'Why'? Does it mean an old person can be left in bed for eight days after an operation and die partly as a consequence - and no-one be required to say why?