In cases of alleged medical negligence, our current system of malpractice litigation supports the possibility that inaccurate anecdotal testimony by expert witnesses may be credited equally, or even preferred, to more accurate testimony based upon empiric data.
This condition lends itself to inconsistent outcomes that violate basic principles of justice.
In the authors'view, the standard of medical care ought not be described by the idiosyncratic postulation of single behavior by an expert witness.
Rather, the standard of medical care is best viewed as a distribution of behaviors that can be empirically determined to account for most practice decisions in comparable cases.
There is widespread adoption by the medical community of the principle that the value of expert testimony describing that the « standard of medical care » increases in direct proportion to its congruence with a databased determination of the distribution of « skill and care ordinarily provided in similar circumstances, » would significantly reduce the potential for injustice visited upon plaintiff and defendant alike.
Mots-clés Pascal : Aspect juridique, Ethique, Témoignage, Expertise médicolégale, Soin intensif, Néonatologie, Faute professionnelle, Base donnée, Nouveau né, Homme, Nouveau né pathologie, Recommandation, Rôle professionnel, Etats Unis, Amérique du Nord, Amérique, Conférence consensus
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Legal aspect, Ethics, Testimony, Medicolegal expertise, Intensive care, Neonatology, Malpractice, Database, Newborn, Human, Newborn diseases, Recommendation, Occupational role, United States, North America, America
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 96-0489848
Code Inist : 002B31. Création : 10/04/1997.