PubMed · 11915689
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C D Bordeianu. 2001. [Contraeditorial].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11915689/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Several recent decisions by the US Supreme Court have strengthened the ability of federal courts to consider medical testimony regarding injuries associated with exposure to toxic substances. Judges are expected to examine the basis of all expert testimony before it is introduced at trial to ensure that it meets the same standards of intellectual rigor that professionals use outside the courtroom. However, courts have been inconsistent in measuring this testimony against the standards of medical practice, especially when courts consider testimony that is not supported by clinical trials or epidemiological studies. A number of courts have required standards for expert testimony that exceed those that physicians use in ordinary clinical decision making. In this article, we illustrate such inconsistencies across federal courts by contrasting different decisions in cases involving similar facts and expert testimony. We argue that there may be good reason to require a standard of admissibility that exceeds the standards of ordinary clinical decision making, but such requirements are not faithful to the mandate of the Supreme Court. Courts with especially demanding standards are misled if they believe that they are fairly representing medical practice. Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries.
OBJECTIVES: Specify the prevalence of various mental pathologies observed in authors of voluntary homicides and assess the interest of the psychiatric expertise of these persons. METHODS: The conclusions of the psychiatric expertises of 101 authors of voluntary homicide; condemned (94.20%) or declared irresponsible because of mental or personality disorders (5.80%), in the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux, over a period of 10 years (1989-1999) were analyzed. RESULTS: Several elements were underlined, among which the multiplicity of the diagnoses made by the expert psychiatrists and the large proportion of these criminals suffering from mental pathologies (81.60%), which contrasted with the low percentage of such criminals declared irresponsible (5.80%) or suggesting they might be dangerous (7.80%). DISCUSSION: The use of a standardized classification of mental diseases would provide the members of the jury and the magistrates with a clearer picture of the mental status of criminals. This is essential to avoid that more than 80% of the latter are quoted as exhibiting a mental pathology when the experts present their conclusions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.