Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Issue:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of law

A doctor should not be dogmatic about his opinion, and lawyers also should not expect him to be so. He should be reasonable in his opinions and should not overstate the likelihood of a relationship between cause and effect. The doctor should be ready to defend every finding and conclusion on the report on clinical and scientific grounds in the court of law. He should be aware of professional and scientific viewpoints which might differ from his, and should be familiar with the latest scientific literature in relation to the subject involved. For the purpose of illustrating and clarifying his testimony in the court of law, the medical expert may employ photographs, maps, diagrams, charts, X–rays, skeletons, models, slides, films, tapes, etc., when they are properly verified. The doctor should avoid talking too much, talking too soon, and talking to the wrong persons. Prejudicial and sensational statements should not be made prior to trial. Courts of law are open to the public and the junior doctors should attend the Courts, where they can follow the proceedings, hear the evidence given by their senior medical colleague as a witness, to familiarize themselves with the procedures of the court of law.

Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Issues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of Law

Do not misrepresent documents/medical literature in the Court of Law

When evidence is read into the record of a trial, only that portion of the document, which validates the information being discussed needs to be read aloud. One paragraph or even one part of a paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point you are making. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. Reading the remainder of the document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and time–consuming. When a document is cut in a manner, which lends the quoted passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however, that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as the author of the document.

Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues perhaps persuasively against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.

Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Issues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of Law

Do not misrepresent documents/medical literature in the Court of Law

When evidence is read into the record of a trial, only that portion of the document, which validates the information being discussed needs to be read aloud. One paragraph or even one part of a paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point you are making. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. Reading the remainder of the document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and time–consuming. When a document is cut in a manner, which lends the quoted passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however, that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as the author of the document.

Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues perhaps persuasively against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.

Emedinews:Insights on MEdicolegal Issues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of law

Medical literature/document produced as evidence in the court of law must be a published one. For a document to serve as legitimate evidence in a trial/debate, it must exist in the public domain i.e. the document must potentially be available to any debater researching the topic or lawyer/interested party of cross examining side. Unpublished documents are privileged information, and using such information gives the doctor an unfair advantage. Academic debate does not have a discovery rule. The only opportunity your opponents have to examine your documents prior to a trial/debate is to have found the documents during their own research. That they may not have taken the opportunity to do so, or did not discover a document, does not obviate the rule. The advent of the Internet has created a new form of publication – electronic documents like this e–medinews. Electronic documents are accepted as published if they are accessible by the general public. Thus, electronic files to which other debaters would be denied access are not published. However, files and documents which other debaters may access, even if they have no subscription to a commercial service to do so, satisfy the publication rule.

Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Isssues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of Law

Do not misrepresent documents/medical literature in the Court of Law

When evidence is read into the record of a trial, only that portion of the document, which validates the information being discussed needs to be read aloud. One paragraph or even one part of a paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point you are making. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. Reading the remainder of the document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and time–consuming. When a document is cut in a manner, which lends the quoted passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however, that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as the author of the document.

Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues perhaps persuasively against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.

Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Issues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of law

A doctor should not be dogmatic about his opinion, and lawyers also should not expect him to be so. He should be reasonable in his opinions and should not overstate the likelihood of a relationship between cause and effect. The doctor should be ready to defend every finding and conclusion on the report on clinical and scientific grounds in the court of law. He should be aware of professional and scientific viewpoints which might differ from his, and should be familiar with the latest scientific literature in relation to the subject involved. For the purpose of illustrating and clarifying his testimony in the court of law, the medical expert may employ photographs, maps, diagrams, charts, X–rays, skeletons, models, slides, films, tapes, etc., when they are properly verified. The doctor should avoid talking too much, talking too soon, and talking to the wrong persons. Prejudicial and sensational statements should not be made prior to trial. Courts of law are open to the public and the junior doctors should attend the Courts, where they can follow the proceedings, hear the evidence given by their senior medical colleague as a witness, to familiarize themselves with the procedures of the court of law.

Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Issues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of law

A doctor should not be dogmatic about his opinion, and lawyers also should not expect him to be so. He should be reasonable in his opinions and should not overstate the likelihood of a relationship between cause and effect. The doctor should be ready to defend every finding and conclusion on the report on clinical and scientific grounds in the court of law. He should be aware of professional and scientific viewpoints which might differ from his, and should be familiar with the latest scientific literature in relation to the subject involved. For the purpose of illustrating and clarifying his testimony in the court of law, the medical expert may employ photographs, maps, diagrams, charts, X–rays, skeletons, models, slides, films, tapes, etc., when they are properly verified. The doctor should avoid talking too much, talking too soon, and talking to the wrong persons. Prejudicial and sensational statements should not be made prior to trial. Courts of law are open to the public and the junior doctors should attend the Courts, where they can follow the proceedings, hear the evidence given by their senior medical colleague as a witness, to familiarize themselves with the procedures of the court of law.

Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal Issues:Medical Testimony of Doctor in the Court of Law

Do not misrepresent documents/medical literature in the Court of Law

When evidence is read into the record of a trial, only that portion of the document, which validates the information being discussed needs to be read aloud. One paragraph or even one part of a paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point you are making. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. Reading the remainder of the document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and time–consuming. When a document is cut in a manner, which lends the quoted passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however, that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as the author of the document.

Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues perhaps persuasively against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.